From: Ernest Ellingson <erne@...>
Date: 2001-10-27T08:22:47+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23568] Re: [OT] half below average

At 06:12 AM 10/26/2001 +0900, you wrote:
>Well, to nitpick**3 ... ;-)
>
>The Gaussian distribution is like the regression line, a model
>whose virtue lies in its simplicity and tractability more than
>its perfect accuracy.  The Gaussian distribution is often "good
>enough" for practical purposes in the same sense that 22/7 (or
>its bigger cousin 355/113) is usually "good enough" as pi.
>
>Distributions that have a hard lower limit (e.g. zero) but no
>a priori upper limit often are "close to" Gaussian but not
>perfectly so...  My suspicion is that far more people have
>zero skill in domain x than have twice the average skill level.
>
>Studies have shown that excellent programmers are often 10 or
>more times as effective as their lower-skilled counterparts,
>hence my assumption that the distribution is actually quite
>skewed.
>
>-jn-
>
>Avi Bryant wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Joel Neely wrote:
> >
> > > But, unfortunately, not true.
> > >
> > > Half of all X are below the *median*, but not below the average
> > > unless there's a totally symmetric distribution, which rarely
> > > happens in nature.
> >
> > To nitpick the nitpick - things in nature often have a gaussian (normal)
> > distribution, which is indeed symmetric.  Human height, etc, show a normal
> > distribution, and I don't see why programming skill wouldn't.

You know how dumb the average person is.  Well half the population is even 
dumber. :)
Ernie