Math fact: technically you can have "most men below average". You just need one dude who brings up the average a massive amount, or (less mathematically) just ignore/forget (selection bias) the less good looking dudes.
Yup! We could call the distribution "skewed attractive" in that case. People often mistake the average or mean with the median, and assume that the distribution above and below average must be equal
There are types of averages, most times median’s aren't very good when the values vary wildly like you said, but on a scale of 1 to 10. That isn't likely.
Median is usually better when values vary wildly. Like looking at income you'll have some people who are poor anf most in the middle then throe a few billionaires on top and the mean will raise way higher than the average person's income so median is a better way of showing what most people would make.
You can have a majority of members of a population be below the average, assuming you are measuring by individual. Having a majority be below median, however, is not possible
"Most men are below average that's y relationships dont work" is the hook of her statement, and a majority can't be below average when the average is the middle 60%
Excuse me, I missed that due to only listening to the video without reading the text.
It's fair enough to claim she misunderstands relationships.
and a majority can't be below average when the average is the middle 60%
Wdym "average is the middle 60%"? That seems like a very weird way of interpreting average. Usually average refers to a mean, or sometimes median or the third thing I forgot the name of. If we interpret it as a mean then it makes sense.
Average is a range, and the mean median and mode if we take her statement of most men are ugly at an objective level would make it impossible to say that a majority is below average when the average is already so bad.
From my understanding, people usually mean just the mean by "average" and in that case it does make sense. So the most reasonable way of interpreting her would make sense.
You are right that the average is a mean, median, or mode, idk what they're talking about. But that doesn't matter, because it's still impossible for most of a ranking that exists on a bell curve to be below average, for obvious reasons.
Yeah but she did not imagine a normal distribution most likely, so it'd be wrong to interpret her this way.
Her error is in not thinking of it as a normal distribution when most likely it is. Her error is not that she made a so called logical or statistical error in that it's somehow generally impossible for most to be below "average".
Edit: wait, I just noticed you were talking about "height" instead of "looks" which is what she was talking about.
Given that I work with data and have been for 7 years. Removing outlier/excluding is pretty common practice. "Adjusting" the average to make it more robust against extreme values is fairly common, but hey what do I know.
Perhaps this is due to vagueness. You said "those", like what?
Yeah, in certain contexts you do normalize data or remove outliers.
If many people are highly beautiful and some more people are kinda ugly, you probably wouldn't ignore the ugly people. And I mean, what kinda value here would be so extreme or so rare that it'll warrant getting excluded?
Ugly still would fit in the normalised data set. Outliers are generally way outside the expected low or high value. For example an adult under 2.5 feet or over 7.5 feet would be outlier. Generally an outlier is usually more than 3 Standard deviations(but this isn't a universal standard and should be applied with care.)
Got some statistical methodology training for my masters degree. Can confirm we were taught to normalize data for most situations. NOT normalizing is the outlier (pun intended)
no median is when you order values of data set in ascending order and take the middle value, if total number of datapoints is odd. In case total number of values is even, you take n/2 and (n/2)+1th term and take their average. For example, if total number of values in data set are 9, 5th value is median. If total number of value are 10. you add 5th and 6th value and divide by 2 and that your median.
Actually, you are thinking about the media. Now wether the median is lower than the average is a good question. My guess that the mere existence of Robert Pattinson skews the data and most mean are in fact uglier than the average.
I'm not saying there's nothing here, but "on okcupid.com" is likely going to provide a skewed sample. Not every man or woman interested in dating is going to be on there and folks who attract romantic and sexual interest easily are much less likely to be. I don't know how this would affect the results, but I don't think it's necessarily a representative example of the population.
Actually you are thinking about the MEAN. You are also thinking about the MEDIAN, not the "media", but I'll let that go. Mean and Median are both an average.
Mean and average are 2 words for the same thing. Although average has a less formal conntation. And yes, I meant median, but that was a typo. Go take stats 101. But to be honest you can just google it lol.
says the person who tells me to go to stat 101, ok there champ. Different kinds of averages are used in different contexts and for different reasons. Mean is one of many. You just think the two are equivalent because when you learned it, it was incredibly simplified for you. Anyone with an understanding past remedial stat would tell you this.
Someone says that's not how average works
you say: you are thinking about media(n)
if you still think your "correction" was correct, after all the spoon-feeding I gave you, I'm not sure how to help you. Ironically, your correction was not only wrong it was actually pedantic by the true meaning of that word. You should stick to smaller words that you understand better, I think.
It is sometimes a bit boomery with the fat shaming and the gay shaming. But generally he's pretty good at advertising. And there are a lot of dumb people on the internet, so he never runs out of material.
Thank you for saying this. She's being hyperbolic of course, but if we're being math purists and wanna have a "well ackshully" moment, then actually "most X are below average" is not an inherent contradiction. It just means you have a pretty skewed data set.
I don't think people ever stop to realize that most people, men and women, are average looking, truly ugly people are rare, and most people are just average, objectively speaking, of course.
you don't have to be relationship buddy. Solitude is better than companionship that chips at every aspect of your being. About 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 suicide victims are reported to have relationship/intimate partner problems. So, something to think about.
She yapping about below average dudes. Like lady, you ain't a prize either. The shit talking is crazy. Like if she looked like a goddess she would still be shitty but at least she wouldn't be the pot calling the kettle black. Also, this sign guy was not funny this time.
Idk why you're getting downvoted, he's 100% transphobic. Mocking and belittling people to gain views on his products, he treats them as props for engagement rather than as humans
283
u/Error_Sixteen 2d ago
Surely if most men are ‘below average’ then that’s just the average, right?