08 Jun 08
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyI don't believe that. I would expect that for about 50% it can't be true because they have an odd number of people they know, and for the rest it would be very unlikely. Of course there's also the question what "being (above/below) average" actually means.
True, but it is normally.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by NordlysAt first blush, our inclination is to associate 'average' with intellect or IQ. Context of 'average' really could refer anything'... height, weight,
I don't believe that. I would expect that for about 50% it can't be true because they have an odd number of people they know, and for the rest it would be very unlikely. Of course there's also the question what "being (above/below) average" actually means.
annual income, chess play, health, spelling aptitude, etc. Would you entertain the 50% generalization with this clarification now in view?
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCuriously, almost all people have more than the average number of legs, fingers, eyes, .....
At first blush, our inclination is to associate 'average' with intellect or IQ. Context of 'average' really could refer anything'... height, weight,
annual income, chess play, health, spelling aptitude, etc. Would you entertain the 50% generalization with this clarification now in view?
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo. My arguments against it still hold. For some of the averages you mentioned, it would be more likely to be close to 50% than for others, but it's still highly unlikely that it would be exactly 50% in most cases.
At first blush, our inclination is to associate 'average' with intellect or IQ. Context of 'average' really could refer anything'... height, weight,
annual income, chess play, health, spelling aptitude, etc. Would you entertain the 50% generalization with this clarification now in view?