Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudy
Nope, recycledelectron is right. The numbers just don't add up. There are several kinds of means (not averages), and "average" is the arithmetic mean unless you're out to deceive someone, and since they didn't qualify what they meant, the numbers should be considered bogus.
BTW, the "center person" is the median (or 50th percentile), that last thing, unless I misunderstood you, is called a majority. :-P
|
I should have used those terms but I didn't want to get too technical. It was the original author who used the term average and that is often the interprertation which is why I explained that interpretation.
Here is what the real article said.
Quote:
One in four U.S. adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.
The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who had not read any, the usual number read was seven.
|
The words used were typical and usual not average.
By the way the math was a bit confusing. Let's work though it.
If 16 were in the poll there would be 12 readers and 4 non readers. If the average is 4 then we expect 64 (4x16) books to be read by the 12 readers or an average of 5 so if the math is done we do see that there is no way to get to 7. But that is not what the original article said. 4 is said to be median not arithmetic average. So 8 people read 7 books and 4 read 2. Works for me.
Dale