|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Oct 30, 2007 12:14
It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
the time loading on an airplane wing.
There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:
Income distribution.
If you so much as even make a peep about ave. _mean_ income then
they'll start screaming that you are "just like Hitler, Stalin, Ross
Perot, David Duke and Chinghis Khan all rolled up into one!"
It's curious. If you run a reliability analysis on a structure you
are OK, even useful to society.
But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.
And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 301 Comments |
|
|
Author: Lars EighnerLars Eighner Date: Oct 30, 2007 12:35
In our last episode,
<1193771663.616889.244250@ v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:
> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
> will come to a horrific end.
> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.
|
| |
|
| | 23 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Oct 30, 2007 12:41
On Oct 30, 2:35 pm, Lars Eighner larseighner.com> wrote:> In our last episode,
> <1193771663.616889.244...@ v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
> talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:
> >> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>> will come to a horrific end.
>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
>
> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
> income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
> meaningless) statistic.
>
> --
> Lars Eighner < http://larseighner.com/> < http://myspace.com/larseighner>
> Countdown: 447 days to go.
> What do you do when you're debranded?
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:11
On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, Lars Eighner larseighner.com> wrote:> In our last episode,
> <1193771663.616889.244...@ v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
> talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:
> >> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>> will come to a horrific end.
>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
>
> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
> income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
> meaningless) statistic.
>
> --
> Lars Eighner < http://larseighner.com/> < http://myspace.com/larseighner>
> Countdown: 447 days to go.
> What do you do when you're debranded?
What would "normal" income distribution look like?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:13
>> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>> will come to a horrific end.
>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
> income is *not* normally distributed.
Neither are the kinetic energies of molecules of a gas.
But if you draw the distribution of the KE of a gas no one screams
"Hitler, Stalin, Ross Perot and David Duke all rolled up into one."
> The mean is a useless (yes,
> meaningless) statistic.
Yet "median" income _is_ meaningful?
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:19
On Oct 30, 3:11 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, Lars Eighner larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> In our last episode,
>> <1193771663.616889.244...@ v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
>> talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics: >
>>> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>>> will come to a horrific end.
>>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
>
>> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
>> income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
>> meaningless) statistic.
>
>> -- ...
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:20
>>> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>>> will come to a horrific end.
>>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
>> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
>> income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
>> meaningless) statistic.
> Bret is, I think, referring to analyzing income distribution in any
> way, shape or form. Mean, median, standard deviation, plots, curves
> etc. The rich hate this. It makes them look, well, kinda greedy.
> Like they have just a little too big a piece of the pie, for the good
> of the rest of us. Gee, I wonder why.
Before jumping to any conclusions about monied interests' corp. media
propaganda, we need only focus on one issue:
Why there is only _one_ distribution in Nature where it is OK to
discuss the median value but not the average mean value?
This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| 38 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:27
On Oct 30, 3:20 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:>>>> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>>>> will come to a horrific end.
>>>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
>>> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
>>> income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
>>> meaningless) statistic.
>> Bret is, I think, referring to analyzing income distribution in any
>> way, shape or form. Mean, median, standard deviation, plots, curves
>> etc. The rich hate this. It makes them look, well, kinda greedy.
>> Like they have just a little too big a piece of the pie, for the good
>> of the rest of us. Gee, I wonder why.
>
> Before jumping to any conclusions about monied interests' corp. media
> propaganda, we need only focus on one issue:
>
> Why there is only _one_ distribution in Nature where it is OK to
> discuss the median value but not the average mean value?
>
> This is getting curiouser and curiouser. ...
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:36
On Oct 30, 4:11 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, Lars Eighner larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> In our last episode,
>> <1193771663.616889.244...@ v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
>> talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics: >
>>> But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
>>> will come to a horrific end.
>>> And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
>
>> Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
>> income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
>> meaningless) statistic.
>
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: sinistersinister Date: Oct 30, 2007 13:51
> It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
> nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
> the time loading on an airplane wing.
>
> There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:
>
> Income distribution.
IMHO it's much more interesting to discuss the distribution of _wealth_.
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
