Striker@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 year agoBillionaire grindsetlemmy.worldimagemessage-square51fedilinkarrow-up1396arrow-down172
arrow-up1324arrow-down1imageBillionaire grindsetlemmy.worldStriker@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square51fedilink
minus-squaremaeries@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up37arrow-down6·1 year agoAverage doesn’t mean that 50% are above it. That’s what the median is for
minus-squareVigge93@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up62·1 year agoBut in this case it does, or at least it should, since the IQ scale is based on a normal distribution which is symmetric along the mean.
minus-squareArtVandelay@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23·1 year agoHappy data scientist noises
minus-squaredadarobot@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoBut wouldn’t a certain amount have the same ig right at the median, meaning less than half would actually be above (and also below)?
minus-squareVigge93@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoIt depends on if we assume a discrete or continuous distribution.
minus-squarehglman@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 year agoLook at you with your above-median IQ.
Average doesn’t mean that 50% are above it. That’s what the median is for
But in this case it does, or at least it should, since the IQ scale is based on a normal distribution which is symmetric along the mean.
Happy data scientist noises
Dang, you are right
But wouldn’t a certain amount have the same ig right at the median, meaning less than half would actually be above (and also below)?
It depends on if we assume a discrete or continuous distribution.
deleted by creator
Look at you with your above-median IQ.