Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 9317923" data-attributes="member: 6701124">It would guess that lots of &quot;positively viewed attributes&quot; of a &quot;semi-related type&quot; have a reasonably strong correlation in real life when looking across the population as a whole; but the comparison is often made in subsets of the population thus reducing the observed correlation.&nbsp; In a college there might be a group much better at math than the humanities and a group much better at humanities than math.&nbsp; Are a great many of them better in both than most of the folks who didn't go to college?&nbsp; One study found a negative relationship between explosive strength and agility among college soccer players.&nbsp; Would it still be negative across the population of all college age people?I also wonder if people take something having a moderate correlation to mean that there aren't still quite a few folks that don't fit the pattern or who are outliers (even if the majority do fit the pattern).&nbsp;&nbsp; Conflating correlation with causation probably doesn't help too.&nbsp; (Looking at some studies, are they getting better grades because they're in better shape?&nbsp; Or is poor sleeping habits or poor home life or some underlying illness tanking both exercise and grades for folks?).For D&amp;D, are most of the PCs in the point buy/standard array era in a restricted range case?&nbsp; (We've lopped off the bottom of the distribution of all of the abilities).&nbsp; At low levels of training do the equivalent of abilities dominate?&nbsp; (Are some students more athletic, some more bookish?).&nbsp; As training acrues does the level of ability quickly stop mattering nearly as much for the vast majority of people?&nbsp; (How does a fairly average &quot;intelligence-and-dexterous-if-you-believe-in-such-things&quot; person trained in pioneering (knot-tying) do against a really smart and dexterous one for lashing a safe bridge?).&nbsp;&nbsp; Will the true outliers in most fields usually be the ones who seem to combine something innate with lots of practice/training?&nbsp; &nbsp; (It doesn't feel conroverisal to say that some people will simply never be a successful professional athlete in some things no matter how much they practice -- and it has nothing to do with their effort.)&nbsp; Should D&amp;D allow for training to have a bigger impact?&nbsp;&nbsp; How broad should the things people are trained in be?&nbsp; (Why is athletics general but knowledge siloed?).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 9317923, member: 6701124"] It would guess that lots of "positively viewed attributes" of a "semi-related type" have a reasonably strong correlation in real life when looking across the population as a whole; but the comparison is often made in subsets of the population thus reducing the observed correlation. In a college there might be a group much better at math than the humanities and a group much better at humanities than math. Are a great many of them better in both than most of the folks who didn't go to college? One study found a negative relationship between explosive strength and agility among college soccer players. Would it still be negative across the population of all college age people? I also wonder if people take something having a moderate correlation to mean that there aren't still quite a few folks that don't fit the pattern or who are outliers (even if the majority do fit the pattern). Conflating correlation with causation probably doesn't help too. (Looking at some studies, are they getting better grades because they're in better shape? Or is poor sleeping habits or poor home life or some underlying illness tanking both exercise and grades for folks?). For D&D, are most of the PCs in the point buy/standard array era in a restricted range case? (We've lopped off the bottom of the distribution of all of the abilities). At low levels of training do the equivalent of abilities dominate? (Are some students more athletic, some more bookish?). As training acrues does the level of ability quickly stop mattering nearly as much for the vast majority of people? (How does a fairly average "intelligence-and-dexterous-if-you-believe-in-such-things" person trained in pioneering (knot-tying) do against a really smart and dexterous one for lashing a safe bridge?). Will the true outliers in most fields usually be the ones who seem to combine something innate with lots of practice/training? (It doesn't feel conroverisal to say that some people will simply never be a successful professional athlete in some things no matter how much they practice -- and it has nothing to do with their effort.) Should D&D allow for training to have a bigger impact? How broad should the things people are trained in be? (Why is athletics general but knowledge siloed?). [/QUOTE]

Verification