archylgp wrote:GuyInTaiwan wrote:archylgp: The mean is a poor measure of anything, for the reasons HH2 has mentioned/alluded to. It's too affected by outliers. In theory, the mean could actually have increased, but the median could have decreased, due to someone who was very rich making a lot more money. For example, consider the following two examples:
3, 5, 7 (mean = 5)
2, 4, 12 (mean = 6)
You need to look at the overall distribution. I wouldn't even look at the median. I'd probably look at something like the inter-quartile range.
I know the difference (typed the wrong word.). You're right; it comes down to distribution. If the standard deviation is acceptable,then averages should be fine, correct?
It seems the numbers in the papers a few days ago were wrong, anyways, if the numbers provided by Feiren are correct. Feiren, what method was used to get those numbers?
Forumosans browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 visitors