You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
they-see-me-trollin on scored.co
1 year ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
eh, there are a lot of issues with this analysis.
again, definitionally, 100 is the arithmetic mean and they rebase it regularly to match, so unless they're violating their own definitions, 100 is always going to be the mean. so your graph is just wrong. the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
virtually everything in humans is a normal distribution. the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race, such that when you take any "diverse" country, it'd be multi-modal based on the demographic makeup.
> the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
It's the sum of 3 bell-curves each having their own mean. Naturally it implies that the resulting graph is not a bell-curve. It's close in this case though.
> the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race
Which they are. See the graph in my comment on the post I linked.
again, definitionally, 100 is the arithmetic mean and they rebase it regularly to match, so unless they're violating their own definitions, 100 is always going to be the mean. so your graph is just wrong. the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
virtually everything in humans is a normal distribution. the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race, such that when you take any "diverse" country, it'd be multi-modal based on the demographic makeup.
Sure, but the asymmetry is inevitable.
> the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
It's the sum of 3 bell-curves each having their own mean. Naturally it implies that the resulting graph is not a bell-curve. It's close in this case though.
> the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race
Which they are. See the graph in my comment on the post I linked.
Not sure why.