moiraines warder

[Nightstrike]

OOPPSSS.... I did a mistake on my first try. Here are the correct calculations...

He isn't "apparantly saying" anything like what you seem to suggest. What makes you so sure about what he is "apparantly saying"?

So what is he apparently saying, and how can you be sure he isn't saying what I seem to be saying he's apparently saying?

 

The mean would be only slightly higher for men.

In other words, it doesn't work because you don't want it to.

No, it doesn't work because it doesn't work. Period.

 

Assuming that we have a population of roughly 10 000 potential channelers of each gender. Both curves are symmetric, according to you. Weakest man and weakest woman are roughly of equal strength. I assume that the weakest channelers are all very, very close to zero in strength. So close that the difference is negligible. Exactly 62.5% of all the women are above the strength that exactly 65.4% of all men are above. That's -0.32 standard deviations from the mean for women and -0.4 standard deviations from the mean for men. The population size gives a span of roughly 3.8 standard deviations from mean to each end of the distribution. Using the scale of women's strengths as reference, the male average strength is 2.4% above that of women. (3.48/x =3.4/3.8 => x=3.889   & 3.889/3.8=1.024).

 

If we were to assume a bigger population, the difference men/women would be even smaller. If we were to assume that the weakest channeler was a bit above zero in strength, the difference men/women would also be even smaller.

 

Compare that to RJ saying "several levels of male strength on top of women's strength". The word "several" means AT THE VERY LEAST 3 (levels). That would lead us to either (3/24=>)12.5% or (3/21=>)14.3% difference men/women - MINIMUM. If we assume that the scale isn't exponential, in which case the minimum difference must be higher, of course.

 

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

No, it doesn't work because it doesn't work. Period.

I'd say we don't have enough information to say that for sure.

[Nightstrike]

I'd say we don't have enough information to say that for sure.

Why not?

 

If the weakest man is slightly stronger than the weakest woman, then the difference is less than I said before. If the weakest man is weaker than the weakest woman (weaker than Morgase, is that even possible?), then the difference is slightly more than I said before. But just slightly, so it doesn't even change anything from what I said before. The same conclusion as before.

 

As an example, let us explore the possibility that the weakest man is weaker than Morgase. And by a value of strength that corresponds to exactly 1 strength level, or the equivalent of ((1/18)*3.8=) 0.211 standard deviations of the female strength. How much stronger would the average man be then, compared to the average woman? Both curves (male and female strength distributions) are assumed to be symmetric in this comparison, whether they really are or not. The weakest man is very close to zero in strength.

 

Exactly 62.5% of all the women are above the strength that exactly 65.4% of all men are above. That's -0.32 standard deviations from the mean for women and -0.4 standard deviations from the mean for men. The population size gives a span of roughly 3.8 standard deviations from mean to each end of the distribution. Using the scale of women's strengths as reference, the male average strength is 2.9% above that of women. ((3.48+0.211)/3.4 =x/3.8 => x=4.125   & 4.125/(3.8+0.211)=1.029).

 

If we were to assume a bigger population, the difference men/women would be even smaller. If we were to assume that the weakest channeler was a bit above zero in strength, the difference men/women would also be even smaller.

 

Compare that to RJ saying "several levels of male strength on top of women's strength". The word "several" means AT THE VERY LEAST 3 (levels). That would lead us to either (3/24=>)12.5% or (3/21=>)14.3% difference men/women - MINIMUM. If we assume that the scale isn't exponential, in which case the minimum difference must be higher, of course.

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

I'd say we don't have enough information to say that for sure.

Why not?

We don't know whether levels are venly spaced or not, for one thing.

[Nightstrike]

We don't know whether levels are venly spaced or not, for one thing.

So, basically you're suggesting that we have three levels exactly on top of women's mean that would be made up by ((2.4/3)/1.024=) 0.78 percent of the entire male strength span. Please excuse me if I don't take that seriously.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

Please excuse me if I don't take that seriously.

Fair enough. After all, I don't take your claim that RJ's words don't mean what they seem to, and apparently don't mean anything at all seriously. Question: why did RJ say "you might say there were sevaral levels" extra for men, rather than just saying "there are several levels extra for men."?

[Nightstrike]

After all, I don't take your claim that RJ's words don't mean what they seem to, and apparently don't mean anything at all seriously.

RJ said:..." I’ll leave the maths to you for an idle moment.". I think that means EXACTLY just that. He will leave it up to "Gyrehead" (or whoever else that feels that they were included) to make what he (/they) can of the given facts. You claim that he meant something completely different than what he actually said. For no other reason than your own wishful thinking. Even though we have lots of facts that clearly show us that your imagined meaning is completely wrong. Wishful thinking constitutes no facts where I come from.

 

 

Question: why did RJ say "you might say there were sevaral levels" extra for men, rather than just saying "there are several levels extra for men."?

If we are being nitpicky of every choice of words that ever has been said, then we would have to go through life doing nothing else. That being said, in the light of other evidence (some of which I've just pointed out), I can see why he might have said that (if we must assume that he had a special reason). Lanfear, being the second strongest Forsaken, is perhaps closer to Rand than women in general are to men in general. The curves are NOT symmetric, and so the strongest female is closer to the strongest man than the average woman is to the average man.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

You claim...

No, I don't.

 

Lanfear, being the second strongest Forsaken, is perhaps closer to Rand than women in general are to men in general. The curves are NOT symmetric, and so the strongest female is closer to the strongest man than the average woman is to the average man.

This doesn't answer the question. Nor is it supported.

[Nightstrike]

You claim...

No, I don't.

RJ said:..." I’ll leave the maths to you for an idle moment.". Mr Ares claims that RJ really meant to say:..."Both curves are symmetric.". I claim that RJ meant exactly what he said and nothing else.

 

Lanfear, being the second strongest Forsaken, is perhaps closer to Rand than women in general are to men in general. The curves are NOT symmetric, and so the strongest female is closer to the strongest man than the average woman is to the average man.

This doesn't answer the question. Nor is it supported.

It is heavily supported by the books and by RJ's blog. And it answers Mr Ares' question, whether it fits his wishful thinking or not.

 

 

[Luckers]

I'm amused by how often that quote gets shoved in your face.

 

Wait, was that a comment? I swore i wouldn't again... perhaps i can hide behind it merely being commentary--i am a liberal after all.

 

Oh alright, Nightstrike can call me a dirty word.

[Nightstrike]

I'm amused by how often that quote gets shoved in your face.

Yes, me too. You and Mr Ares have done most of the shoving.

 

Wait, was that a comment? I swore i wouldn't again... perhaps i can hide behind it merely being commentary--i am a liberal after all.

Yeah, it seems like a (very random) comment to me.

 

Oh alright, Nightstrike can call me a dirty word.

No, I won't.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

Mr Ares claims that RJ really meant to say:..."Both curves are symmetric.".

Does he? No, he doesn't think he does. RJ said he'll leave the maths to us, so he (being Mr Ares, not RJ) asked what he (being RJ, not Mr Ares) thought we could work out.

 

It is heavily supported by the books and by RJ's blog. And it answers Mr Ares' question, whether it fits his wishful thinking or not.

What supports top female strength being closer to top male strength than average femal is to average male? And how does it answer my question?

 

Oh alright, Nightstrike can call me a dirty word.

No, I won't.

Oh, oh, can I?

[Nightstrike]

Mr Ares claims that RJ really meant to say:..."Both curves are symmetric.".

Does he? No, he doesn't think he does. RJ said he'll leave the maths to us, so he (being Mr Ares, not RJ) asked what he (being RJ, not Mr Ares) thought we could work out.

Maybe some of the things that we actually have worked out. Oh, and Mr Ares sure seemed to be claiming what Mr Ares doesn't think that Mr Ares was suggesting. I can quote Mr Ares for him.

Mr Ares, reply #78

Logically speaking, if your claim that "maths are all yours" means a symmetric curve, then both the female and the male curves would be symmetric. He mentioned the "maths are all yours" after both female and male strengths. But that was not what he meant. You've misinterpreted those remarks of his.

What did he mean then? "There's absolutely no way you can work this out, so don't even bother trying"?

I don't know exactly what he had in mind. Saying that the math is all yours doesn't give any clues on the nature of the math in question.

So, you are absolutely certain he isn't saying what he is apparently saying, but you have no idea what he is actually saying. Right. So what makes you so sure?

 

Mr Ares, reply #99

The mean would be only slightly higher for men.

In other words, it doesn't work because you don't want it to.

 

 

It is heavily supported by the books and by RJ's blog. And it answers Mr Ares' question, whether it fits his wishful thinking or not.

What supports top female strength being closer to top male strength than average femal is to average male? And how does it answer my question?

Because RJ both said that there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength, and he also gave us evidence for why these curves can't be symmetric. And because the Guide says that Lanfear is the second strongest Forsaken. Even Cyndane is in a league of her own - far above Moghedien and even above Graendal. Siuan lost more than half her strength. Lanfear probably lost about the same amount of strength, and still remains as top of the female Forsaken. Asmodean said that men are at least twice the strength of women (speaking of men and women "in general"). Lanfear was still strong enough to stand up against Rand with an angreal. Graendal calls the asha'man "dangerous puppies", but all Forsaken sneer at the female Aes Sedai. It is clear that Lanfear was higher above the female average strength than Rand is above the male average strength.

 

 

[Luckers]

Quote from: Nightstrike on March 30, 2009, 09:24:13 AM

Quote

Oh alright, Nightstrike can call me a dirty word.

No, I won't.

Oh, oh, can I?

 

If you wish. You should know i intend to take it creepily.

[Mr Ares]

Finally Mr Ares has come back.....to this thread!

Mr Ares claims that RJ really meant to say:..."Both curves are symmetric.".

Does he? No, he doesn't think he does. RJ said he'll leave the maths to us, so he (being Mr Ares, not RJ) asked what he (being RJ, not Mr Ares) thought we could work out.

Maybe some of the things that we actually have worked out. Oh, and Mr Ares sure seemed to be claiming what Mr Ares doesn't think that Mr Ares was suggesting. I can quote Mr Ares for him.

Quote away. Doesn't mean he is saying what you would like him to be saying.

Mr Ares, reply #78

Logically speaking, if your claim that "maths are all yours" means a symmetric curve, then both the female and the male curves would be symmetric. He mentioned the "maths are all yours" after both female and male strengths. But that was not what he meant. You've misinterpreted those remarks of his.

What did he mean then? "There's absolutely no way you can work this out, so don't even bother trying"?

I don't know exactly what he had in mind. Saying that the math is all yours doesn't give any clues on the nature of the math in question.

So, you are absolutely certain he isn't saying what he is apparently saying, but you have no idea what he is actually saying. Right. So what makes you so sure?

Well, that isn't Mr Ares claiming what you claim he is claiming. He asks what RJ meant, and he asked how you were so sure he wasn't saying what he appeared to be, and what he was actually saying.

 

Mr Ares, reply #99

The mean would be only slightly higher for men.

In other words, it doesn't work because you don't want it to.

Again, he doesn't say what you would like him to be saying. He simply states that the only reason it can't be read as that is because you don't want it to. He doesn't say that that is what it is saying, just that it could be.

 

It is heavily supported by the books and by RJ's blog. And it answers Mr Ares' question, whether it fits his wishful thinking or not.

What supports top female strength being closer to top male strength than average female is to average male? And how does it answer my question?

Because RJ both said that there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength, and he also gave us evidence for why these curves can't be symmetric. And because the Guide says that Lanfear is the second strongest Forsaken. Even Cyndane is in a league of her own - far above Moghedien and even above Graendal. Siuan lost more than half her strength. Lanfear probably lost about the same amount of strength, and still remains as top of the female Forsaken. Asmodean said that men are at least twice the strength of women (speaking of men and women "in general"). Lanfear was still strong enough to stand up against Rand with an angreal. Graendal calls the asha'man "dangerous puppies", but all Forsaken sneer at the female Aes Sedai. It is clear that Lanfear was higher above the female average strength than Rand is above the male average strength.

My question was on why RJ used the phrase he used. You haven't answered that. As for your long winded exercise in saying nothing at all, there is nothing to respond to. We do not know how the average male strength compares to the average female, beyond the one being higher, nor do we know how much beyond the top female the top male is.

 

Quote from: Nightstrike on March 30, 2009, 09:24:13 AM

Quote

Oh alright, Nightstrike can call me a dirty word.

No, I won't.

Oh, oh, can I?

If you wish. You should know i intend to take it creepily.

Be as creepy as you want. Now, which word to use....*ponders* a*se. That will do.

[Nightstrike]

Quote away. Doesn't mean he is saying what you would like him to be saying.

 

 

So, you are absolutely certain he isn't saying what he is apparently saying, but you have no idea what he is actually saying. Right. So what makes you so sure?

Well, that isn't Mr Ares claiming what you claim he is claiming. He asks what RJ meant, and he asked how you were so sure he wasn't saying what he appeared to be, and what he was actually saying.

And, according to you, what is he actually meaning? That the curves are symmetric, right? That is what you insist that he must be "apparantly saying"... I claim that he is meaning exactly what he is saying, and nothing else.

 

 

 

The mean would be only slightly higher for men.

In other words, it doesn't work because you don't want it to.

Again, he doesn't say what you would like him to be saying. He simply states that the only reason it can't be read as that is because you don't want it to. He doesn't say that that is what it is saying, just that it could be.

On the previous page, I showed why "symmetric curves" would result in the men's mean being only slightly higher (if indeed higher at all) than the women's mean. And we know that RJ said that the men's strength are several levels on top of women's strength. The conclusion is easy to draw from there. The curves are NOT symmetric.

 

My question was on why RJ used the phrase he used. You haven't answered that. As for your long winded exercise in saying nothing at all, there is nothing to respond to. We do not know how the average male strength compares to the average female, beyond the one being higher, nor do we know how much beyond the top female the top male is.

The simple answer has already been given by me. That this is nitpicking, and that the exact phrase doesn't change anything. The long answer is that, because of Lanfear being so extremely strong, Rand is not "several levels" on top of her. RJ said that men's strength are "several levels on top of" women's strength. He could have meant either the men's mean compared to women's mean, or the men's median compared to women's median. Asmodean said that women in general are about half as strong as men in general. That would be women's median compared to men's median. The "you might say" phrasing was most likely due to differences due to whether we're looking at the mean or the median. Or, possibly the "occasional" super-strong woman, like Lanfear.

 

If the curves are symmetric (which they aren't), the mean would be the same as the median (both curves). And the strongest woman would (roughly) be as much weaker (proportionally), compared to the strongest man, as the average woman would be, compared to the average man. Then RJ's "you might say" is a phrasing without any obvious "purpose".

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

--------------snore--------------

[Mr Ares]

And, according to you, what is he actually meaning? That the curves are symmetric, right? That is what you insist that he must be "apparantly saying"... I claim that he is meaning exactly what he is saying, and nothing else.

Perhaps that is what Mr Ares is meaning, perhaps it is not. RJ is saying that he will leave the maths to us, but what maths and what can we do with them?

 

The simple answer has already been given by me. That this is nitpicking, and that the exact phrase doesn't change anything.

Which is no answer at all.

The long answer is that, because of Lanfear being so extremely strong, Rand is not "several levels" on top of her. RJ said that men's strength are "several levels on top of" women's strength.

Yes, RJ said the top male strength is "several levels" higher, yet you just dismiss that when it is convenient for you to do so. Is Rand "several levels" higher or not?

[Nightstrike]

And, according to you, what is he actually meaning? That the curves are symmetric, right? That is what you insist that he must be "apparantly saying"... I claim that he is meaning exactly what he is saying, and nothing else.

Perhaps that is what Mr Ares is meaning, perhaps it is not. RJ is saying that he will leave the maths to us, but what maths and what can we do with them?

Why can't just you answer the question? Are you afraid to admit that that was exactly what you've been arguing for?

 

 

The simple answer has already been given by me. That this is nitpicking, and that the exact phrase doesn't change anything.

Which is no answer at all.

It's all the answer anyone could ever need.

 

The long answer is that, because of Lanfear being so extremely strong, Rand is not "several levels" on top of her. RJ said that men's strength are "several levels on top of" women's strength.

Yes, RJ said the top male strength is "several levels" higher, yet you just dismiss that when it is convenient for you to do so. Is Rand "several levels" higher or not?

RJ has never said that Rand is several levels on top of Lanfear. The one that would say that is you yourself. Because you think the curves are symmetric, even though I've proven that they can't be.

 

[Mr Ares]

Why can't just you answer the question? Are you afraid to admit that that was exactly what you've been arguing for?

Who says I'm arguing for anything. I could just be arguing against.

 

It's all the answer anyone could ever need.

Need maybe. One can want more.

 

RJ has never said that Rand is several levels on top of Lanfear. The one that would say that is you yourself. Because you think the curves are symmetric, even though I've proven that they can't be.

RJ said top male is several levels on top of top female, Rand is top male, Lanfear is top female, therefore Rand is several levels on top of Lanfear. Unless you just want to pick and choose which RJ statements to believe? Or just when believe.

[Nightstrike]

Why can't just you answer the question? Are you afraid to admit that that was exactly what you've been arguing for?

Who says I'm arguing for anything. I could just be arguing against.

Are you arguing against the curves not being symmetric? That would be the same as arguing for the curves being symmetric, don't you think? Anyway, I've already proven that they can't be symmetric. It's pointless to argue for the curves being symmetric, when someone else has proven that they can't be.

 

 

 

RJ has never said that Rand is several levels on top of Lanfear. The one that would say that is you yourself. Because you think the curves are symmetric, even though I've proven that they can't be.

RJ said top male is several levels on top of top female, Rand is top male, Lanfear is top female, therefore Rand is several levels on top of Lanfear. Unless you just want to pick and choose which RJ statements to believe? Or just when believe.

No, he never said that. If the curves could have been symmetric, then your conclusion could have been correct. But they can't be, and you aren't correct. I've proven that the curves can't be symmetric. Since the curves aren't symmetric, it is clear that strongest woman compares differently to the strongest man (proportionally) than the average woman compares to the average man.

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

Are you arguing against the curves not being symmetric? That would be the same as arguing for the curves being symmetric, don't you think? Anyway, I've already proven that they can't be symmetric. It's pointless to argue for the curves being symmetric, when someone else has proven that they can't be.

I'm arguing against you. You haven't proven anything of the sort.

 

No, he never said that. If the curves could have been symmetric, then your conclusion could have been correct. But they can't be, and you aren't correct. I've proven that the curves can't be symmetric. Since the curves aren't symmetric, it is clear that strongest woman compares differently to the strongest man (proportionally) than the average woman compares to the average man.

They can't be symmetric because of the several extra levels. The several extra levels on top of male strength, that still leave Lanfear only a little ahead of Rand. Either way, you're wrong. Either several levels on top, in which case you're wrong about Lanfear, or not several levels, in which case they curves can be symmetric. Because RJ did say there were several levels of male strength on top of female strength.

[Nightstrike]

I'm arguing against you. You haven't proven anything of the sort.

Yes, I have. Too bad for you if you don't see it.

 

They can't be symmetric because of the several extra levels. The several extra levels on top of male strength, that still leave Lanfear only a little ahead of Rand. Either way, you're wrong. Either several levels on top, in which case you're wrong about Lanfear, or not several levels, in which case they curves can be symmetric. Because RJ did say there were several levels of male strength on top of female strength.

No, they can't be symmetric because of RJ's blog entry. RJ said that "you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength", but only way that can work (with the rest of the very same blog entry) is if the curves are not symmetric. Conclusion: the curves are not symmetric. Excuse me, what exactly are you trying to say? Are you suggesting RJ lied? I don't think he did, I think everything he said was 100% true.

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

No, they can't be symmetric because of RJ's blog entry. RJ said that "you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength", but only way that can work (with the rest of the very same blog entry) is if the curves are not symmetric. Conclusion: the curves are not symmetric. Excuse me, what exactly are you trying to say? Are you suggesting RJ lied? I don't think he did, I think everything he said was 100% true.

Exactly, so there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength. So Rand is several levels stronger than Lanfear.

Rand is not "several levels" on top of Lanfear. RJ said that men's strength are "several levels on top of" women's strength.

So, there are several levels between the top man and the top woman, but the top man doesn't have several levels between himself and the top woman. I'm saying your argument is self-contradictory and non-sensical.

[Nightstrike]

Exactly, so there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength. So Rand is several levels stronger than Lanfear.

RJ said that "you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of female strength". That doesn't mean that Lanfear has to be several levels below Rand. He was speaking of male and female strengths in general. You're speaking of a special case.

 

 

Rand is not "several levels" on top of Lanfear. RJ said that men's strength are "several levels on top of" women's strength.

So, there are several levels between the top man and the top woman, but the top man doesn't have several levels between himself and the top woman. I'm saying your argument is self-contradictory and non-sensical.

No. RJ spoke of male and female strengths in general. Not of top man and top woman.