moiraines warder

[Mr Ares]

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.

Exactly. He said top female strength is several levels below male strength. You said Lanfear isn't. So you disagree with RJ.

 

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

No, he spoke of top strength.

[Nightstrike]

Exactly. He said top female strength is several levels below male strength. You said Lanfear isn't. So you disagree with RJ.

NO! He DID NOT say that. You're the one disagreeing with RJ. As I have proved, his blog entry means that the curves can't be symmetric. End of story.

 

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

No, he spoke of top strength.

NO! He spoke of male and female strengths in general. He didn't mention Rand at all. Not Lanfear either. That's your own invention. Since the curves are NOT symmetric (as already proven), top levels compares differently than average levels do.

 

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Good Lord, do we need a time out?

[Swigaro]

Just because I enjoy throwing gasoline on a fire, lets look at what RJ said here for a moment...

 

For Gyrehead, Foretelling is not related to strength.  The weakest possible channeler could Foretell as strongly as Elaida or Nicola, or perhaps even more so, depending entirely on the strength of his or her Talent for Foretelling.  The three Red Sitters were sent into exile in 985 NE under Marith Jaen.  Yes, Morgase has slowed, and that is exactly why there is so much emphasis on her looking only ten years older than Perrin when she has children the ages of Elayne and Gawyn.  Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the bellcurve.  I’ll leave the maths to you for an idle moment.  The question doesn’t really apply to men, since the Black Tower accepts anyone who can learn to channel, but if the White Tower limits were applied, it would be roughly 65.4% of the bellcurve.  Although, considering the effectiveness question, they should probably set it at the same 62.5%.  Again, the maths are all yours.  Regarding the levels of male strength, while the weakest man and the weakest woman would be roughly equivalent, you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of the female levels.  Remember to integrate this with what I’ve said elsewhere about effectiveness, though.

 

 

RJ says women who can test for the shawl make up 62.5% of the bellcurve.  It has been several years since I  studdied statistics, but is not a bell curve a normal distribution, and by deffinition, symetrical?  Or was RJ misusing this term?

[Nightstrike]

Just because I enjoy throwing gasoline on a fire, lets look at what RJ said here for a moment...

That's very dangerous of you.

 

For Gyrehead, Foretelling is not related to strength.  The weakest possible channeler could Foretell as strongly as Elaida or Nicola, or perhaps even more so, depending entirely on the strength of his or her Talent for Foretelling.  The three Red Sitters were sent into exile in 985 NE under Marith Jaen.  Yes, Morgase has slowed, and that is exactly why there is so much emphasis on her looking only ten years older than Perrin when she has children the ages of Elayne and Gawyn.  Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the bellcurve.  I’ll leave the maths to you for an idle moment.  The question doesn’t really apply to men, since the Black Tower accepts anyone who can learn to channel, but if the White Tower limits were applied, it would be roughly 65.4% of the bellcurve.  Although, considering the effectiveness question, they should probably set it at the same 62.5%.  Again, the maths are all yours.  Regarding the levels of male strength, while the weakest man and the weakest woman would be roughly equivalent, you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of the female levels.  Remember to integrate this with what I’ve said elsewhere about effectiveness, though.

 

RJ says women who can test for the shawl make up 62.5% of the bellcurve.  It has been several years since I  studdied statistics, but is not a bell curve a normal distribution, and by deffinition, symetrical?  Or was RJ misusing this term?

Yeah, same here. Lets see if I remember a little something... Most populations with a normal distribution are indeed more or less symmetric. I don't know what would cause skew to these curves, but I guess there are many things we don't know about the cause of channeling ability.

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

That's very dangerous of you.

 

Run Away!  Run Away!

[Swigaro]

Yeah, same here. Lets see if I remember a little something... Most populations with a normal distribution are indeed more or less symmetric. I don't know what would cause skew to these curves, but I guess there are many things we don't know about the cause of channeling ability.

 

 

My point is, either RJ knew what he was talking about when he said it was a bell curve, and the curve is symetrical, or he misused the term, and we are all basing our assumptions on an inacurate word choice. 

 

Personally, RJ has always struck me as someone who was fairly carful whith the words he chose when he was giving out background information on the WoT.  I am going to go ahead and take him at his word when he specified it was a bell curve.

[Nightstrike]

My point is, either RJ knew what he was talking about when he said it was a bell curve, and the curve is symetrical, or he misused the term, and we are all basing our assumptions on an inacurate word choice. 

 

Personally, RJ has always struck me as someone who was fairly carful whith the words he chose when he was giving out background information on the WoT.  I am going to go ahead and take him at his word when he specified it was a bell curve.

Look, I don't know what RJ intended exactly, or how these curves really should be drawn. The same quote you gave (RJ's blog) means that these curves CAN NOT both be symmetrical. It is impossible. Therefore, if we assume that RJ spoke the truth about 62.5%/65.4% and the "you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of the female strength"-part, these curves (one or both) must be at least a little assymetrical. It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from RJ's answer to "Gyrehead". Maybe these curves are "almost symmetrical", enough for him to refer to the Bell curve.

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Look, I don't know what RJ intended exactly, or how these curves really should be drawn.

 

Wow. Cognitive dissonance.  Really.  Please look it up.

[Nightstrike]

Look, I don't know what RJ intended exactly, or how these curves really should be drawn.

 

Wow. Cognitive dissonance.  Really.  Please look it up.

Back from the playground, are we? That we know how the curves CAN NOT look does not mean that we know how they actually DO look.

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

That we know how the curves CAN NOT look does not mean that we know how they actually DO look.

 

Then why did you say, "Look, I don't know what RJ intended exactly, or how these curves really should be drawn."

 

You have literally contradicted your own knowledge in back to back posts.  You didn't look up cognitive dissonance, did you?

 

Back from the playground, are we?

 

Yep.  Slides are the bomb!

[Nightstrike]

That we know how the curves CAN NOT look does not mean that we know how they actually DO look.

 

Then why did you say, "Look, I don't know what RJ intended exactly, or how these curves really should be drawn."

 

You have literally contradicted your own knowledge in back to back posts.  You didn't look up cognitive dissonance, did you?

I have never claimed to know exactly how these curves look. NEVER! I do claim that these curves can't both be 100% symmetric, because of RJ's answer to "Gyrehead".

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

I have never claimed to know exactly how these curves look. NEVER!

 

Then you have no basis for any of your incorrect arguments.  Why don't you join me on the swings?

[Nightstrike]

I have never claimed to know exactly how these curves look. NEVER!

 

Then you have no basis for any of your incorrect arguments.  Why don't you join me on the swings?

You just won't get it, will you? I have a solid basis for my correct arguments. That, according to RJ's answer to "Gyrehead", these curves can't both be 100% symmetric. That still leaves room for a thousand different curves.

 

Arguing with you is quite pointless and boring. You stay on the swings.

[Swigaro]

All I get from reading that quote is that the male and female bell curves are not identical.  I see nothing in the quote that says they can't be symmetrical.  On the contrary, if RJ didn't intend us to think the curve looked like a bell, he would have said, "Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the curve."

[Nightstrike]

All I get from reading that quote is that the male and female bell curves are not identical.  I see nothing in the quote that says they can't be symmetrical.  On the contrary, if RJ didn't intend us to think the curve looked like a bell, he would have said, "Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the curve."

That is not all we can get from reading that quote. I've proven it already, here it comes again.

 

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. (3.48/3.4 =x/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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Luckers]

I wonder if this is how the Catholic Church felt.

 

"The sun revolves around the earth i tell you! I've proven it a hundred times!"

[Nightstrike]

I wonder if this is how the Catholic Church felt.

 

"The sun revolves around the earth i tell you! I've proven it a hundred times!"

As usual when you comment this issue, you've got nothing of substance to say. I'm no longer surprized.

[RobertAlexWillis]

You just won't get it, will you? I have a solid basis for my correct arguments. That, according to RJ's answer to "Gyrehead", these curves can't both be 100% symmetric. That still leaves room for a thousand different curves.

 

In one post you say that "I don't know what RJ intended exactly", then you go on to explain exactly what he can't mean, and use that as basis for your argument.  That is, in effect, claiming to know what the "curves" look like, since the fact that they can't "both be 100% symmetric" is the basis of your argument.  All this, even though you scream to the heavens with your capital letters that "I have never claimed to know exactly how these curves look. NEVER!"

 

Is this a bad place to bring up your quote about what, "Formally speaking, RJ should have said"?  How do you know what he "should have said" if you don't know what the curves look like?  What basis do you have for any of your "maths" if you don't know what the curves look like?  You say that you only know what they "don't" look like, but then you make arguments based on what you claim they do look like.

 

Have you looked up cognitive dissonance yet?   ::)

 

Arguing with you is quite pointless and boring. You stay on the swings.

 

Well, it probably is pointless and boring for you.  Its mildly entertaining for me.  Should we try the see-saw next?

 

[Nightstrike]

Still not getting it?  I didn't expect it, either. Does anyone here at dragonmount get it? Someone at wotmania called these boards "kindergarten" compared to wotmania's boards. A lot of you regular posters here really fit that description, so maybe he was part right.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Still not getting it?  I didn't expect it, either. Does anyone here at dragonmount get it? Someone at wotmania called these boards "kindergarten" compared to wotmania's boards. A lot of you regular posters here really fit that description, so maybe he was part right.

 

To respond to your post, I will quote your response to another post.

 

"As usual when you comment this issue, you've got nothing of substance to say. I'm no longer surprised."

 

Its not an exact quote, of course.  I corrected your spelling.

[Nightstrike]

Still not getting it?  I didn't expect it, either. Does anyone here at dragonmount get it? Someone at wotmania called these boards "kindergarten" compared to wotmania's boards. A lot of you regular posters here really fit that description, so maybe he was part right.

 

To respond to your post, I will quote your response to another post.

 

"As usual when you comment this issue, you've got nothing of substance to say. I'm no longer surprised."

 

Its not an exact quote, of course.  I corrected your spelling.

Excuse me for not speaking english as first language. I think my question was of utmost importance, and thus it was a post of great substance to write. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Excuse me for not speaking english as first language.

 

That is irrelevant, since the boards have a spell-check which would have automatically corrected your spelling, if you had used it.

 

Also, this may be one reason why you don't actually understand either what RJ said, or our objections to your interpretation.  I don't usually like to take the "misunderstanding due to foreign language" option in these discussions, but looking back over what you've written, I think it may apply.

 

I think my question was of utmost importance, and thus it was a post of great substance to write.

 

Which question was that?  "Still not getting it?" or "Does anyone here at dragonmount get it?"

 

Neither of those strikes me as important questions "of great substance".

 

Sorry if you don't see it that way.

 

I most certainly don't.  Have you looked up cognitive dissonance yet?

 

[Nightstrike]

Also, this may be one reason why you don't actually understand either what RJ said, or our objections to your interpretation.  I don't usually like to take the "misunderstanding due to foreign language" option in these discussions, but looking back over what you've written, I think it may apply.

Care to elaborate on whatever it is you are referring to? Because I've seen nothing written by you that fits these claims that you're making.

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Care to elaborate on whatever it is you are referring to? Because I've seen nothing written by you that fits these claims that you're making.

 

Its consistent through all your posts.  You are making what appear to be self-contradictory claims.  So, either:

 

1) You just don't understand what you're actually saying, or

 

2) You don't actually understand what we're saying in response, or

 

3) You're just not the brightest tool in the shed.

 

I'm going with a combination of 1 and 2, because 3 would be insulting.  Even though, since you've called me a kindergartener, I think I probably have some justification for being insulting.  Thats just the kind of guy I am.

 

We have now passed the point of usefulness in this conversation, so I will not post in it again.