SjmarfAstonishing
theFibonacciEffectAbout 50% of people are below average
tetraodonThe bright side is that only one person is the worst
Imagine communicating who ranked first anually on a national level lmao.
Scooter411They do! It’s all part of the Hollywood liberal elite plot to tear down our country. Seriously, watch the credits on any movie - they always name the “best boy.”
LMAO I intendet to write last but somehow typed the opposite. But your point is very concerning, indeed.
🏳️⚧️ 新星 [she/they]The problem is that “first” and “last” have no meaning unless the conditions are established — first in intelligence or first in stupidity?
Lem Jukes“think of the average person. Now reme.ber that half of everyone is dumber than them”
The median person*
Don’t be mean.
youtu.be/AKN1Q5SjbeI?si=fmN7IuH6qLG6WMVC tell it to Carlin
George Carlin - Stupid people
This cracks me up because it is often said with such confidence, but it is just wrong.
If you have 10 people, 8 have an intelligence score of 1, 1 has a score of 5 and 1 has a score of 10. The average is 2.3 which means that 80% of the people are below average.
The median is the only thing that is going to guarantee 50%.
On a bell curve the average and mean are the same. Your example isn’t a bell curve. Many things will be a bell curve.
People who don’t know that average can be mean, median or mode depending on the context crack me up more.
Average is the mean, not median or mode. This doesn’t change on context. Average is always mean.
SnipingNinjaAverage is always mean.
Just like the average person
No. It’s not.
a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
Depending on the context, the most representative statistic to be taken as the average might be another measure of central tendency, such as the mid-range, median, or mode.
Yes, that statement is made under the assumption of large sample sizes (where the central limit theorem applies)