On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 08:09 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
That's a first design flaw : "eight parameters will be enough for all purposes".
that's not a design flaw, it's hubris --- "eight parameters should be enough for *anybody*" --- and hubris is a fundamental virtue. :-)
On your original scale, my NIPL is bigger than yours, but not by much, at
250 to 160. On this modified scale, my NIPL towers over yours by 125 to 33,
which is clearly a much more reasonable result. ;)
That's a second design flaw : the mandatory ordering of bits, and the temptation to score people according to their NIPL's weight.
rather than taking the weighted bit value, you could simply count the number of bits that are set. then you both would have two, if i recall correctly.
Aren't LIPSs better than NIPLs ?
i like both, personally. i especially like to put the two together, for the combination seems more ... than the sum of the parts... or... something like that... mmmmmm NIPLs....
