Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6860096" data-attributes="member: 16814">I can't say, but I can say that it exists somewhere between a 20 and a 10-11.  10 and 11 being the defined 'average' and all numbers above that being the defined 'above average.'  As a rule of thumb, I'd place genius in the +3 and up crowd.That's a very bad argument.  You're using the small difference between steps to say that there isn't a noticeable difference between many steps.  There is a difference, and that difference becomes much more noticeable over time as the step difference increases.  Yes, I couldn't readily distinguish between a +5 and a +4 over the course of a game or even a campaign, but I could readily distinguish the difference between a +5 and a +2 or +0 and especially between the +5 and a -3.  But, even then, we're talking about distinction against a limited number of random rolls against variable DCs.  That's always going to have some variance and can hide the difference.  But hiding the difference isn't the same as saying that there isn't one.  It's just as likely that the variance will accentuate the difference.  You can't argue one side of variance and ignore the other.  Your argument is simply that you won't get statistical significance over a small number of rolls.  That's a valid argument, but it doesn't mean there isn't a difference, just that the tools of stats don't provide a clear answer. Actually, the probability of any particular person existing in real life is 1.  They exist, so the probability that they exist is 100%.  So long as you're absolutely good with the understanding that your comparison is as bunk as using rainbow-farting unicorns, we're good.You mean the statement that I already said was a misstatement?  Yes, it was a misstatement.Tu quoque is rarely a good argument, and it's not one here.  Regardless of who introduced the idea, my entry into it wasn't to validate either method, but to point out that comparison of IQ to 3d6 is as bunk as the multiplying of INT by 10.  Bunk arguments are bunk.  My main interest was addressing a misunderstanding of the stats used in your arguments.That's a rather interesting statement.  Do you also have a fondness of Humpty Dumpty?But, okay, I'm taking this to mean that you understand that IQ has nothing to do with 3d6 rolls which has the knockon of having nothing to do with INT scores generated by 3d6 rolls.  So long as we're okay that what you did was just random mathturbation, and has no meaning, we're good to go.It's artificially fixed.  It has no meaning outside of itself.Okay, I've no idea where you're veering now.  While it's true that 3d6 isn't a normal distribution (it's a near normal distribution, which is a class of things that are often represented by normals because it's very useful and understandable to do so), you did represent earlier that you were matching the "normal' distribution of IQ to that of 3d6, and your justification was that they both had the same kind of distribution.  I didn't mistake that.  Now it seems that you're wanting to change that tune and get more narrow?  I can do that, if you'd like.  So far I haven't because introducing the concepts of near normal hasn't be 1) relevant or b) useful, and I'm not sure how it would become so now.No, not the same issues, but yes, different issues of validity.  If IQ was a real normal distribution, there would be some validity in comparing it to the 3d6 normal, even though both are using the continuous normal to represent discrete events, which has it's own set of issues -- just not ones relevant to this discussion.  And, as you may have noticed, I put that in as an aside and specifically said it wasn't helpful to the discussion. But, I'm glad we're on the same page here.</blockquote>

Verification