TheAuldGrump

Daggerfall rebuilt using the Unity engine... Good grief, I had forgotten how big Daggerfall is.... Walking across the map would take 66 hours, real time.... *EDIT* Megan finished editing snark out of my first post at the same time as I finished writing my second post.... Thanks Megan! The Auld Grump

I sincerely disagree. What follows is largely, but by no means entirely, a definition of terms - I had Megan desnarkify it to her heart's desire. Look up the derivation of averages, if you do not know it or remember it, then come back. It is important for the discussion. Probability is a part of mathematics, as is statistics, arguing that they are not would be foolishness. What you are actually attempting to argue is semantics - via dictionary definitions - not mathematics. From the first instance I noted that I was referring to the average intelligence range. It is, in most cases, the proper use of the term 'average intelligence'. See the article previously referenced, or the handy chart I included below. The derived average on the Stanford-Binet scale is the total divided by the number of participants in the sampling with a 15% standard deviation. 90-109 is considered the average for sampling purposes, not 100.00 with no deviation from that single number. That deviation helps to pull the numbers toward center, and correct for the aggregate results. (I am using the standard Stanford-Binet scale, if you wish to look it up. I do not entirely agree with the scale, but it has seen use for the better part of a century.) IQ is an aggregate of multiple axes - it is, itself, an average derived for each individual sampled. Personally, I would be more comfortable with having a multiple axes IQ rating than the aggregate result. The axes are not coequal for all purposes - each has a range in which it is primary, and others less useful. (See Thurstone and Gardner - the argument goes back a ways. Gardner defined eight axes of intelligence.) I purposely used the term 'range' in my original posts, if I remember properly - you were the one that felt a need to use a differing and narrower definition - and then moved the goal post in each successive post, pulling 3% from what I will euphemize as a hat. (I honestly have no idea where you pulled that from. Maybe by trying to define 'Average Intelligence' as 100.00 - with no deviation from center, even by a single decimal point?) 50% is a heck of a lot larger than the mythical 3% you conjured up. It is also larger than the 16.1% of the ranges to either side of that central range. (I had remembered it as 16.2 - so I was off by a whopping 0.1%. Memory is weird.) 100 is the median of the scale, but the average includes a 15% deviation from that median. You will also note that I sourced my reference - which supported my definition that the average IQ is the range into which 50% of the populace falls. Which in turn supported my statement that including the average range (not the median, not the mean) results in skewing the total to 75%, not 50%. Again - it is a bell curve, not a linear progression -- average is not quite the same as median, though in many cases the average encompasses that median. (Most cases, certainly - but my inability to pull a counter example from memory does not preclude such a counter example.) You attempted to define average intelligence as the center point of the full spectrum, with no deviation - when it is, instead, a range within that spectrum, including a deviation. You went so far as to attempt limiting it to the second decimal place. You did not accept my conclusion - but that neither makes my conclusion incorrect, nor does it make yours correct. In later posts I also stated that had GEM used the term median or 100 IQ in his initial statement, he would have been more nearly correct. You are insisting that the restatement is identical to the initial statement, when that is demonstrably not the case. (GEM has wisely distanced himself from this discourse - I will admit that Wisdom was my dump stat.) When you are administered an IQ test and considered to be of average intelligence, you are compared within a range. 98 is every bit as within that range as 106. Both are considered average intelligence. It is highly likely that your specific numbers are not distributed evenly across all the axes defining your IQ - you might be better at language than at math, with a poor rote memory for history. Or have a better ability with mathematics, but can get lost in an elevator. Having identical IQ scores does not mean that the areas of competence within the aggregate are also identical. Average, mean, and median all have similar, often overlapping, but not identical, definitions. Close enough for the one word summary at the beginning of the dictionary entry, but lacking when compared to the full definition of each word. (And why I prefer the OED* to the M-W dictionary - the definitions and etymology tend to be more complete.) These differences are important for statistical purposes - and for the derived demographics that include intelligence as one of the defining axes. I was more than willing to let this rest until you felt the need to stick your oar in again. But you did feel the need, so it comes up again. So, nailing down definitions and sources. I fear the result is a bit of a word salad. But, the sum of what this entire salad, soup, and three course meal entails is this - most voters are of average intelligence - and this is true regardless of party affiliation. Twenty five percent will be below, twenty five percent will be above, but the teeming middle is full half of the populace, without including either extreme. The average person is... average. (I would like to think that the average participants on these fora are above the national average, at least on most axes defining intelligence.) It also makes the numbers look more damning when you can state that 75% of the voting populace is of average intelligence or below... Or much brighter when you can truthfully state that 75% of the voting population is of average intelligence or higher - simply by including that almighty middle ground**. (Statistics do not lie - liars use statistics.) The Auld Grump * I feel it worth mentioning, or at least amusing, that young John Reuel Ronald Tolkien worked on the first edition of the OED - where he was put in charge of the letter W. Somehow that always sounds like a line out of Monty Python. ** This is the core of my dislike of GEM's initial statement - the average is a wide range, and can really mess up the extremes when included. It was a discrepancy that my lecturers in statistics and sociology*** both made damned sure I noted. It is a very easy method to disguise outright falsehoods within a factually accurate statement. *** Statistics was a required course for sociology... not a surprise, really. *EDIT* Statistics is also where I learned that I do not love maths.... Calculus was where I learned that my skill with maths had a limit....

I will point out that being able to do basic maths is why I was stuck with the job of keeping the pagan retreat solvent.... (Seriously, Dave has a MBA - how the hell could he not realize that commingling personal and business accounts is a bad idea?) Or maybe it was just having basic common sese that doomed me. Skill challenges were an interesting idea that had terrible implementation. It suffered badly from the design team's 'It's not combat, so we don't care' focus for the game. They were lazy about their math, and did not proof their concepts. The Auld Grump

Median, yes - average, no. The average - 90-109 covers 50% of the populace - and that is a very, very large number. And it is nicely clustered right at 100. That 100 is, in point of fact, a very large number. 110-119 covers only 16.1%. Ditto for 80-89. I have no idea what hat you pulled 3% out of. The Auld Grump - I will note that GEM used the term average - and that the average is not 100 - it is the range 90-109. I was pretty damned clear that the average is a range, yes? And that he would be more nearly correct had he used the numeric 100 IQ rather than the broader term 'average'?

Hear, hear! And, for me, one of the biggest differences is that you actually deal with the main plot in Oblivion - while in Skyrim you deal with Plus... one of the things that I enjoyed in both Oblivion and Daggerfall was the growing cosmopolitan nature of the Empire. When by the time of Oblivion you could find orcs running bookstores. (I still remember how I felt when I was playing Daggerfall and learned that the orcs weren't the villains - that the orcs fallen near the Emperor's body had died trying to defend him, not attacking him.) And the forlorn cry of 'Vengeeaance!' echoing through the streets of the Imperial city.... Oooh! Someone is converting Daggerfall to the Unity engine! Cool beans! The Auld Grump <-distracted by the shiny....

That 'very small number' is a very large number - with disproportionate percentage of people falling into that 100 range compared with quotients that are either higher or lower. (And with reason - the scale assumes an average of 100 IQ, and scales proportionate to that number. More akin to 100 C than to 212 F. The scale is built outwards from that number. Fahrenheit was entirely arbitrary, with the numbers falling where they fell. Celsius was created with the physical states of water at sea level as the key points on the temperature scale.) And, again, referring to 3d6 - -more rolls result in 10 or 11 than result in 8-9 or 12-13, more rolls result in 8-9 or 12-13 than result in 6-7 or 14-15. 3d6 produces a bell curve. That 10-11 is a higher percentage of the range than the numbers further from the center. So, including 10-11 in either end scews the percentages, In short, including the middle of the bell curve on either end results in a total that is higher than 50%. And that is the core of my objection. There are simply more people with100 -110 IQs than 89-99 IQs or with 111-120 IQs. Also, I am tired, and working on game mechanics at the moment - maths are on my brain. *** Back to the game concerns - I used Sandy Petersen's Cthulhu Mythos Pathfinder book - in which the King in Yellow is a template that is applied to existing creatures, rather than an entry of its own. Likewise, I created a template for the Red Queen - which has not yet been applied to the Queen, and won't until the ceremony is complete. The Auld Grump

It is not a perspective, nor is it an opinion - it is math. It can be researched, it can be confirmed, and has nothing to do with any point of view. It simply is what it is. Disagreeing with it does not make it go away. Had you said that half the voting population was of average intelligence or higher, I would have had the exact same argument. The average person is average - and deflects from the average an average number of ways - it is a range, not a single number. Oddly, I had this self same argument involving rolling ability scores on 3d6.... Again, the average is a more significant portion of the curve than either of the extremes. Had you said that half the voting population has an IQ of 100 or below you would have been more nearly correct. But most of that half would have been clustered right around that 100 IQ. The Auld Grump

Read carefully exactly what I wrote. For reference: ' That last is nonsense - half the voting population is of average intelligence - it is an average, not a mean. A quarter are below. A quarter are above - but the undistinguished middle is the plurality. Think bell curve, not linear progression.' Half plus a quarter is three quarters, not half. If half is of average intelligence then that is in addition to the quarter that is below. Again - average is a range on the bell curve - not the middle of the bell curve. The Auld Grump - yes, I am being snarky. Lazy math bothers me. *EDIT* To be specific, the half that is of average intelligence is the most significant portion of the curve.

Make an old fashioned Jack O'Lantern - from a turnip, rather than a pumpkin. The Auld Grump

That last is nonsense - half the voting population is of average intelligence - it is an average, not a mean. A quarter are below. A quarter are above - but the undistinguished middle is the plurality. Think bell curve, not linear progression. A greater deciding factor in US elections is education, rather than intelligence. Location and origin, likewise, is of greater import than intelligence. *** Finished the opening of the final battle in the Regency Space game - the PCs have just finished defeating the lesser opponents that tried to prevent them from interrupting the wedding ceremony between the King in Yellow and the Red Queen. No PCs are dead, yet, and none are uninjured. About a half to a third of their spells have been used. Someone will have to make a Knowledge [Religion] check to find how far the wedding ceremony has to go. Otherwise they will have no clue how much time they might have left. Will the King or Queen interrupt the ceremony to deal with the interlopers? And who is this robed and cowled priest that officiates at this sacrament of marriage - whose voice seems to come from everywhere, and nowhere at all? The Auld Grump

That is my experience as well. But then I always prime my non-translucent Bones minis, so it could just be that I do not have the same PoV as the poster. For the record - GW Contrast Paints over translucent bones can be very interesting, as can Minwax. My Shadow Demon turned a rather nice root beer brown when dipped in Minwax Espresso, and a light drybrush with Reaper Burned Metal really brought out the details. A GW Contrast something-Blue over the translucent Purple Fungi likewise looked pretty good. (I hit it with a Testor's Dull Coat first - but I am not absolutely certain that was required - with the Bones Black, a good scrubbing might have been sufficient.) It goes from Purple to an odd indigo in the crevices. Just because it starts as one color of translucent does not mean that it has to stay that color. The Auld Grump

I honestly do not understand that point of view; it is easy enough to use a brown primer over the translucent Bones - and if I were painting a full ship, that would be my starting point anyways, so it would add neither time nor expense to the project. Army Painter has some very nice brown primers available in rattle cans. I would most likely start with Leather Brown. (Fur Brown would also work, but I prefer the Leather Brown for wood.) And I have always had excellent results using Army Painter spray primers over Bones - even the ones from the Bones I KS. The Auld Grump - Brown Liner from Reaper would also work - but would need to be applied by hand.

Green works for windows as well - at least very, very old glass windows.... Some older glass was saturated with copper sulfate or salts - resulting in windows that get darker green with age. And narrower at the top than the bottom. My mom used to tell me that it was because glass never completely hardens, and over centuries it would flow downwards... But, in reality, it is because glass was blown, then spun, before being flattened out to be cut into diamond shaped panes. It was always thinner at the bottom. Though.... I would love to see some clear freestanding windows for gaming. We have some 3D printed windows that Kristof65 sent us - the number of times that Jon, Duncan, or Chris have had their characters jump through them.... The kids and after school players are more uniform in their tendency to jump through windows - though some of them do open the windows first. At some point I may pick up some UV hardening resin to add 'glass' to those windows. The Auld Grump - bed time!

Oddly, the place had a modernish (1960s?) fuse box... that was connected to the copper wiring. Her solution was to completely disconnect the copper wiring and have new wires run - but leaving the old copper wires in situ, because she thinks it is neat. But she did have the gas lighting pipes removed - leaving only her current gas consuming items connected. (Water heater, stove, and furnace.) Back in the 1960s, I knew someone that still used gas lighting in Boston. (For some reason it was free, if I remember properly. Because Boston*, I guess.) The Auld Grump * There are, or were, at least, Boston Brahman families that paid their property taxes in perpetua, in the early years of the 19th Century - for around $5,000 - a princely sum at the time. But never having to pay property taxes again, for as long as the property belongs to the original family?.... I suspect that somebody's thumb was on the scale.

Aw, man. The Auld Grump - she didn't mention this to me. *EDIT* Waking her up to say 'You didn't tell me!' does not seem wise....