Re: Box Plots--Acceptance?


Richard Ulrich wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 11:26:22 -0700, "Reef Fish"
> <Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [snip, a bunch]
> >
> > Prior to my first visit to sci.stat.math, I had been FLAMED
> > hundreds of times, nay, thousands of times, in several different
> > USENET newsgroups, when I insisted that neither the "median"
> > nor "mode" is a statistical "average". :-)
> >
> > THAT's how ignorant the "general public" is about statistics and
> > statistical matters!
> >
> [snip, 20+ lines]
> >
> > A google search of "A mode is NOT an average" will uncover
THOUSANDS
> > of posts and flamewar threads in which *I* participated, over this
> > simple fact. :-)
>
> This question has come up in the sci.stat.* groups before.

I would have to dig the sci.stat.math archives to see if it could
possibly sink as low as other ngs. I am highly doubtful.

>
> It seemed non-controversial to point out that mathematicians
> use the word "mean" in a more general way, but not the
> word "average" - harmonic mean, geometric mean, root
> mean square.

That was actually the IRRELEVANT issue, though some thought
it was and brought it up, in the other ngs.

>
> As another extension, the 'average' is what minimizes the
> squared deviations, the median minimizes the absolute
> deviations, and the mode minimizes the count of deviations
> (from grouped values).

That was CERTAINLY not the issue in the non-stat newsgroups. It's
irrelevant even in this group because the controversy statement
in question was:

"The mode is NOT an average".
================

It concerns what the "mode" IS, in statistics, and that it is
NOT an average, in any sense of the word "average", or any kind
of definition of a mean.

>
> I don't remember whether anyone else objected to calling
> those 'means' or not; I don't.
>
> [snip, bunch more]
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
> http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html

.

Relevant Pages