opaqueice;143837 Wrote: > > I think that study was rather flawed - the results can be explained > simply by the fact that if you're on the low end of a distribution > you're liable to overestimate yourself (since it's hard to > underestimate yourself), the opposite for the high end, plus the > observation that people usually think they're better than average > (apparently Cornell undergrads think, on average, that they are in the > 66th percentile when the correct average is 50th, by definition). > Those two facts explain essentially everything they found. >
Average is not the 50th percentile, and it is entirely possible for most members of a group to be above average. For example, a group of 5 numbers: 0, 7, 7, 8, and 9. The average is 6.2, yet 4 out of 5 values are greater than the average. As you can see a low score has a big impact on the group average. The study pointed out that the low scoring people overestimated their own abilities relative to their peers, then when shown the actual scores, continued to overestimate themselves even though all the scores were presented to them. TD -- tyler_durden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tyler_durden's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28080 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
