Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6851585" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>I've been clear all along: you cannot compare IQ distributions to 3d6 distributions. Despite both claiming to have normal distributions, 3d6 is the only one of the two that has a legitimate normal distribution; IQ has an artificial, forced normal distribution. The two are just fundamentally different things.</p><p></p><p>No, you can't. A 100 IQ is not twice a 50 IQ. That's like saying 100th place in a marathon is twice 50th place in the same marathon -- it's nonsensical. This is because the numbers used for IQ are <u>rankings</u>, not values. 50 IQ is less than 100 IQ, and that's all that can be noted. You can expand that and compare to each step between, but that's it. You can't even say how much 50 IQ is less than 100 IQ because the distance between the rankings isn't uniform, like the distance between race finishes isn't uniform.</p><p></p><p></p><p>YES! FINALLY! IQ tells us a bit about the difference between our intelligences, 3d6 tells us nothing, and INT (if real) would also tell us something. None of them measure intelligence, though. So you can't go from a ranking of intelligence (IQ) to a pure chance distribution of real numbers (3d6) and then to another ranking/sometimes interval of intelligence (INT). The transitions make no sense -- you can't do it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Bottom line -- this is false. This is like saying there's .5% of people that finish first in a race, so if you roll an 18 on 3d6, you also finish first the race. It makes no sense to say this, yet this is what you're trying to say when you try to equate the two. That they have similar percentages doesn't mean that they're actually the same thing, or can or should be compared. </p><p></p><p>THIS is the trap of statistics. You've heard the old saw 'there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.' There's a reason for this other than the general feeling that stats you don't like are suspect. It's because statistics lies to you by transforming data into a common language and letting your forget that the data aren't the stats -- that what you've done with your mathemagic isn't the reality. In this case, you're allowing the fact that someone abused reality to do math that doesn't mean what it appears to say -- the IQ distribution is false and arbitrary. The functions performed to create it should not be done with that data. While you can plug the numbers into a calculator and perform the process of determining the mean of IQ scores, the fact that IQ scores are ranks, not values, and lack any defined interval means that the result is meaningless. It's like taking all of the place finishes in a race, averaging them, and declaring that this has meaning -- it clearly doesn't because the average of 1st place through nth place isn't meaningful. IQ data, similarly, doesn't have a meaningful mean.</p><p></p><p>So, why then do researchers do it? Again, an old saw "all models are wrong, but some are useful." The IQ distribution is wrong, but it's useful in some ways. It's useful to compare points within the IQ distribution. It has no use outside of that (because it's too wrong to be useful outside of that). This is agreed with in many studies on IQ. </p><p></p><p>So, because of this, comparing the IQ set to 3d6, despite the fact that they have similar words and apparently similar values, is meaningless because the IQ data is of a completely different nature than 3d6 rolls. There's no transferable meaning.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Maxperson's method is exactly as valid as Hriston's method. Both are making arbitrary claims that are not backed by anything valid.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the result of 3d6 roll is a number, it is not a measurement of any kind. That we then take it to use as a measure means it transforms from just a number into a new kind of data and loses some of it's properties along the way. For instance, if I roll a 3 and an 18 on 3d6, then those numbers are just numbers -- 18 is six times greater than 3, for instance. If I then use those numbers as INT scores, they change. 18 INT is no longer six times greater than 3 INT. It is greater, for sure, and I can (depending on edition) even state how many intervals greater it is, but I've lost the ability to say that it is six times greater. </p><p></p><p>The means that you can't map the distribution of 3d6 the roll to INT scores. The distribution of 3d6 requires you to take the mean of the rolls and the SD of the rolls, and that only has meaning if they are rational (you can do something similar on interval data, but INT isn't solely interval data). That math requires certain properties of the data to be meaningful. Those properties are missing with the ordinal data of INT. </p><p></p><p>We use the roll of 3d6 (sometimes) to generate a random number to assign to a measurement of an ability. This is a fine use for a random generator if we wish to have a random measurement within the range. What we should be careful of it mistaking the properties of the random generator for the properties of the measurement we wish to randomize. They are not the same thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This argument completely discounts character generation as meaningful declaration by the player. My problem with any argument that holds that the only factors that are important are only made during gameplay is that it ignores that character creation is a factor that also occurred during gameplay. It's special pleading that the ability scores and other factors chosen by the player have only a limited meaning while action declarations are superior to all other choices. I can't agree with this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6851585, member: 16814"] I've been clear all along: you cannot compare IQ distributions to 3d6 distributions. Despite both claiming to have normal distributions, 3d6 is the only one of the two that has a legitimate normal distribution; IQ has an artificial, forced normal distribution. The two are just fundamentally different things. No, you can't. A 100 IQ is not twice a 50 IQ. That's like saying 100th place in a marathon is twice 50th place in the same marathon -- it's nonsensical. This is because the numbers used for IQ are [U]rankings[/U], not values. 50 IQ is less than 100 IQ, and that's all that can be noted. You can expand that and compare to each step between, but that's it. You can't even say how much 50 IQ is less than 100 IQ because the distance between the rankings isn't uniform, like the distance between race finishes isn't uniform. YES! FINALLY! IQ tells us a bit about the difference between our intelligences, 3d6 tells us nothing, and INT (if real) would also tell us something. None of them measure intelligence, though. So you can't go from a ranking of intelligence (IQ) to a pure chance distribution of real numbers (3d6) and then to another ranking/sometimes interval of intelligence (INT). The transitions make no sense -- you can't do it. Bottom line -- this is false. This is like saying there's .5% of people that finish first in a race, so if you roll an 18 on 3d6, you also finish first the race. It makes no sense to say this, yet this is what you're trying to say when you try to equate the two. That they have similar percentages doesn't mean that they're actually the same thing, or can or should be compared. THIS is the trap of statistics. You've heard the old saw 'there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.' There's a reason for this other than the general feeling that stats you don't like are suspect. It's because statistics lies to you by transforming data into a common language and letting your forget that the data aren't the stats -- that what you've done with your mathemagic isn't the reality. In this case, you're allowing the fact that someone abused reality to do math that doesn't mean what it appears to say -- the IQ distribution is false and arbitrary. The functions performed to create it should not be done with that data. While you can plug the numbers into a calculator and perform the process of determining the mean of IQ scores, the fact that IQ scores are ranks, not values, and lack any defined interval means that the result is meaningless. It's like taking all of the place finishes in a race, averaging them, and declaring that this has meaning -- it clearly doesn't because the average of 1st place through nth place isn't meaningful. IQ data, similarly, doesn't have a meaningful mean. So, why then do researchers do it? Again, an old saw "all models are wrong, but some are useful." The IQ distribution is wrong, but it's useful in some ways. It's useful to compare points within the IQ distribution. It has no use outside of that (because it's too wrong to be useful outside of that). This is agreed with in many studies on IQ. So, because of this, comparing the IQ set to 3d6, despite the fact that they have similar words and apparently similar values, is meaningless because the IQ data is of a completely different nature than 3d6 rolls. There's no transferable meaning. Maxperson's method is exactly as valid as Hriston's method. Both are making arbitrary claims that are not backed by anything valid. No, the result of 3d6 roll is a number, it is not a measurement of any kind. That we then take it to use as a measure means it transforms from just a number into a new kind of data and loses some of it's properties along the way. For instance, if I roll a 3 and an 18 on 3d6, then those numbers are just numbers -- 18 is six times greater than 3, for instance. If I then use those numbers as INT scores, they change. 18 INT is no longer six times greater than 3 INT. It is greater, for sure, and I can (depending on edition) even state how many intervals greater it is, but I've lost the ability to say that it is six times greater. The means that you can't map the distribution of 3d6 the roll to INT scores. The distribution of 3d6 requires you to take the mean of the rolls and the SD of the rolls, and that only has meaning if they are rational (you can do something similar on interval data, but INT isn't solely interval data). That math requires certain properties of the data to be meaningful. Those properties are missing with the ordinal data of INT. We use the roll of 3d6 (sometimes) to generate a random number to assign to a measurement of an ability. This is a fine use for a random generator if we wish to have a random measurement within the range. What we should be careful of it mistaking the properties of the random generator for the properties of the measurement we wish to randomize. They are not the same thing. This argument completely discounts character generation as meaningful declaration by the player. My problem with any argument that holds that the only factors that are important are only made during gameplay is that it ignores that character creation is a factor that also occurred during gameplay. It's special pleading that the ability scores and other factors chosen by the player have only a limited meaning while action declarations are superior to all other choices. I can't agree with this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
Top