Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7134971" data-attributes="member: 6787650">All the numbers in a normalized array will share a metric. That's what makes it normalized. Some of the PCs will have sisters, some will have brothers; some of the brothers will be 28, others will be 37, others will be 41; but there will be a pattern when you know to look for it (age gap is always two years; sibling is always opposite gender).Besides, the point is that examining samples instead of the distribution is inappropriate. It's not the individual sample within the distribution that is boring. It was inappropriate for you to ask me to identify specific arrays in your set of ten as more boring than the others.The space will be dependent on the normalization method chosen. I already told you that I haven't read Ratskinner's proposal in detail; I just know that I don't share his design goal (normalization).If I don't care about Ratskinner's method enough to read it, what makes you think I'm interested in spending hours reverse-engineering your method from seven samples, like some kind of mathematical puzzle? How about instead, YOU spend a few minutes or hours coding up a web page with a generator for your distribution, which might or might not be using a normalized method or 4d6 drop lowest; and if I can guess whether it's generating normalized samples I'll tell you? (And if I get it wrong, congratulations, you've got a normalized method which will have fooled me, and which would presumably work as well for me as a random method.)I promise not to look at your source code. I'll make my judgment based purely on the samples that I see in the distribution.My experience says your conjecture is false.Have you considered the irony inherent in the fact that you're asking me to examine myself for confirmation bias, without first showing evidence that you've examine yourself for confirmation bias? Are you especially interested in contradicting my anecdotal observation because it run contrary to your bias/conjecture?Anecdotal evidence and conjecture are both unreliable. If you're really interested in this subject, you'll have to do a randomized study. Failing that, an pair of Enworld polls could crudely suffice, if you had a way to correlate the results.</blockquote>

Verification