3 ms·

Given that most people are not very funny[0] but that most people like to believe that they are funny, it is probably a very profitable enterprise to sell someo

by zxdfghj 12y ago

Given that most people are not very funny[0] but that most people like to believe that they are funny, it is probably a very profitable enterprise to sell someone an experience that lets them believe (even if just for an hour) that they are much funnier than they actually are. [0] consider that 50% of people are less funny than average, and then reflect on how funny the average person is.

seba_dos1 12y ago
Where did you get your "50% of people are less funny than average" from? Do you know what average is?
- zxdfghj 12y ago
  I know what the distinction between the mean and the median is, and I know which one is appropriate to use with quantity like "how funny someone is" (hint: you can take three people and point to the one who is in the middle on the funniness scale, but you can't add together how funny they are and divide it by three).
  - seba_dos1 12y ago
    Your "hint" already stops working if you decide that two of them are equally funny.
- cven714 12y ago
  He got it from George Carlin.
taeric 12y ago
For some reason, the 50% of people are above/below average fallacy cracks me up every time I see it. Consider, how many people have more/less than the average number of fingers?
- zxdfghj 12y ago
  You can meaningfully count up the total number of fingers that five people have between them, and divide it by five. You cannot meaningfully add together how funny five people are and divide it by five. However, you can put five people in order of how funny they are, and point to the middle one. The only appropriate concept of average for ordinal data (e.g. how funny someone is) is the median, from which it follows by definition that 50% of people are less funny than average. PS - if it is true that it "cracks you up" every time you hear "the 50% of people are above/below average fallacy", I suggest that you might be one of the 50% of people who have a below-average sense of humour ;)
  - taeric 12y ago
    I would wager that among any group of five people that they all agree that one of them is the funny one. I would extrapolate further and say since there is a tiny number of comedians performing any night that there is both a non-even distribution of humor and that it is weighted towards fewer people having it. Consider, if it were so common, would the rest of us be as willing to pay to hear someone else perform? And to be fair, I don't think that would be evidence in itself. I would be curious to see actual studies into this. At least a little.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The only appropriate concept of average for ordinal data (e.g. how funny someone is) is the median, Incorrect. For the four usual kinds of measures, the following types of "averages" are generally useful: Nominal: Mode Ordinal: Mode, Median Interval: Mode, Median, Arithmetic Mean Ratio: Mode, Median, All Means (arithmetic, geometric, harmonic) > from which it follows by definition that 50% of people are less funny than average. Nope, that only follows by definition for ordinal data with the additional assumption that no items have equal rank.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> consider that 50% of people are less funny than average Assuming that average here is an arithmetic mean (which is the most common use, but how are we quantifying "funniness" to warrant such a measure?), this would only be true if we assume a symmetric distribution with no individuals at the average. This also assumes that objective funniness is even a meaningful concept; funniness is obviously subjective, and I would suspect that people tend to voluntarily socially engage with people that they find pleasant to be around -- part of which is having compatible sense of humor. So, the people you are voluntarily associating with (i.e., the people you are like to play CAH with) are likely to be disproportionately from the upper end of the funniness distribution from your subjective perspective -- and are likely to be among the upper end of the distribution in how they perceive your funniness, as well.
- zxdfghj 12y ago
  I don't think that the arithmetic mean is appropriate here (see my replies to two sibling comments) but rather the median. Your second point is a good one - clearly, funniness is subjective. On the other hand, I don't think my argument relies on the precise quantitative definition of funniness!

by zxdfghj 12y ago

seba_dos1 12y ago

Where did you get your "50% of people are less funny than average" from? Do you know what average is?

zxdfghj 12y ago
I know what the distinction between the mean and the median is, and I know which one is appropriate to use with quantity like "how funny someone is" (hint: you can take three people and point to the one who is in the middle on the funniness scale, but you can't add together how funny they are and divide it by three).
- seba_dos1 12y ago
  Your "hint" already stops working if you decide that two of them are equally funny.
cven714 12y ago
He got it from George Carlin.

taeric 12y ago

For some reason, the 50% of people are above/below average fallacy cracks me up every time I see it. Consider, how many people have more/less than the average number of fingers?

zxdfghj 12y ago
You can meaningfully count up the total number of fingers that five people have between them, and divide it by five. You cannot meaningfully add together how funny five people are and divide it by five. However, you can put five people in order of how funny they are, and point to the middle one. The only appropriate concept of average for ordinal data (e.g. how funny someone is) is the median, from which it follows by definition that 50% of people are less funny than average. PS - if it is true that it "cracks you up" every time you hear "the 50% of people are above/below average fallacy", I suggest that you might be one of the 50% of people who have a below-average sense of humour ;)
- taeric 12y ago
  I would wager that among any group of five people that they all agree that one of them is the funny one. I would extrapolate further and say since there is a tiny number of comedians performing any night that there is both a non-even distribution of humor and that it is weighted towards fewer people having it. Consider, if it were so common, would the rest of us be as willing to pay to hear someone else perform? And to be fair, I don't think that would be evidence in itself. I would be curious to see actual studies into this. At least a little.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The only appropriate concept of average for ordinal data (e.g. how funny someone is) is the median, Incorrect. For the four usual kinds of measures, the following types of "averages" are generally useful: Nominal: Mode Ordinal: Mode, Median Interval: Mode, Median, Arithmetic Mean Ratio: Mode, Median, All Means (arithmetic, geometric, harmonic) > from which it follows by definition that 50% of people are less funny than average. Nope, that only follows by definition for ordinal data with the additional assumption that no items have equal rank.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> consider that 50% of people are less funny than average Assuming that average here is an arithmetic mean (which is the most common use, but how are we quantifying "funniness" to warrant such a measure?), this would only be true if we assume a symmetric distribution with no individuals at the average. This also assumes that objective funniness is even a meaningful concept; funniness is obviously subjective, and I would suspect that people tend to voluntarily socially engage with people that they find pleasant to be around -- part of which is having compatible sense of humor. So, the people you are voluntarily associating with (i.e., the people you are like to play CAH with) are likely to be disproportionately from the upper end of the funniness distribution from your subjective perspective -- and are likely to be among the upper end of the distribution in how they perceive your funniness, as well.

zxdfghj 12y ago
I don't think that the arithmetic mean is appropriate here (see my replies to two sibling comments) but rather the median. Your second point is a good one - clearly, funniness is subjective. On the other hand, I don't think my argument relies on the precise quantitative definition of funniness!