Good players vs bad players: not normal distribution

Tobold reiterated the most harmful socialist doctrine: "most people are average". The doctrine says that the results of a large bunch of people give a Normal distribution, where most people are near the average.

Normal distribution describes the outcome of multiple random choices. If you add N coinflips, the most common result will be N/2, while extremes will be rare. Accepting normal distribution is accepting that the results of people are products of luck, the very opposite of meritocracy. If their results are luck-driven, then bad performers are just unlucky.

This is not true in real life:

It's time to unquestionably prove that every gamer already know implicitly: there are "good" and there are "bad" players and these are distinct groups with little in-between. For that I need data of random or complete sample of player performance results. Performance of selected group members obviously does not work, so I can't use raiding guild parses. I try to put my hands on a complete EVE-kill database, but until then, let's go with WoW LFR data. Let me show a sample, made yesterday by my girlfirend: The marked people are the tanks and my girlfriend. They will be excluded, tanks because they are under different mechanics and the screenshot maker for not being random (you are always on your screenshots). In this example data, the average damage is 23096339 with standard distribution of 9603079. Below you can see these players classified into seven groups depending on their distance from average:This data shows what it should: two distinct groups, one for players who read up, gem, enchant and one for those who just "hang out and have fun".

Please send your screenshots (with marked tanks, yourself, groupmembers) from LFR fights where players are all in the same place (no Sha of Fear and such) to gevlon dot freemail dot hu.