I stopped by a LFS on my lunchbreak yesterday looking for a new PH. They didn't have any I could use. The owner came over and asked if he could help. I told him the PH I wanted. He said "I don't have that, but here is my card. If you find a place online that sells it, let me know and I'll order it from them for you." That is just stupid. If I find it online, I'll buy it myself. Why tell him about it and pay a markup. I can guarentee that he will want to make a profit on the order. Has anyone else ever gotton idoitic suggestions like this?
LFS owner gets "Stupid Suggestion of the Year" awa
- Thread starter swreefer
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>A study once showed that 15% of the population are above average in intelligence.
Guess where that leaves the other 85%...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This statement makes no sense. For example, randomly pick 20 numbers between 1 and 50. Take their average. How many of the randomly chosen numbers are above the average? About 50%. About 50% are below the average. In any normally distributed population this will be the case.
Guess where that leaves the other 85%...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This statement makes no sense. For example, randomly pick 20 numbers between 1 and 50. Take their average. How many of the randomly chosen numbers are above the average? About 50%. About 50% are below the average. In any normally distributed population this will be the case.
One LFS I stopped into when first thinking about a 75 gal this past spring. "We just got in this new technology last week. For filtration all you need is an air pump! You put some carbon, and filter floss in the little plastic box, and hook up the air tube. Filter floss is special fibers that are treated with a chemical to kill all the bacteria in your tank."
I left without saying another word.
Just another scary thought.
"Of All this year's graduating med school students, only 50% will be in the top half of their class" My Professor used to tell us that when he heard one of us went to the student health center.
Ok, it isn't that scary after all.
b
[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bingo ]
I left without saying another word.
Just another scary thought.
"Of All this year's graduating med school students, only 50% will be in the top half of their class" My Professor used to tell us that when he heard one of us went to the student health center.
Ok, it isn't that scary after all.
b
[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bingo ]
Looks like we need Cheese Sandwich on this thread (nee MathGuy). It IS possible that these statistics could be true. However, if they were true, then it would mean that the intelligence of people in general is skewed very heavily to the upside.
As an example, take these numbers: 50,60,70,80,200. What is their average? I'll save you the trouble of calculating on your own--it's 92. Of these numbers, one of five (20%) is above average and the other four (80%) are below average.
So if the stats mentioned above are true (and I don't purport to say one way or the other), it just means that there are a small percentage of people who are geniuses who have a very high IQ and who are skewing the average upward.
Now, I can tell you that the number of people with an IQ greater than or equal to the median IQ is almost exactly equal to the number of people with an IQ less than or equal to the median IQ. But that's another story.
As an example, take these numbers: 50,60,70,80,200. What is their average? I'll save you the trouble of calculating on your own--it's 92. Of these numbers, one of five (20%) is above average and the other four (80%) are below average.
So if the stats mentioned above are true (and I don't purport to say one way or the other), it just means that there are a small percentage of people who are geniuses who have a very high IQ and who are skewing the average upward.
Now, I can tell you that the number of people with an IQ greater than or equal to the median IQ is almost exactly equal to the number of people with an IQ less than or equal to the median IQ. But that's another story.
JohnD,
I hadn't thought of it like that. I order items online myself so when he said he would do it for me, I thought that was ridiculous. Why wait for it to ship, have go pick it up, and pay more, when it can be shipped directly to my house. The only reason I went to the LFS was to get it that day instead of waiting for the delivery. In any event, I ended up ordering it online anyway, along with other items as well.
I hadn't thought of it like that. I order items online myself so when he said he would do it for me, I thought that was ridiculous. Why wait for it to ship, have go pick it up, and pay more, when it can be shipped directly to my house. The only reason I went to the LFS was to get it that day instead of waiting for the delivery. In any event, I ended up ordering it online anyway, along with other items as well.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cats_Eat_Fish:
<STRONG>This statement makes no sense.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure whether the figures were based on a large percentage of the population being defined as "average", leaving a small number above and a small number below, as Big R suggests, or whether there is a skewing of the numbers between the definition of "average" and "median" as jdeets suggests.
In either case, and whether it's right or wrong, the numbers can make sense.
<STRONG>This statement makes no sense.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure whether the figures were based on a large percentage of the population being defined as "average", leaving a small number above and a small number below, as Big R suggests, or whether there is a skewing of the numbers between the definition of "average" and "median" as jdeets suggests.
In either case, and whether it's right or wrong, the numbers can make sense.
It's easy to demonstrate statistically. Take four IQs: 95, 100, 105 & 120. The sum is 420. The average is 105. 25% of the IQs are above average. 50% of the IQs are below average.
This discussion relative to IQs is ironic in the original context of the post topic because it demonstrates that we don't always know what we think we know.
This discussion relative to IQs is ironic in the original context of the post topic because it demonstrates that we don't always know what we think we know.
I would not assume that intelligence distribution follows a bell curve so readily. It probably does follow the bell curve, but many factors might cause it to be substantially different. E.g. if it is true that "genius" level intellegence is attributed to some genetic anomoly and that most geniuses have MUCH MUCH higher intelegence than average, then this would skew the distribution and make the statement "15% of the population are above average in intelligence." possible. The few highly intelegent people would fall into the upper 15% and would make the "avereage intelegence level" higher.
JohnD: What you said makes sense, sort of. If the LFS owner felt that SWReefer weren't internet savy then why would he make the offer in the first place? Sounds like the LFS owner clearly falls into the lower 85%
JohnD: What you said makes sense, sort of. If the LFS owner felt that SWReefer weren't internet savy then why would he make the offer in the first place? Sounds like the LFS owner clearly falls into the lower 85%
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Looks like we need Cheese Sandwich on this thread (nee MathGuy). It IS possible that these statistics could be true. However, if they were true, then it would mean that the intelligence of people in general is skewed very heavily to the upside.
As an example, take these numbers: 50,60,70,80,200. What is their average? I'll save you the trouble of calculating on your own--it's 92. Of these numbers, one of five (20%) is above average and the other four (80%) are below average.
So if the stats mentioned above are true (and I don't purport to say one way or the other), it just means that there are a small percentage of people who are geniuses who have a very high IQ and who are skewing the average upward.
Now, I can tell you that the number of people with an IQ greater than or equal to the median IQ is almost exactly equal to the number of people with an IQ less than or equal to the median IQ. But that's another story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is why I said normally distributed population, which your example is not.
As an example, take these numbers: 50,60,70,80,200. What is their average? I'll save you the trouble of calculating on your own--it's 92. Of these numbers, one of five (20%) is above average and the other four (80%) are below average.
So if the stats mentioned above are true (and I don't purport to say one way or the other), it just means that there are a small percentage of people who are geniuses who have a very high IQ and who are skewing the average upward.
Now, I can tell you that the number of people with an IQ greater than or equal to the median IQ is almost exactly equal to the number of people with an IQ less than or equal to the median IQ. But that's another story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is why I said normally distributed population, which your example is not.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> say the "average" IQ is around 100-110. 70% of us fall in this range. that leaves 30% - 15% spread above that range, and 15% spread below, with about equal range and distribution on both sides.
Makes sense to me -
Brian <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An average is a number, not a range.
Makes sense to me -
Brian <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An average is a number, not a range.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Not trying to be an a$$, but statements like this just do not make sense statistically speaking. I am a Six Sigma pratitioner and use statistical analysis of processes on a regular basis, so things like this are a pet peeve of mine. What this statement says is that 15% of a normally distributed population (we have make a few assumptions here) is above the average (a fixed value, not a range). Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Not trying to be an a$$, but statements like this just do not make sense statistically speaking. I am a Six Sigma pratitioner and use statistical analysis of processes on a regular basis, so things like this are a pet peeve of mine. What this statement says is that 15% of a normally distributed population (we have make a few assumptions here) is above the average (a fixed value, not a range). Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Another example:
Recently in the Houston Chronicle a headline reads:
"Half of Houston students test scores fall below national average."
Yeah, so what? That means the other half are above the national average. Exactly what you would expect. Get it?
Recently in the Houston Chronicle a headline reads:
"Half of Houston students test scores fall below national average."
Yeah, so what? That means the other half are above the national average. Exactly what you would expect. Get it?
Nathan,
You don't want to go there man. The "war of northern aggression" (Civil war) is not over! The south shall rise again! Somebody play some Skinnerd, man! Freebird!
Cats,
You obviously havn't reached (six-sigma) black-belt status yet.
The statement that "15% of the population are above average intelligence" is, in fact, entirely possible. Just because you make a sample size large enough doesn't mean that it will have normal distribution! Thats the whole point of statistics, man!
You don't want to go there man. The "war of northern aggression" (Civil war) is not over! The south shall rise again! Somebody play some Skinnerd, man! Freebird!
Cats,
You obviously havn't reached (six-sigma) black-belt status yet.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
