Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> >Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> >
> >>>>work can thrive and yell for a living wage.
> >>
> >>50% of people are *below average*.
> >
> >
> >*NO*.
>
> *WRONG*. Given the population of the United States (which is what we
> are discussing, but even a population as large as GM employees will be
> sufficient), the distribution of talent has enough discrete individuals
> that it will approximate a normal curve and the mean and the median will
^^^^^^^^^^^
> be indistinguishable.
You are simply confusing terms. That's all. It is very common. Average
does not always equal median.
>
> >50% of the people are below _median_. A few really really low or high
> >people can skew the results to where average != median.
>
> Your comment that the mean does not have to be the same as the median is
> technically accurate, but inapplicable and incorrect given the
> statistical populations being discussed.
>
> If you wish to argue that the distribution of talent for a task in the
> United States does not approximate a normal distribution, I am going to
> ask for your evidence.
What talent are we measuring? Saying that Median = Average, but not
specifying what we are measuring is too nebulous to actually discuss,
except in pure form. In pure form, Average != Median.
So let's take a look at something that is quantifiable: SAT scores.
http://www.stark.kent.edu/writing/review%2098-99/bodollo.htm
Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum Range Standard Standard Sample
Error Deviation Variance
529 523 493 476 588 112 4.50 32.11 1030.88
Please note that Mean is Average. Please also note that Mean != Median.
I submit I have sufficiently proved my point, QED.
-john
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
