Not quite. An average is not a half/half split. For instance you could get 10 geniuses pulling the average intelligence of a group of 100 up and vice versa.
Unless you included bias in the sampling method in which the geniuses would be overrepresented for the populatin, then there shouldn't be any skew towards smarter or dumber ends
He was using mean, but the central limit theorem applies to the human population, thus mean and median actually have the same value. Most people here just don't know that, it's not like we can expect them to just know that stuff.
False average can be mean, median or mode. This post would refer to the median in which he would be correct whereas you have incorrectly assumed it meant mean.
Think about this instead: a smug asshole goes on and on about how stupid people are, yet he doesn't get the difference between average and median, which is high school math (tops).
With a sample size of over 7 billion it's fair to say that there would be a pretty much perfect normal distribution curve, and therefore the median and average would be exactly the same.
Don't call others stupid on the grounds that you don't think they know enough about something you yourself are ignorant of.
That's an interesting point, thanks for bringing that out. AFAIK, there's no direct relationship between distribution and sample size, it's just that in practice, most datasets tend to behave this way (please correct me, I'm not a statistician). Since we (luckily) don't know much about "stupidity" of the world's population (statistically), we can't safely assume that it will follow the standard distribution.
I shouldn't have got technical. I wanted to point out that this man is making a baseless peremptory generalization and presenting it in a rather lofty manner. I guess it!s not about technical details, I simply dislike the way he twists mathematical (seemingly exact and indisputable) terms to make his mere impression/opinion sound objective and clever, while committing a common mathematical fallacy.
Well, I admit calling him an asshole was a bit too rash; I hope this will make it clearer. I would still argue his handling of "average" is wrong. You also made me realize that *he* didn't take this quote out of context and put it on this silly background; maybe I should scorn the OP instead...
That's implying that "average" is skewed in one direction or another. In other words, that's assuming that the average is actually closer to the smart end or the dumb end. When there are equal amounts on both sides, the average and the median are the SAME. The distribution of characteristics like knowledge for humans is not uniform.
I'm an amateur on statistics, but from what I know, since the population size of all humans is at least 30, the central limit theorem states that the variable can be approximated by a normal curve, in which data is symmetrical about the mean/average (and this data shouldn't be skewed [centered around one end of the scale], the majority of humans, about 68%, are one standard deviation [a measure of variability] away from the mean, and logically it makes sense that the remaining humans follow the same symmetrical trend be being even smarter or dumber). Humans aren't just "dumb", "average", and "smart", there are varying degrees of dumb and smart, but the average is a unique point at the center of the distribution. THUS, isn't human knowledge technically a half half split strictly on whether individuals are smarter or dumber than the average, even when considering varying degrees of either category?
We could sit here and debate day after day after day about the difference between a median and a mean average, but lets be honest, it was a joke and as far as universal human intelligence goes I'd say that 65 to 70% of all humans are like sheep, willing to walk off a cliff because the guy in front of them did it. That is a metaphorical cliff for those of you who don't know...
Please. The majority of humans are average with the remaining individuals at about equal numbers towards both extremes. If you associate yourself with anything above that average, than to you, the majority of humans that don't meet at up at your level, only seem less intelligent. Don't bring your ego into statistics.
So I made an insignificant, simple mistake in grammar and you suddenly assume my intelligence and credibility are inferior to yours? I suppose intelligence does speak for itself, or at the very least your ability to make a sufficient argument...
If the distribution is normal, then the average and median are the center. If the distribution is skewed, in which data appears more at one end, then the median is the center, because the average would be somehwat dragged in the direction where the least occurring data appears (even if it is closer to teh most occuring data)... technically speaking, the population of humans is normal, so average and median are pretty much the same
1
#18 to #7

swiftykidd**User deleted account** has deleted their comment []