That's what I meant. But it still won't happen.

His mom got fucked by a lot of guys, and also a dog

...oh

Fuck

Pretty sure that anon was talking about the books.

That's what I meant. But it still won't happen.

>judging the accuracy of a joke

he touched her bewbs and she liked it

How do averages work according to you then? :^)

There are 100 students. 80 of them get a 90% on a test. But 20 get 0%. The class average is 72%.

The vast majority of students are smart, and only a fifth of them fall under the average.

We're speaking average person here. It's relative to the object "person", 'persons' would be everyone. Your definition still states you're after the mean of the related object.

Thus, mean of "people"= average person = person with the IQ of 100. Someone with an IQ of 100 is due to the concept of IQ exactly the middlemode(the only thing you could use to repute is saying that the average person still has equals which are not "more stupid" - but we're talking average person here, the absolute most inbetween case we can find - so that would still be a weak argument)

You realize that IQ, the most common way to measure intellect, is DESIGNED to have a good 50/50 split? Trying to understand why you're taking median into play here(assuming you're expecting outliers or something(????))

Because the average, almost always, refers to the mean of the group, not the median. The mean does not necessarily fall on the median and varies wildly based on distribution. You can't just say there is 50% to both the left and right of the average, that's not how statistics work.

And yes, I do realize that's how IQs are designed. That's why I said that's how they're designed. Which is why they can't really be used to say 50% of people are dumber than the average. Empirically this may still be entirely untrue, you're referencing normalized data. And the reason I want to drop IQ is because I'm not arguing the exact topic of normalized human intelligence; I'm just defending that he was right in saying that's not how averages work.

In that case it's more of a semantic discussion. If you're referring to "average person" in context with "intellect", you have me assuming you're referring to IQ. Saying "average IQ" == the IQ of 100 like you apparently also said(I must admit I more often scan than read comments).

If you mean average person as in, a person with the Iq of exactly 100, the statement still applies.

No, no. Drop IQ. Stop thinking about intelligence. Especially not IQ. It's not even really relevant to the argument since, again, it's designed to be that way. I can make almost any data in the world fit into a bell curve if I normalize the data, it doesn't mean anything about the distribution of raw numbers.

Let me try to break this down:
> Original post says that 50% of some set is below the set's average.
> Someone (correctly) said that's not how averages work. No specific reference to human intelligence.
> You ask how.
> Average = mean. Mean != Median. Medians define middle points, means quantify something completely different. The average of a set is only indirectly related to the median. An average can have tens of trillions of members to one side and a single member on the other with a large enough delta between them.

The picture is, by definition of averages, wrong. As I proved with my basic classroom example. The average student scored 72%. However the mode shows the vast majority of students scored 90%. 80% of the sample scored 18% higher than the average score while only 20% scored lower.

I obviously understand the concept of what you're presenting me with lol. But if someone tells me "an averagely intelligent person" I'd be assuming they refer to someone with an IQ of 100. Then yet again, I didn't immediately jump to a statistically correct definition, so I could see where you 2 are coming from.

Misread, forgive me on the previous comment.

It's not all that difficult. I only took IQ in consideration for it's a good analogy to explain "average" as in intellect. Average would be an IQ of 100, I'm just making it more concrete.

I don't really see what you fail to understand. The group is "persons", as in, referring to "All people", all people's intellect(that's where IQ comes in play) divided by the initial group "all people" would be average. This number implies there's 50% below this mark and 50% above(obviously not exact if it's a non odd number, but it's really damn close). What is your point?