Mystery Economic Theatre 2013

[jasong]

I think the smartest thing to do is realize that the world doesn't make sense, and won't suddenly make sense simply because we're mad at it.

Remember, half the people you meet in life are below average. But signficantly more than half believe they're above average.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by jasong

I think the smartest thing to do is realize that the world doesn't make sense, and won't suddenly make sense simply because we're mad at it.

Remember, half the people you meet in life are below average. But signficantly more than half believe they're above average.

It's not clear to me that either of those claims are true.

As an extreme example, almost everyone has more than the average number of limbs.

As for the question as to whom you meet, I suspect that a typical teacher for the educationally sub-normal meets far more people of below-average intellectual abilities than does the typical university professor.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by xilman

It's not clear to me that either of those claims are true.

As an extreme example, almost everyone has more than the average number of limbs.

As for the question as to whom you meet, I suspect that a typical teacher for the educationally sub-normal meets far more people of below-average intellectual abilities than does the typical university professor.

I can honestly say that I no longer know when to think of a post as being anal-retentive about details or to assume the person desperately wants to annoy me.

My apologies if you're simply anal-retentive about details. The second sentence was meant flippantly, even though it's mostly true.

[philmoore]

Originally Posted by jasong

I can honestly say that I no longer know when to think of a post as being anal-retentive about details or to assume the person desperately wants to annoy me.

My apologies if you're simply anal-retentive about details. The second sentence was meant flippantly, even though it's mostly true.

I don't think that Paul's point was "anal-retentive about details". He was simply pointing out that several of your claims are obviously not true. Statistics is potentially the most powerful branch of mathematics, primarily because it can make predictions about the future. When you make claims about averages that can't be supported, you are relying on your intuition, rather than mathematics, and you should certainly be prepared for the possibility, as any good scientist, that your intuition may possibly be wrong. Do you have any actual evidence that "significantly more than half believe they're above average"? In statistics, significance relates to the sample size. You may be right, but a little knowledge of statistics plus some actual data is what you would need to back up such a claim. The problem is defining "average". As a community college math instructor, I would not be surprised to find that 52% of people in the general population think that they are "above average" in their ability to do arithmetic with fractions, as we often find incoming students with an inflated conception of their capability to do basic math. But even though only 50% can be above average, even if 52% think they are above average, is this "statistically significant" in a large enough sample? I hope you see my point.

If you are interested in furthering your knowledge of mathematics, I would encourage you to study statistics, because of its many useful applications. The beauty is that you will soon discover many real-world applications for your new-found knowledge, and if you are able to apply this knowledge, it will certainly make you a more contributing member of society.

Good luck!

Phil

[only_human]

Originally Posted by jasong

Remember, half the people you meet in life are below average. But signficantly more than half believe they're above average.

Averaging. heh. A food server once ratcheted her thumb in some way and flipped a quarter off her wrist. Will Rogers: I've never met a man I didn't like.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by jasong

I can honestly say that I no longer know when to think of a post as being anal-retentive about details or to assume the person desperately wants to annoy me.

My apologies if you're simply anal-retentive about details. The second sentence was meant flippantly, even though it's mostly true.

Amongst other things, I'm trying to teach you how to argue your case more effectively because, frankly, you often don't do a very good job of it.

First off, you should read what you've written and think: do I really mean that, is what I wrote really true? If not, how should I rephrase it to remove inaccuracies and unintentional ambiguities?

Secondly, you should try to learn the correct vocabulary to use in particular circumstances. In particular, if you mean "median" (the case in point) you should say so and not "average". The same goes for "mode".

Thirdly, if you inadvertently make an error, and we all do, you should accept the correction graciously, admit the error and make corrections and/or clarifications as needed.

[philmoore]

Originally Posted by xilman

Secondly, you should try to learn the correct vocabulary to use in particular circumstances. In particular, if you mean "median" (the case in point) you should say so and not "average".

I obviously made the same mistake as Jason above, talking of 50% being "above average" instead of "above the median". I should take my own advice and do statistics more often!

[xilman]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I obviously made the same mistake as Jason above, talking of 50% being "above average" instead of "above the median". I should take my own advice and do statistics more often!

Thank you. A perfect object lesson in how to follow my third point. Jason take note.

[Batalov]

I have now taken a Coursera class (more than half done now) to re-learn all terminology in English: Mathematical Biostatistics Boot Camp. It was very helpful. I felt like I was back to school. Hearing a live person using an active subject-specific terminology over and over again was very refreshing.

Also, of course it helped me to refresh the Bayesian way of thinking (because NN years ago, the classes that I had were in a frequentist vein and in Russian). Now when I hear e.g. "marginal probability" I am no longer confused into thinking that this refers to a very small value; it is an integral of a multivariate density over one of the variables. (Surely, median, average, variance etc are not hard, but there are many technical terms that are in interpreters' lingo are called "interepreter's false friends".) Lastly, a "posterior" usually doesn't refer to somebody's lower back. ;-)

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by xilman

Secondly, you should try to learn the correct vocabulary to use in particular circumstances. In particular, if you mean "median" (the case in point) you should say so and not "average". The same goes for "mode".

In everyday usage here, it is very common to use "average" ambiguously. If I were to use the word "median", I suspect I would get some very puzzled looks. I'm curious, in the U.K. is "median" used in typical conversation?

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Prime95

In everyday usage here, it is very common to use "average" ambiguously. If I were to use the word "median", I suspect I would get some very puzzled looks. I'm curious, in the U.K. is "median" used in typical conversation?

Hoping that Paul doesn't mind me, as an ex-Brit, answering this one:

Just as in the USA, "average" is ambiguously used in the UK. The expressions "median" and "mode/modal average" would be rarely understood at all outside specialist circles, and even "mean" would sometimes be met with incomprehension. I suspect there's no difference between the different sides of the Atlantic.

Obviously the distinction was important in the discussion above, though. And the confusion is a good illustration of why statistics, even though widely used in the psyche of the general population, are so poorly understood. The vocabulary is frequently inadequate to express the ideas properly.