Pzhon's Post about Math and Nerds

[David Sklansky]

I'm repeating this from the bottom of the math nerds thread so that more people will see it. His statement is stronger than mine and he is more qualified to know about the subject in question. I'd like to see comments. Especially from mackthefork and Andy Fox.

Quote:

"Mathematical nerds typically end up with vast exposure to the subject that interests them but little exposure to the arts, philosophy, literature, history or psychology. Which is why many end up with few people skills and are loners. If they took a modest percentage of their intelligence and applied it to the study of the "liberal arts" they would emerge as better individuals, capable of leading people and influencing people."

In my experience, almost all mathematics majors spend a lot of time studying the arts, philosophy, literature, etc. Few humanities majors take many substantial classes in mathematics or science. However, people still feel compelled to assume that any strength comes with a weakness. It's greatly upsetting to people to realize that someone may be better than them in every academic category. Luckily for them, a well-rounded intellect usually comes with a frail physique, or at least small genitals. Not. Stereotypes of illiterate engineers comfort insecure people, but they are not based in fact.

Quick: What is the average verbal SAT score of a Caltech freshman? Answer: About 730.

[RJT]

I don’t have a real answer to your question? I don’t even understand the question to give an intelligent answer.

But, I do know that I enjoy your subtly injected humor.

Regarding your SAT fact. I don’t think we can equate high verbal SAT scores with the Humanities (if that is what you inferred.) Verbal skills are highly logical, don‘t you think? This is not to say that the English language is logical. But, once one learns the rules, logic skills certainly help one’s verbal skills.

Keep up the good humor.

Regards,

RJT (for the time being)

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Regarding your SAT fact. I don’t think we can equate high verbal SAT scores with the Humanities (if that is what you inferred.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Bringing SAT scores in was kind of silly, as it almost always is. But pzhon's point is right on. Plenty of physicists and mathematicians enjoy reading a pretty broad range of things and are far more educated (relatively) about various fields of the humanities than the average humanities student is about math or physics. Here's a pretty famous quote on this subject by C.P.Snow:

[ QUOTE ]

A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: 'Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?'
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question -- such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, 'Can you read?' -- not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's quite as extreme as this, but this is pretty close.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


Not. Stereotypes of illiterate engineers comfort insecure people, but they are not based in fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

True. This has been studied to death. Intellect in any area correlates to all kinds of good qualities in any other area. Including good looks. Which explains a lot, don't you think?

[jason1990]

This makes it look like the Quote is from pzhon and what follows it is commentary from David Sklansky. But I just discovered that the Quote is from ACPlayer and what follows it is pzhon's response to that quote.

Maybe a link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3044647&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1) would have been less confusing.

[RJT]

Thank you for the clarification. The OP has the ending quotation mark too soon. Well, it really needs another set of quotation marks.

I still stand by my original assertion that David's subtle humor is funny.

[malorum]

WARNING anecdotal evidence:

"Math's and science types" often have functional characteristics resembling Asperger's Syndrome.
I suspect social deficits may be a consequence more of the Genotype than of evironmental factors.

I and most of my high IQ friends share some of these social deficits, despite wildly different life experiences.

I think it's the social intuition that's most likely to be defective. The Math's type person may have to work out what to do, rather than knowing what to do. We often get it wrong. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[andyfox]

There's a little disconnect between AC Player's comments and those of Pzhon, as AC PLayer talks about "mathematical nerds," by which I assume he is talking about the proverbial stereotype, whereas Pzhon talks about "mathematics majors." But, my posts in the other thread notwithstanding, if I understand his point correctly, I agree with it.

Believe it or not, (and at the risk of betraying a touch of Sklanskyitis) I was a math nerd in high school and scored 800 on the math SAT at age 16. I doubt I could score 600 today (36 years later). Math and science lost interest for me as I became interested in politics, history, music, architecture, business and other things. I don't for a minute deny that knowing the math, or rather, how to think about the math, helped me in all those areas and most likely helps others in similar ways. I was successful in a business at which, quite frankly, I'm not naturally adept. I can't deny that part of the reason for my success is probably a "mathematical," i.e., organized, rigorous, logical approach to it, which I had to take in order to compete with others who were naturally more talented in the field. And perhaps my "silly romanticism" in other areas is a psychological reaction to knowing that that's the case. But I would guess that there are many more people who score 800 on the verbal and only 550 on the math portion of the SAT, than score 800 on the math and only 550 on the verbal.

My argument with David concerns something similar to what Negreanu said in his apology to David: that math types, or scientists all too often neglect the other aspects of life. I brought up Vietnam in the other thread because I remembered David's comments in Poker, Gaming & Life about the war and that he measured the EV of going to war there without mentioning the Vietnamese. Now I know he was talking about he EV for the American soldiers, not for the Vietnamese. But that's what I've seen all too often in my reading in history and politics: the Best and the Brightest are all too often blinded by their own brilliance and assume that what's correct in situation X must, because it is based on logic and math and science, be correct in all situations. So we end up with rational building where every modernist structure looks the same the world over no matter the context and Lyndon Johnson, relying on the math nerds, fighting a war in Vietnam without any concern about the Vietnamese. (He thought he would make them into Kansas Citians.) And David Sklansky, if Negreanu is correct, not thinking enough (or at all) about how so-and-so's recent divorce will effect how he plays his hand. Arrogance and hubris seem to come with the territory. Galileo, Le Corbusier, Sklansky--they have all gotten into trouble (in varying degrees) not because they were bucking conventional wisdom, but because they were arrogant.

So scientists all too often exhibit an unscientific scorn for practical knowledge. From a narrow scientific view, nothing is known until and unless it is proven in a tightly controlled experiment. Knowledge that arrives in any other form is not taken seriously.

But I get the point. As I posted in the other thread: I agree that if you can do the math, you probably have the ability to do anything. But just knowing the math is not enough. And thinking that just knowing the math is enough is as bad as not knowing the math.

[Jazza]

i agree with phzon about studying other things besided just maths, but i still reckon there is a correlation between a lacking of social skills, and math majors (i'm about 80% certain)

[Dan Mezick]

Verbal processing very much engages conscious mind/left brain neurological hardware.

It is therefore no surprise that first-rate engineering minds are adept at such processing.

What is a surprise is how much subjective experience informs so-called rational decision making. Recent experiments and research in neuroscience confirm this. The conclusions are that the processing of emotion neurologically generates "a feeling" which is typically body-based in terms of outputs from the thinking (processing) of emotions. These feelings when accessed can substantially improve decision-making. The process of accessing feelings for use in decision making is mostly a right-brained facility.

I suspect many math-logic types are typically not found in the performing or visual arts precisely for these reasons. Such individuals may study these topics but never actualize what is studied logically. The way this probably works has to do with the absence of feelings as inputs in overall processing of the material. Right-brained types process feelings automatically while "lefties" must work at it.

I suspect that the arts are not overpopulated with math-logic adepts. It's interesting that the post here makes reference to assumed stereotypical "sub-par" body characteristics of (math-logic, left-brain processing) nerds.

While math-logic types certainly have typical human bodies, they do not typically process the bodily expression of emotion-- which every human experiences. What this leads to is a relative absence of feeling in decision making.

It is interesting that the post here makes reference to the stereotyped sub-par physique supposedly typical of "nerds". It is as if the poster understands that from the viewpoint of most observers, left-brained math-logic people do NOT appear to fully leverage the body in intellectual processing.

Those who may be interested in the root of these ideas may like to read the books at Antonio Damasio, a brilliant neurologist. A true scientist, he breaks new ground in describing how body-based emotion coupled with logical processing generates feelings. And feeling turns out to be an important key.

He cites several examples where various subjects have various kinds of accidents, or diseases, which damage specific regions of the brain. From there he uses logic to draw conclusions about the neurological basis of logic, emotion, feeling, and decision making. It turns out the body plays a central role in 3 of 4 of these items.

It appears that feelings can rapidly reduce the set of probabilities to consider in decision-making, improving decision speed without degrading overall decision quality.

I currently believe that math-logic types (if they like) can deliberately choose to focus attention towards body-informed, right-brain processing, to develop it further. A math-logic adept who chooses to examine Damasio and incorporate some of his work would be someone I would prefer to completely avoid at the poker table. (Especially no-limit.)

Whether artsy-feeling types can deliberately develop strong facility in math-logic is a completely open question.

The key book from Damasio on this topic is
Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Feeling Brain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380726475/qid=1123158450/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1589185-6325511)

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the mind exists as a distinct entity from the body has profoundly influenced Western culture since Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am." Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa and a prominent researcher on human brain function, challenges this premise in a fascinating and well-reasoned argument on the central role that emotion and feelings play in human rationality. According to Damasio, the same brain structures regulating both human biology and behavior and are indispensable to normal cognitive processes. Damasio demonstrates how patients (his own as well as the 19th-century railroad worker Nicholas Gage) with prefrontal cortical damage can no longer generate the emotions necessary for effective decision-making.

[/ QUOTE ]

His other books are also great.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, almost all mathematics majors spend a lot of time studying the arts, philosophy, literature, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in my experience (as a math major with an art history minor). The other people in my program generally took a wide variety of electives. Students in engineering or hard science programs were generally *much* nerdier than the math majors, and their electives tended to center around fields related to their majors (i.e. engineering students taking many math electives, biology students taking chemistry electives, etc.) Many of these programs don't give their students a lot of flexibility in the choice of their electives, though. Math, on the other hand, does not have any external requirements for the major.

Engineering is by far the worst in this regard, as the programs are so onerous that students have very little freedom to choose outside electives if they wish to complete their programs in four years.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But I would guess that there are many more people who score 800 on the verbal and only 550 on the math portion of the SAT, than score 800 on the math and only 550 on the verbal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math.

The Verbal portion of the test is harder somehow, and average scores reflect that (unless they changed it enough in recent years to compensate, which I doubt). So, for example, a 650 score on the Verbal is in a substantially higher percentile than a 650 score on the Math.

(edited example: from 700 vs. 700 to 650 vs. 650, since I'm not sure of the actual percentiles and as you get up in the high 90's the percentile differences should be less, relatively speaking. Anyway, I see your point, and the principle you are trying to convey might easily be true IF Verbal and Math scores had the same score:percentile correlation (which they don't)).

[RJT]

This might not be exactly to the point, but I think it relates to the general discussion.

Although, I don’t think we can equate high verbal SAT scores to the Humanities, I do think we can use it as a point of reference to the point of the post.

One reason it is important for math-type to have high verbal skills too, and be well versed in subjects like art and literature is a very practical one.

If god decides to appear to the math-type person, it will not be his math skills that will be useful in relating to others this revelation. If any proof of god’s existence is to come, it won’t be through logic and math. It will be from the Humanities. It will come from the perfect reconstruction/replication/expression of an eye-witness account/revelation.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


But I get the point. As I posted in the other thread: I agree that if you can do the math, you probably have the ability to do anything. But just knowing the math is not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of Phzon's points, and this is consistent with my experiences, is that people who know the math also know the other stuff because they take the time to consider it. Your assertion that "math types, or scientists all too often neglect the other aspects of life" is just not consistent with what I have seen. (I am reading "all too often" to mean that it is, if not the norm, a reasonably high percentage, and not that if even 5% negelect those areas that is all to often.) I would say that math types and scientists are more likely than average to be aware of the other aspects of life, quite possibly because they are less apt to be gulled by sophistry (though they are certainly prone to make their share of stupid mistakes, and Tversky and Khaneman, et al, have cataloged many of them for us.)

[ QUOTE ]
And thinking that just knowing the math is enough is as bad as not knowing the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is very vague and I am not sure of the context you are assuming. In many cases, just knowing the math IS enough, and not knowing the math, even if you are attuned to all the other aspects of the situation, will hurt you more than knowing the math and being oblivious to the other considerations.

On the hubris bit, Shakespeare wrote "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." Most 'math people' I know resonate with that quote.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


I suspect many math-logic types are typically not found in the performing or visual arts precisely for these reasons. Such individuals may study these topics but never actualize what is studied logically. The way this probably works has to do with the absence of feelings as inputs in overall processing of the material. Right-brained types process feelings automatically while "lefties" must work at it.

I suspect that the arts are not overpopulated with math-logic adepts. It's interesting that the post here makes reference to assumed stereotypical "sub-par" body characteristics of (math-logic, left-brain processing) nerds.

While math-logic types certainly have typical human bodies, they do not typically process the bodily expression of emotion-- which every human experiences. What this leads to is a relative absence of feeling in decision making.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that math-logic types (MTypes) have typical human bodies, but I don't agree with most of the other suspicions you express. Certainly, my experiences represent a small sample size, but I have not seen the things you hypothesized.

MTypes may or may not populate the performing or visual arts with any appreciable force, but I do not think that there is an inherant unnaturalness to it. That sentence is pretty horid, let me give some examples to illustrate what I am trying to say:
I am an MType, and when I took acting as an elective, or did contact improv for fun, I got into character quicker than just about anyone else there. It felt quite "natural" to me.
Most MTypes I know spend a lot of time and effort on artistic pursuits, beit drawing, writing, playing an instrument or what not.
Of the people I know, the MTypes are much more likely to actually take the time to enjoy the arts and will go farther out of their way to enjoy the arts (there may be a correlation to means there.)

In short, and I may have anomalous experiences, the MTypes I know do not display an "absense of feelings as inputs." Most are pretty tuned in to their own feelings and emotions. I certainly know some who are not, and I am not saying that non MTypes are lacking in these areas, just that I don't aggree with the notion that feeling and understanding feelings is somehow more difficult for MTypes. (Also, you may define math-logic types differently than I do. There was a poet who sentimentized that all arguments dwindled to definition. I wish I knew who that was (a professor once mentioned it in passing) since that notion has had a profound influence on how I think.)

[Dan Mezick]

Thanks your your reply. I may state some items in a less than optimal way, inviting some misunderstanding.

What I am saying is that the logical-type processing (and verbal processing also) is very tied in with conscious mind.

That being the case, logical-type processing may interfere with full experience/processing of feelings in a general sense.

I regret any misunderstanding and do not mean to imply that logical-type individuals lack feelings, empathy, concern for others etc.

My point is that logical processing may act as a kind of filter on these important feeling mechanisms, likely making them harder to access for those who frame and process with a strong "math-logic" skew.

My ideas come from Damasio's book and a quick examination of that book may help clarify what I am trying to say about how a logical skew may filter some important intuitive inputs to decision-making, packaged as "feelings".

[andyfox]

Yes, I was saying that I see David's side of the argument. Pzhon posted that CalTech freshman averaged 730 on the verbal. My guess is that those who go to the equivalent school for silly romantics, whatever that is, probably don't average 730 on the math.

In other words, that the skills associated with high mathematical achievement are transferable to doing well on the verbal part of the exam in a way that the skills associated with high verbal achievement are not transferable to doing well on the math section.

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true in my experience (as a math major with an art history minor). The other people in my program generally took a wide variety of electives. Students in engineering or hard science programs were generally *much* nerdier than the math majors, and their electives tended to center around fields related to their majors (i.e. engineering students taking many math electives, biology students taking chemistry electives, etc.) Many of these programs don't give their students a lot of flexibility in the choice of their electives, though. Math, on the other hand, does not have any external requirements for the major.

Engineering is by far the worst in this regard, as the programs are so onerous that students have very little freedom to choose outside electives if they wish to complete their programs in four years.

[/ QUOTE ]
As an engineer, I unfortunately agree. Most of the people in my classes were very uptight/boring. And, engineering majors do not get much more than a couple of electives that aren't science/math related. Example: I took Land Surveying as an elective.

Also, engineering students at the bachelor level take the same (if not more) math classes than math majors. In fact, math education majors don't take nearly as many math courses as engineers. I took Algebra, Linear Algebra, Calc. I, Calc. II, Calc. III, Eng. Statistics, and Differential Equations; and I had to use these mathematics in my other classes, (even differential equations are used in Circuits).

The engineers I know now that I'm out of school do not fit this nerd description at all though. We're all a bit anal, but I think the money and the practical/useful work we do overides that college stereotype. Besides, nothing in all those math, science, and engineering classes are really ever used in the workplace. You have to be practical and efficient and more intuned to the cost of things as opposed to the accuracy of meaningless calculations.

[David Sklansky]

Even if your theory is right about "left brained" math types (which I, by the way am NOT a typical example of), it doesn't chnge my main point. Which is that it almost never hurts to learn some more math and more importantly yet, formal logic. Romantically silly types will improve their life when their decisons are never based on asserting the consequent or denying the antecedent.

Reminds me of a story:
I was in high school, and we were getting our math tests back.
Kid: "Hey, what did you get?"
me: "I got an A"
Kid: (obviously upset) "You're such a geek... you're good at math, but you've got no common sense."
me: "Did you study for the test?"
kid: "No"
me: "I did.. now, who's got the common sense?"

[David Sklansky]

"But I would guess that there are many more people who score 800 on the verbal and only 550 on the math portion of the SAT, than score 800 on the math and only 550 on the verbal."

"Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math."

The moment I read the first post I said to myself "That captures my points pretty well. But I can't use it because the much greater rarity of Verbal 800's, at least in my day, probably is enough of a factor to make the statement untrue. (It would be true if you said something like "top one percent" of scorers.) So I'll leave it alone. No one will notice."

But MMMMM did. So he is out of the doghouse after three years after being put there concerning his gambler's ruin post. He goes back above Mark Glover on the 2+2 rating scale. Next stop, El Diablo.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Luckily for them, a well-rounded intellect usually comes with a frail physique, or at least small genitals. Not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's Wayne's World! Wayne's World! Party Time! Excellent! WooWooWooWOoW!

Nice post.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Quick: What is the average verbal SAT score of a Caltech freshman? Answer: About 730.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to elaborate on this statement.

The verbal SAT score is not a great indicator of accomplishments or aptitude for the humanities, particularly for an individual. However, it is still useful for this discussion for at least two reasons.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif It is hard to get a nearly perfect verbal SAT score without having a high vocabulary and a good grasp of written English. You don't get these from mathematics and science textbooks. You naturally train both by reading other books. I believe the high verbal SAT scores of Caltech undergraduates indicates they have read a lot outside mathematics and science. <font color="white">By the way, many are not native speakers of English, and I believe most entered college early. These make it harder to read a lot.</font>
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I think a lot of people would greatly underestimate the average score. Many of those who guess too low are expressing their wishful thinking, which is common but remarkably inaccurate.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
"But I would guess that there are many more people who score 800 on the verbal and only 550 on the math portion of the SAT, than score 800 on the math and only 550 on the verbal."

"Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math."

The moment I read the first post I said to myself "That captures my points pretty well. But I can't use it because the much greater rarity of Verbal 800's, at least in my day, probably is enough of a factor to make the statement untrue. (It would be true if you said something like "top one percent" of scorers.) So I'll leave it alone. No one will notice."

But MMMMM did. So he is out of the doghouse after three years after being put there concerning his gambler's ruin post. He goes back above Mark Glover on the 2+2 rating scale. Next stop, El Diablo.

[/ QUOTE ]

damn, where am I? average unknown? where is this list and how do i get on top of it?

[housenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
a well-rounded intellect usually comes with small genitals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ACPlayer]

Reflecting on this last night (see I can be categorized as a nerd --- I could have been drinking on the beach instead) the thought occured that it is far easier for a math person to delve into liberal arts fields on his/her own than vice versa.

There are two reasons that I identified: first is that the math vocabulary is different. IN order to understand calculus, even at a very basic leven one cannot simple pick up a calculus text and start reading it. While to for example to get a superficial knowledge of philosophical thought one could read and at least understand the words and sentences immediately a book by any philosphers.

The second is that math learning may be more sequential. Again a philospher on hearing about the relationship of quantam mechanics and philosphy would be hard pressed to understand much unless he first went through many layers of learning more basic math principles. A person schooled in quantam mechanics can make the reverse leap a lot easier.

None of this is to deny the value of formal education in either. It is only in a formal education setting, IMO, that the ability to critically think and separate the important from the unimportant comes in. It is in the interaction with others who share similar interests and the formal critique of your work that brings understanding.

That aspect of "arts" education, for me at least, is something that in retrospect I could/should have had more of. Just as, DS correctly identified that the non-mathematician should have had some more formal math education.

[andyfox]

I'm afraid to ask where I am.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi David:

I think I'm a good example of what you're talking about. Anyone who has read my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics will agree that reading a little history didn't past me by. Also, when the history channel contacted us about the History of Poker show I told them that I probably knew more about poker in the 1800s than anyone else. While a fair amount of what I told them did make the show, there were a few other things, like how and why poker spread west after the Civil war that did not.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Victor]

hi mason,

how and why did poker spread west after the civil war?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm a good example of what you're talking about. Anyone who has read my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics will agree that reading a little history didn't past me by.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also made your book all the more interesting and enjoyable. I especially liked the two chapters, "The World's Greatest Semi-Bluff" and "The World's Greatest Gamblers".

A side comment, Lincoln suspected (or fully knew) the defects of General McCellan. Wasn't there a famous cable from Lincoln to General McCellan, something like - "If you are not going to use the Army may I borrow it for awhile?".

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid to ask where I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

My Friend, some quotes from Meditations by Marcus Aurelius seem appropriate:


"I often marvel how it is that though each man loves himself beyond all else, he should yet value his own opinion of himself less than that of others."

"Do not copy the opinions of the arrogant, or let them dictate your own, but look at things in their true light."

"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present."

-Zeno

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Victor:

After the Civil War the South was devastated economically. Southern Veterans who survived the war but who now went West seeking a better life brought the game with them. So it was still a Southern game.

best wishes,
Mason

[fnord_too]

Damn you!!!! Anogher friggin book on my to read list, just what I f'in need.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David:

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only who got a chuckle out of this?

[andyfox]

All of Mason's posts begin "Hi _________." And end with "Best Wishes, Mason."

[erby]

[quote
"Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math."

[/ QUOTE ]

The SATs are scored on a bell curve. While I had to answer every math question right to get an 800 on my test, my roommate got an 800 by missing 3 on his test. Another roommate of mine got a 780 by missing 1. Every test is different, and some may be harder than others. To counter this, they score on a curve. While it may be "harder" to get an 800 in verbal (because the average nuber of correct answers is higher), it certainly isn't "rarer".

ERBY /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[David Sklansky]

Unless they changed things, the curves are different. 780 is, or was, a higher percentile in verbal than math. Don't ask me why.

[erby]

oh really...that's so bizarre...you would think then people who are better at math would argue, so that their score meant more

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
All of Mason's posts begin "Hi _________." And end with "Best Wishes, Mason."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. I just found it odd for him to say it to someone he works with in real life.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
reading a little history didn't past me by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wow, I don't think I ever saw you make a pun. That's so bad it's good.

~D