41 ms·

Human dimensions are closer to a normal distribution. (Not quite normal, but let's pretend.) In that distribution then 46% of subjects should be in the middle 3

Human dimensions are closer to a normal distribution. (Not quite normal, but let's pretend.) In that distribution then 46% of subjects should be in the middle 30% of 3 dimensions. [0] [0] With 4000 subjects they presumably have all sizes within ~3.5 stddevs represented. The middle ~1.2 stddevs should hold ~77% of the population. 0.77^3 = ~46%

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Human dimensions are closer to a normal distribution Human height is (it's the textbook example of a real, intuitive_that is, using the normal linear scale—physical measure that is a good fit for a normal distribution) plenty of other human dimensions are not.
- smabie 6y ago
  Human height should be a negative binomial distribution, since human height can't be negative.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Human height should be a negative binomial distribution, since human height can't be negative. That's a sensible analytical speculation, but it empirically fits very well with a normal distribution. The fact that zero is, for adult male height (the typical cited example for fitting a nor Al distribution, though adult female height also works), around 17 standard deviations below the mean helps: I won't bother to calculate how little should be below that, since below 7σ in a normal distribution is 1/780 billion.