faetal on 26/3/2013 at 13:39
So you don't think that the majority would be, you know, average?
I mean sure, if you are gauging aptitude in e.g. programming in Java, then if you include people who have no have never tried their hand at learning it, then sure. If however, you did it for everyone who had learned Java, you'd likely have a bell curve, provided you could describe a metric for aptitude.
Likewise, if you include third world countries, infants and livestock in driving aptitude, you'd probably have the curve you describe, but if you just included those who drive...anyway, this probably doesn't have much to do with Bioshock so much.
Muzman on 26/3/2013 at 14:14
It'll be a while before I play this.
All the same I'm curious; Does the stuff we saw in this old video play any real part in things anymore?
(
http://youtu.be/n6_PSJJFqmk)
I know there's still sky rails (but a much different sky hook) and Stephen Russel isn't the voice anymore and its broadly similar. But the insanity of weird shifting signs/paintings and crazy people who go nuts when the signs shift, is Salton Stall giving a spirited lecture to no one at some point etc?
The thrust seems somewhwat different now to what that all implied at the time.
Jason Moyer on 26/3/2013 at 15:03
Quote Posted by faetal
So you don't think that the majority would be, you know, average?
Nope. Talent is distributed like a pyramid, and there are always far more people below average than there are above average. If you really think about it, merely being average at a skill-based activity (whether it's driving a car, playing guitar, whatever) requires a pretty significant amount of dedication and talent.
That holds true no matter where you cut the lower boundary off. If you were to, say, only include professional racecar drivers in your sample...there are exponentially more of them with the talent to compete at the very lowest levels of competition than there are at the top levels. If you cut it off at people who hold a driver's license, same thing. Millions of people who are good enough to get a license, thousands who are good enough to be competitive drivers, hundreds who are good enough to be professionals in the sense of making a living at it, a few hundred who can compete at the top levels of driving ability (F1, NASCAR, Indycar, WRC, DTM, LMES, etc) and then less than 100 who are good enough to get an F1 superlicense.
Programming in Java? There are far more people who know just enough to get by then there are people who are competent at it, and far more people who are competent at it than those who have a mastery of it.
Phatose on 26/3/2013 at 15:30
That really depends on how you weight their relative skill.
In a basic pyramid, where there are 10 of skill 1, 9 of skill 2, 8 of skill 3, etc, the Average ends up being 4, and 27 are below average, with 28 above it.
If you start at 10 of 0 skill, 9 of 5 skill, 8 of 10 skill, ect, then you end up with 49 people out of 55 being below average.
voodoo47 on 26/3/2013 at 15:38
Quote Posted by Phatose
49 people out of 55 being below average.
sounds 'bout right.
N'Al on 26/3/2013 at 15:54
More like voodoo49.
Phatose on 26/3/2013 at 16:20
Well, he is right. Screwed up my math somehow.
DDL on 26/3/2013 at 16:29
Poorly applied averages can be very silly.
The vast majority of people have an above-average number of limbs, for instance.
Phatose on 26/3/2013 at 16:39
Wonder if that remains true if you count a penis as a limb.
retractingblinds on 26/3/2013 at 17:04
Just started. 10 minutes in, Dewitt needs to shut up.
