5 ms·

Issue I have with averages is they never say how worked out as often they will use a method that suits the outcome they wish. You get different results from mo

by Zenst 4y ago

Issue I have with averages is they never say how worked out as often they will use a method that suits the outcome they wish. You get different results from mode, medium and mean averages and can cherry pick wich one fits the narrative and use that with the label `average` and it's just accepted by the majority. Personaly ALL averages should list all three averages for context and clarity as they do offer a greater insight.

stepanhruda 4y ago
Is this actually very common? “average” is the common word for “mean”, I haven’t seen anyone to present median or mode as an average.
- Zenst 4y ago
  That's the problem as mean can be skewed and sure it is often the go to use for averages but can slant the data. example: data 1, 2, 2, 2, 10 Mean: 3.4 Median: 2 Mode: 2 Nice online tool to easily work these out https://www.calculator.net/mean-median-mode-range-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/mean-median-mode-range-calculator...
  - kqr 4y ago
    Depending on the purpose of finding a central tendency of those numbers, I would argue the mean is correct and the others are skewed...
    - Zenst 4y ago
      I was always bemused that the average family size was 2.4 children as no family fits that average ever. With mode and medium that would not happen. Of note I have no idea what the average family size is children wise, just going on longstanding data from UK that in itself may be out of date, though does highlight the point. [EDIT fixed typo]
      - kqr 4y ago
        Yet if we set up a game with a penalty proportional to the distance between your guess and the true number of children for a family, and you guess the median or mode, you'll be right more often than I (because I will never be right), but you will also continually be losing money to my guess of the mean. What matters in real life is generally not how often you are correct, but rather by how much you are wrong. What you need to minimise is not your error rate, but the consequences when you are wrong. You are free to make an infinite amount of mistakes, as long as you are sure to make them in such a way that they are comparatively insignificant.
        Zenst 4y ago
        > Yet if we set up a game with a penalty proportional to the distance between your guess and the true number of children for a family, and you guess the median or mode, you'll be right more often than I (because I will never be right), but you will also continually be losing money to my guess of the mean. Not sure were you went there, but the point is that you can overdetail in a way that abstracts from reality.
  - stepanhruda 4y ago
    Yes, it can be a problem and I agree more context like median or a full histogram should be more common, but I have never seen anyone claim that the average was 2 in your example.
    - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
      While the average value was 3.4, I don't think it would be unfair to suggest the average person would have scored a 2 (or whatever the relevant scenario is).
- kqr 4y ago
  It depends on your definition of "very common" of course, but I have come across people using "average" to mean both "typical" and "most common" and "middle of the range" and "my preference" and a whole slew of other things.
brnt 4y ago
Mean, mode, median; they're all summaries. People even in science-adjacent fields are still often used to communicating a summary without showing the dsitribution. If possible, I always ask for both mean and median; it's an indication how off-normal the distribution is. The mean only has meaning for normal distribution, so it's my least favorite summary, because it assumes the most. Imho the normal dist is assumed way too often.

by Zenst 4y ago

stepanhruda 4y ago

Is this actually very common? “average” is the common word for “mean”, I haven’t seen anyone to present median or mode as an average.

Zenst 4y ago
That's the problem as mean can be skewed and sure it is often the go to use for averages but can slant the data. example: data 1, 2, 2, 2, 10 Mean: 3.4 Median: 2 Mode: 2 Nice online tool to easily work these out https://www.calculator.net/mean-median-mode-range-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/mean-median-mode-range-calculator...
- kqr 4y ago
  Depending on the purpose of finding a central tendency of those numbers, I would argue the mean is correct and the others are skewed...
  - Zenst 4y ago
    I was always bemused that the average family size was 2.4 children as no family fits that average ever. With mode and medium that would not happen. Of note I have no idea what the average family size is children wise, just going on longstanding data from UK that in itself may be out of date, though does highlight the point. [EDIT fixed typo]
    - kqr 4y ago
      Yet if we set up a game with a penalty proportional to the distance between your guess and the true number of children for a family, and you guess the median or mode, you'll be right more often than I (because I will never be right), but you will also continually be losing money to my guess of the mean. What matters in real life is generally not how often you are correct, but rather by how much you are wrong. What you need to minimise is not your error rate, but the consequences when you are wrong. You are free to make an infinite amount of mistakes, as long as you are sure to make them in such a way that they are comparatively insignificant.
      - Zenst 4y ago
        > Yet if we set up a game with a penalty proportional to the distance between your guess and the true number of children for a family, and you guess the median or mode, you'll be right more often than I (because I will never be right), but you will also continually be losing money to my guess of the mean. Not sure were you went there, but the point is that you can overdetail in a way that abstracts from reality.
- stepanhruda 4y ago
  Yes, it can be a problem and I agree more context like median or a full histogram should be more common, but I have never seen anyone claim that the average was 2 in your example.
  - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
    While the average value was 3.4, I don't think it would be unfair to suggest the average person would have scored a 2 (or whatever the relevant scenario is).
kqr 4y ago
It depends on your definition of "very common" of course, but I have come across people using "average" to mean both "typical" and "most common" and "middle of the range" and "my preference" and a whole slew of other things.

brnt 4y ago

Mean, mode, median; they're all summaries. People even in science-adjacent fields are still often used to communicating a summary without showing the dsitribution. If possible, I always ask for both mean and median; it's an indication how off-normal the distribution is. The mean only has meaning for normal distribution, so it's my least favorite summary, because it assumes the most. Imho the normal dist is assumed way too often.