Doesn’t using mode just make a lot more sense? You are much more likely to be the mode than you are likely to be average in the mean class

[Originally said average in the title, fixed thanks to jbrains]

  • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Now I understand better how you’re thinking. Indeed, the notion of “what the average person has” is answered better by the median, but the notion of “What’s most typical” is answered by the mode.

    • fastandcurious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Actually I think that the notion ‘what the average person has’ is bettered answered by mode, I feel like mean is better for kind of plotting a data or points to find a ‘trend’ or something like that, I am hella confused now actually

      • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The mode can’t hope to answer how much money the average person has, because there are far too many possible values.

        The mean answers how much money people have on average, but the outliers exert too much influence to answer how much money the average person has.

        The median moderates the influence of both the very rich and the very poor, so it better approximates the amount of money that those in the middle of the population have, which is what 'the average person" tends to be.

        For populations where the number of possible values is much lower, the mode and the median tend to be closer to together. Emphasis on “tend”.