quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't understand the question.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
Amazing how many times in response to this statement someone will weigh in with, "Oh, it's at least 80% that are below average".

That's actually possible, if the upper 20% of the sample are drastically higher than the rest. Take for example a series of five numbers:

1, 2, 3, 4, and 25

The average of these numbers is 7. Yet 80% of the numbers are below that average. This occurs because 25 is drastically higher than the other numbers, which skews the average upward.

Similarly, if 80% of the sample were dumb and 20% of the population were very smart, with few people in-between, then it could be accurate to say that 80% of the people were below average intelligence.


This concept works the other way around, too. Take another series of five numbers:

1, 32, 33, 34, and 35

The average of these numbers is 27. Yet 80% of our sample are above average. The fact that 1 is much smaller than the other numbers skews the average downward.


You're also forgetting about situations in which something may be exactly average, neither above or below it. Here's yet another series of five numbers:

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

The average is 3. So 40% of the numbers are below average, 20% are average, and 40% are above average. It's not split with 50% below average and 50% above average.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
How difficult could this statement be to understand?

Apparently it's not as easy as it seems.