Juggling Population
Mangatang
3-ball cascade)
What percentage of those 3-ball jugglers do you think can juggle 5-ball
cascade?
What percentage of those 5-ball jugglers do you think can juggle 7-ball
cascade?
My initial guess was 10%, 1%, 10%. But that would result in 600,000
people in the world (6 billion) who can juggle 7 balls. That's
ridiculously high.
So what do you think are more reasonable percentages?
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
Tom Derrick
> What percentage of the population do you think can juggle? (short run of
> 3-ball cascade)
>
India the
percentage would be a lot lower. Worldwide, I'm guessing around 0.1%.
> What percentage of those 3-ball jugglers do you think can juggle 5-ball
> cascade?
>
5 ball jugglers are quite rare, even among 3 ball jugglers. I'd say around
0.5%
> What percentage of those 5-ball jugglers do you think can juggle 7-ball
> cascade?
>
Much more common, but as it takes quite a bit of work to do, I'd put it
around 5%. Think
of the endurance competitions at conventions for 5 and 7 balls.
> My initial guess was 10%, 1%, 10%. But that would result in 600,000
> people in the world (6 billion) who can juggle 7 balls. That's
> ridiculously high.
>
My calculations give 2400 7 ball jugglers in the world. I think this is
fairly reasonable.
Anyone else agree?
Tom Derrick
Aidan
I reckon there might be 10s of thousands of 7 ball jugglers. maybe as many
as 50000. But that view may be biased by meeting so many at juggling
conventions. I guess those people are a self selected category, so the
proportions there seem quie high.
Personally I have a couple of 6 ball qualifies to my name, and that's the
height of my numbers juggling. But I've never put any serious effort into
it.
Aidan.
Tim923
>cascade?
Does this exclude people that can often get short qualifying runs of
10-30 catches, but not consistently? If so, multiply by at least
another 1/10.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze8adrh/news.html (profile) --Tim923 My email is valid.
Eric Bagai
> What percentage of the population do you think can juggle? (short run of
To this, and to the following questions about 5 and 7-ball juggling, 97%.
The ones that don't, could, but refuse to put in the time needed, so that
questions like this are forever being asked. What we need is a nice,
nerdish compilation of the ways this has been asked and answered, to be
edited and lovingly placed into the FAQ.
Best to start at the other end: How many are absolutely incapable? We will
never know for sure, but that group is probably three SD out from the norm,
so maybe 3%.
=Eric
Mangatang
I think Eric is using some form of English here, but I'm not positive.
JAG
article <41633466$0$94914$bed6...@news.gradwell.net> dated 05 Oct 2004
23:55:19 GMT
Funny, but it made perfect sense to me. SD = Standard Deviation, a
statistics term. FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions. Aside from those
abbreviations, it looks like perfectly sound English to me. (and a
sensible answer to a silly question)
...JAG
JAG
15:56:24 GMT
Before I answer your question, you'll need to clarify it.
Do you mean:
1. "What percentage of the population do you think can learn to juggle a
3-ball cascade?"
or
2. "What percentage of the population do you think can demonstrate a 3-ball
cascade when given the balls and asked to?"
or something else?
Subtle differences, perhaps, but I think they will make a big difference in
the results.
Eric was answering 1. Bill Giduz attempts to answer 2 on a yearly basis
with his Davidson Freshman Survey.
Try framing the question this way:
"What percentage of the population can play the violin?"
I think you'll find similar results. Just because they can doesn't mean
they will. (thank god!)
...JAG
Mangatang
the cake.
Of course I was asking what percentage of people can juggle now (if asked
to demonstrate it). Why would I care how many people can learn to do it?
Yes, I know what standard deviation is and frequently asked questions.
But, I don't think Eric knows what SD is because he somehow equates 3
sigma to 3%.
Why do you guys think this was such a horrible question? I was truly
interested in what people thought the answer was, so I posted it on here,
and I received a few legitimate answers. That's all I wanted.
If you didn't like my post, why do you keep bumping it back up to the top
with your replies. Why not just ignore it?
Barton Chittenden
> And I thought the people on poker forums were bitchy, but you guys take
> the cake.
And eat it, too.
> Why do you guys think this was such a horrible question? I was truly
> interested in what people thought the answer was, so I posted it on here,
> and I received a few legitimate answers. That's all I wanted.
It's not a *horrible* question, but it rolls around every year or two,
and there's no good answer for it. No one has done a scientific survey,
which is what it would take to answer this with anything more than a
WAG. More to the point, no one is *ever* going to do a scientific
survey; it's just not worth the trouble.
I stopped reading rec.juggling in 2000, and the question was tired then.
> If you didn't like my post, why do you keep bumping it back up to the top
> with your replies. Why not just ignore it?
Meh.
You asked a FAQ (it's not on either of the official FAQ lists, but
there's enough evidence on Google groups).
Don't ask "What is Juggling" either.
--Barton
Norbi
enough before. Theres also some rough estimates in Ben Beever's
books (have a look in articles)
2) 6billion is the population of the world, so u kind messed that up.
600,000 is... six hundred-thousand, nothing more. its not even a Million.
norbi
http://www.norbithejuggler.co.uk
GSpot2K
what is juggling? (sorry couln't help myself (only Joking BTW))
Adria M Moskowitz
> > And I thought the people on poker forums were bitchy, but you guys take
> > the cake.
>
> And eat it, too.
Cake? Did someone say something about cake? May I please have a piece.
JAG
11:45:18 GMT
>And I thought the people on poker forums were bitchy, but you guys take
>the cake.
Bitchy? Us guys? Hahahahahahahahaha! :)
>Of course I was asking what percentage of people can juggle now (if asked
>to demonstrate it).
Re-read your initial post. It's not obvious.
>Why would I care how many people can learn to do it?
The same reason you might care how many people can do it right now.
Curiosity kills more than cats.
>Yes, I know what standard deviation is and frequently asked questions.
>But, I don't think Eric knows what SD is because he somehow equates 3
>sigma to 3%.
So you meant to say that you disagree with Eric's statistics, but instead
you indicated that he was speaking another language. I see.
>Why do you guys think this was such a horrible question? I was truly
>interested in what people thought the answer was, so I posted it on here,
>and I received a few legitimate answers. That's all I wanted.
>
>If you didn't like my post, why do you keep bumping it back up to the top
>with your replies. Why not just ignore it?
Now who's bitchy?
...JAG
.sig points out that "bumping it back up" is entirely dependent on your
particular newsreader.
Mangatang
> 2) 6billion is the population of the world, so u kind messed that up.
> 600,000 is... six hundred-thousand, nothing more. its not even a Million.
Reread my post. I said 6 billion is the earth's population, and 600,000
was the amount of 7-ball jugglers (which is, of course, way too high).
I still think that it's interesting to see what percentage of 5-ball
jugglers can juggle 7, compared to the percentage of 3-ball jugglers who
can juggle 5.
I've been reading rec.juggling for a couple of years now, and I've never
seen this question posted before, so pardon me. Sorry. It won't happen
again (or maybe it will, I don't like to search when I can just ask).
Norbi
which due to lack of punctuation, i read as
"But that would result in 600,000 people in the world (6 billion) being
able
to juggle 7"
if you had sed something like
"But that would result in 600,000 (out of 6 billion people in the world )
being able to juggle 7"
it would make more sense. but
"600,000 people in the world (6 billion)" makes it sound like you are
decribing 600,000 as 6billion.
norbi
http://www.norbithejuggler.co.uk
Mangatang
> if you had sed something like
>
> "But that would result in 600,000 (out of 6 billion people in the world )
> being able to juggle 7"
Yeah, after I posted it I realized that I forgot the "out of". The
perenthesis were to indicate what I estimated the world's population at.
If you would have done the math I described (10% of 1% of 10% of 6
billion) you would see the final number of 600,000 as I described.
Alan Mackenzie
I would guess that's about right. But it's a _very_ difficult figure to
measure. Those who _can't_ juggle tend to get discouraged quickly and
give up. Those who _can_ juggle, but for one reason or another can't
really be bothered, tend to get discouraged quickly and give up. It's
difficult to distinguish between the two groups.
But there are those who genuinely can't. I remember at the club where I
was ~15 years ago, there was a young lady, perfectly normal, good sense
of humour, and dogged persistence, who turned up week after week after
week. After several months she still couldn't quite juggle the 3 ball
cascade. It was heart rending.
> =Eric
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aa...@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
slick
I'll start.
I can juggle 3.
I can juggle 5.
I can juggle 7.
So far we have 100%!
Tom Derrick
We still have 100%!
Eric Bagai
> >> What percentage of the population do you think can juggle? (short run
of
> >> 3-ball cascade), . . .
> Eric wrote:
> > . . . 97%. . . . so maybe 3% (can't).
"Alan Mackenzie" wrote:>
> I would guess that's about right. But it's a _very_ difficult figure to
> measure. . . I remember at the club where I was ~15 years ago,
> there was a young lady, perfectly normal, good sense of humour,
> and dogged persistence, who turned up week after week after
> week. After several months she still couldn't quite juggle the 3 ball
> cascade.
I was one of those, once. Took me six months to get really comfortable with
a simple cascade. "Rushing" a skill, and leapfrogging to reverse and shower
patterns pulled my cascade up to par, but it still took six months. Still
not very good, but only because toss juggling is no longer an interest.
In any given population there is usually 1-3% who are different enough (by
some arbitrary measure) to reasonably be seen as a different population.
The "why" of that difference can be extremely variable, but that's where my
guess of 3% who simply can't juggle comes from.
[detailed personal digression which may be skipped without penalty]
It's all how you define things. When the field of learning disabilities was
young and there were literally hundreds of semi-unique definitions, it was
very difficult to figure out what percent of the school population would
need services, and therefore how much funding was needed. The differences
amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars nationally -- about four million
in the district I supervised. The numbers of most handicapping conditions
were pretty well established, but LD (now ADD, etc) incidence varied widely
according to the definition a State or school district used. It took a
federal law to establish a single definition, which established the
proportion of kids who would need services, which told us how much we'd need
in appropriations, which told us how much to levy in local and state taxes.
Differential diagnosis is now good enough and definitions stringent enough
to shrink the 6-10% that regular ed teachers would like to have removed from
their classrooms, to the 1-3% that really are "learning disabled" rather
than "something else." And the definitions are still hotly debated.
[end of unnecessary digression]
Juggling is like that, but without the bureaucracy, politics, money, and
ego: it's easier to define the extreme end of the spectrum of ability than
it is to define the norm. And you can always define juggling as something
less than "more balls than hands," just to make people feel better and to
define fewer people into failure.
I'd say that by far "most" people can juggle if they want to or are required
to learn. Those who absolutely can't (and I've taught blind, deaf,
one-armed, handless, wheelers, and people with cerebral palsy) are a very
small proportion . . . say, umm, 3%. Which is where I started.
=Eric
"They're not like us, son. Let's kill 'em."
-- Bubba
Jani Kyllönen
> slick wrote:
>>Why not hold a poll to find the juggling population world wide? Here,
>>I'll start.
>>
>>I can juggle 3.
>>I can juggle 5.
>>I can juggle 7.
>>
>>So far we have 100%!
> I can juggle 3.
> I can juggle 5.
> I can juggle 7.
>
> We still have 100%!
I can juggle 3.
I can juggle 5.
I can not juggle 7.
Crap, I blew the magnificent theory that 100% of the world's population
can juggle 7. Now we need a nine ball juggler to even the statistics.
jani
JAG
">" in article <ckc5hf$gpm$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi> dated Sun, 10 Oct 2004
23:19:54 +0300
Shut up, you!
I can juggle 3
I can juggle 5
I can juggle 7
Oh, look! A list of nine ball jugglers...
...JAG
J The Juggling Records Database
R http://www.bogleg.com/records/index.php
D
b Post and compare your records online!
Tim923
>I can juggle 5.
>I can juggle 7.
My answer is dependent on how one defines: "I can juggle N."
Either 1/3 or 2/3.
-