We can go even farther in this identification by using what Sociologists call the Bell curve. Each person of a group possessing his own particular point on that curve and no one point being occupied by more than one person. This alone would declare us as individuals with no equal. The inner motivated person will occupy a space to the right of center while the externally motivated person occupying a space to the left of center.
Based upon the principle of this Bell curve, about 68% of the people will occupy the center, divided equally from the center. The other 32% of the people being distributed on the outer edge of this curve also equally divided as illustrated in the picture below. By placing those persons who are externally motivated on the left half of this curve and those internally motivated on the right half of this curve we can identify each group along familiar lines of political identification, the left and the right.
 |
| The Bell Curve |
By seeing a people along this line of thought we can now assign each of the personality traits and their complements to each side of the curve. Independency would be assigned to the right half of the curve and dependency to the left half of the curve. Those to the left would possess a collective mindset while those to the right would possess more of an individualistic mindset.
The most telling attribute that can be seen in this is how each side assigns responsibility to the behaviors of persons. Those to the left will assign responsibility to external causes while those to the right will assign responsibility to internal causes. Those to the left has a less tendency to assign blame to the person who committed the act than those on the right. And this has a great influence on each sides understanding of the meaning of justice or what would be called a just society. This alone would be enough to see how a person's view of things would influence his political views.
From the picture above a person can understand why some viewpoints are considered as extreme viewpoints while others are considered as centralist viewpoints. We must also understand that while viewpoints may be seen as being extreme that doesn't mean that they are of the absolute nature. It is just as hard to conceive of a viewpoint possessed that is on the absolute extreme as to conceive of a possessed viewpoint that is of the absolute center. These are positions that could only be occupied by God in my mind. It is only when persons take an absolute stance in regards to their possessed position that the position may have detrimental effects on themselves as well as others. For it is then that results in the perception that violence or force is an acceptable means to an end.
While the above may be advocated for individual persons there is one thing that can occupy the farthest extreme of this curve. It is the discipline of science. And it seeks to occupy the most extreme position on the left. It is the study of cause and effect and seeks to measure the amount of influence the cause has on the effect. And in the hard sciences, with the use of mathematics, science can come to an absolute conclusion.
And while the soft sciences can never come to an absolute conclusion this doesn't prevent them from creating a perception that their relative conclusions are absolute conclusions. And this, unfortunately, can lead a society to a misleading perception of the problems within a society and can effect how a solution is to be determined. Most important is how it may affect a person's perception of how others should behave when they assign responsibility to certain behaviors. They can end up demanding a certain behavior from others which could result in an act of hypocrisy by that other person. This can have unintended devastating effects on a relationship.
34 comments:
Okay I will exercise my free will and emphatically state, you have externally motivated me to read thru this and offer the only comments that makes sense to me right now.
Huh - - wut the heck are you talkin' bout? I'll go back and reread this and git back to you in a few days when I figger it out. Hope dat don't have an unintended devastating effect on our relationship, I just got to know yah.
The only other thing I will add at this time iz, that bell curve is shapely and uniform but I prefer the curves in an hour glass shape. So if the math I do in my head comes up to the definitive answer of 36-24-36 duhz that make me a hypocrite? If so, where does that place me in the bell curve?
manIwonder if my head iz gunna hurt for a month now.
The bell curve is practically universal in
graphically displaying a data set. Apparently its name comes from the classical bell shape, but
more properly it is a 'Gaussian' or normal distribution function.
(A bit odd, but we may even divide people by whether they view data
as a digital set, or [like me] prefer the visual plot)
The standard deviation, or
'sigma' is a much used property for determining
variation from the mean.
Often in manufacturing, the
'plus or minus 2 sigma' is the basis for quality assessment; and we just note in passing that the
math and science types, normally dry, cold and serious, are delighted to
identify data points in the 10 sigma area as
'standard deviates'. The real stat nerds notice that at times the distribution may tail to one side or the other-termed positive or negative skewness, and the
gaussian may at times be
pointier or flatter, a
condition termed 'kurtosis'
which the dry cold serious dudes get mixed up with
'halitosis'.
...having confused that issue, I'm now sorting
through our definitions
as regards to motivation in the
area of 'external/internal'
vs 'intrinsic/extrinsic'..and the extent of their relation to perception of
determinism vs free will.
Would that humans followed the simple rules of atoms!
Dang you BB! Fur sur now my head is going to hurt for the rest of the year.
I'm outta here before Lista shows up.
ManIgottaquitwondering.
manofwonder,
now you see why i call BB the man who keeps me on my toes in here. he is famous for doing things like that.:)
---
BB,
"The real stat nerds notice that at times the distribution may tail to one side or the other-termed positive or negative skewness, and the
gaussian may at times be
pointier or flatter, a
condition termed 'kurtosis'..."
another way of saying that is the fact that some see the center as moving too from true center to either the left or right thus scewing the shape of the bell.
another use of it is in colleges where they use the principles of it to determine the grades of the students and i find this will scew the perception of how well any particular student did in class. it also pits the students against each other in the competition for grades instead of pitting the student against himself.
Yep, I remember that after all these many years..'Grading on the Curve'. I suppose the curve may be for one class, or all sections that year, or even some national data base. One of those 'dirty tricks', like unannounced pop quizes. One advantage of grading on the curve is you don't end up with 100% A+'s or all F's. Since I was always a student and never a teacher, hard for me to judge virtues of grading
philosophies. One of my daughters currently teaches
microbiology/immunology/virology at a university and she gets real stressed when
a big bunch of kids get F's. (..gets stressed when
they are all texting during lab and lecture as well)..and statistically, I'm guessing there may be
a correlation between texting and poor grades?)
By golly, its getting close to supper time here, and my 'inner motivation' strongly suggests taking the Mrs. out to dinner! :)
Gettin' too deep for my shallow mind, fellas!
Ok, without Reading the Comments, I'm going to Respond to this Post.
It's Really too Bad that the Internally Motivated do not Understand what Motivates Externally Motivated People. Some Assume that they should have Their Own Motivation and thus Judge them for their Lack of Drive and Call it Laziness.
In Marriage, One may Assume that the Loved one is Motivated by Something such as Romantic or Sexual Stimulation, when in Reality, they are more Motivated by Verbal Expressions of Appreciation and Just Knowing how a Loved one Feels about them.
Occasionally an Internally Motivated Person will be so Determined that He Knows and Understands his Mate, that he will Continually get it Wrong and Refuse to do what is Actually Required in Order to Produce the Desired Motivation in his Partner.
Perhaps the Externally Motivated Person will Even Feel Insulted by the Very Idea that his or her Partner Thinks that all they Care about is Sex.
If Misunderstandings and Misjudgments of this Sort Continue for too Long, the Eventual Outcome will be a Divorce.
Seeing this in a Political Light, though, Shouldn't the Internally Motivated Care about what Matters to the Externally Motivated, or should they just be Treated as Slaves?
I am Actually Looking Forward to Reading these Comments, but I Need to Finish my Initial Thoughts First.
Isn't it True that the Internally and Externally Motivated should be Able to Learn From Each Other? Is it Really Fair for us to Assume that Others can Learn from Us, but we do not Need to Learn from Them?
How People View Things and What is Reality are Two Different Things, Griper. For Example, Assigning Blame Solely to Others (Externally Motivated) is One Sided and Imbalanced. Assigning Blame Solely to Oneself (Internally Motivated) is also One Sided and Imbalanced.
You Speak Mostly about Perception, Griper. It is as if you do Not Understand that there is a Reality Out there Outside of any One Person's Perception.
There is another Evil besides that of Hypocrisy., Griper. Hypocrisy, of Course, is when a Person Acts in a Way that is Different from what they Claim to Believe. The Other Evil, though, is in Stubbornly Believing in something that is Both Incorrect and Destructive. When Someone Believes Stubbornly in Something that is Destructive, it is Possible to do so without Hypocrisy, yet that does not Cause the Principle to Cease to be Destructive.
When I Think of This, the Absolute Refusal to ever Apologize or Admit Blame for anything Comes to Mind. And Another Thing that Comes to Mind is the Absolute Insistence that a Loved One is Something or even Should be Something that they are In Fact Not, or as I Mentioned before, Insisting that this is what that Person Needs, when In Fact, they Need Something Else.
This a Very Good Post, BTW, Griper. Excellent In Fact.
You make me Chuckle, Boy Wonder. This is Exactly how I Often Feel about Griper's Posts when I Read them, for he is Hard to Understand at First and Sometimes even Hard to Understand at Second and Third.
My Measurements Used to be much Closer to what your Math Says than they are now, so I'm Afraid that your Bell Curve is not a Very Good Reflection of my Current Reality, but I'll Work on it. lol.
You're Out of Here!? Oh Come on. I'll be your Tutor. Besides, I Tend to Put a Slight Relationship Twist on Things and I Wonder if that might be more Up Your Alley. My Suggestion to you is that you Read the Post and Just Respond to that, while Ignoring any Comment that Confuses you, except for Mine, of course. lol.
BB,
You may be Talking now to someone who has not Studied Statistics and you are Probably going to Loose him with all your Technical Terms. Even I didn't Understand all of it, but I have Studied Statistics, so I at Least Know what a Bell Curve is.
Griper & BB,
If the Curve is Based on the Actual Numbers of the Test Scores, rather than the Order of the Students in the Competition, than there may be more People Above or Below the Middle, Depending on how the Grade Lines Up with the Lowest and Highest Score.
Looks Like you Guys Lost Gorges Smythe as well. Is it Possible that the Number of Fs Presented Could also have a Relationship to how Good or Bad the Teacher is? When you Talk Over Everyone's Head and Over Stress your Students, they have a Tendency to Lose Interest, especially if they are Externally Motivated.
Considering that, Perhaps I Should Again Ask some of my Questions. Should we Blame these Externally Motivated, Stressed Out, Students, that Can not Follow a Teacher that is Difficult to Understand, for their Lack of Motivation, or shell we Blame the Internally Motivated Teacher that has Trouble Reaching Students that are Average, rather than Exceptional, because he doesn't Know how to Explain in Simple Enough Terms.
If we Fail to Motivate the Externally Motivated, who is to Blame? Naturally, if you are Internally Motivated, then the Tendency will be to Blame Others who are not Motivated, but then again, this Makes the Internally Motivated the One Who Points the Fingers, now doesn't it?
That's Right. Let's all Blame the Ones who are Exhausted by the Complexity and are no Longer here. Sure that Makes Sense. That Way all the Hot Shots who are Still Succeeding at Understanding are Off the Hook.
lista,
statistical analysis is a subject i am well familiar with and i understand every word BB was saying. if i didn't understand it i wouldn't have used the curve as an illustration in this essay.
and grading by the curve is determined by the number of students in the class not by the test scores. it declares that 68% of all students will receive a C grade and 13% will receive a B and another 13% will receive a D regardless of the test scores.
I Never Said that you don't Understand Statistical Analysis, Griper, and Never Would. I Was Speaking of Man of Wonder, for he was Complaining that his Head Hurt.
It's Funny that So Far, you have Only Responded to the Part of my Comments that are the Least Important to me. My Main Point was how the Internally Motivated have a Tendency to Judge those who Lack such Motivation and Blame them for their Lack, while Taking no Responsibility for how Well or Poorly they are at Motivating People.
Gee Griper,
The Percentages that you Stated Only Allows for a Remaining 6% for the A and the F. That would be 3% for Each and in a Class of 33 Students that Would Only be 1 A in the Entire Class. Is the One with the Lowest Score also Guaranteed to get an F? That's not Right.
Oh well. Like I said the Other Issues I Brought Up are Really more Important to me than this one.
lista,
under this system the issues you brought up would be irrelevant. they would only affect the test scores of the students but not affect their place in the class for grades.
The Subject of your Post, Griper, is not Grading on a Curve, nor is it even Test Scores. The Subject of your Post is Internally and Externally Motivated People and the Issues that I Brought Up in my Above Comments are Entirely on Topic.
Like Usual, though, we are Probably not Understanding One Another, for the Two of Us don't Seem to Speak the Same Language.
Hopefully Someone Else will Respond to me that Understands what I've Said in my Above Comments. If Not, then I'm Probably Going to Move on to Something Else.
Your Posts are Interesting, Griper, but you and I do not Seem to have the Ability to Understand Each Other when it comes to the Comments.
Sigh. Under what System, Griper? What Specific Issues that I Brought Up are Irrelevant? Irrelevant to What? What would Only Affect the Test Scores, but not the Grades?
See What I Mean? You've just Totally Lost me. One Person Said to me Recently, that you and I Seem to just Talk Right Past Each Other and now that I Think about it, I tend to Agree and now Man of Wonder is not the Only One whose Head Hurts.
Okay day two.
I will statistically ISO 9000 state that bell curves work in a sense, if the science of math is applied. But folks is folks and we don't fit with the science of facts.
I still don't got a clue wut you folks are talkin about. But iffen you don't understand the quality of that Black and White admission, I'll see y'all tomorrow.
I gotta go buy a step ladder cuz you folks sure talk over my head.
lista,
"What Specific Issues that I Brought Up are Irrelevant? Irrelevant to What? What would Only Affect the Test Scores, but not the Grades?"
the idea of incentives and motivation would only effect the test scores but not the grades of the students under the curve method of grading.
She Smiles,
Am I Losing you too, Man of Wonder? Perhaps we should Start with Internally Motivated. That Means that you have the Ability to Motivate Yourself. Externally Motivated means that you are Motivated by Others and have a Hard Time Functioning when You are Alone and Lack the Moral Support of those Around you.
I Hope I'm not being more Basic than I should be. It's just that I don't know what it is that you don't Understand.
What I was Trying to say is that those who are Motivated from within, Sometimes Judge those who are Discouraged because of Life's Struggles and Can't Seem to Get Motivated. That was the Basic Message, the Rest is just Extra.
The Reason Why it would Appear that "folks is folks and we don't fit with the science of facts." is because the Results of Psychological Research is Quite Often Reduced to the Norm, that is the Average, and yet there are all these Exceptions that do not Fit the Pattern because some of Us are Fruitier than a Fruit Cake and Don't Fit the Mold. On a Bell Curve, these Folks are on the Far Edges of the Bell, yet Government Policies do not Always Account for These Exceptions to the Norm.
manof wonder,
"But folks is folks and we don't fit with the science of facts."
when a person is thinking in terms of individualism you are right. that is why there is no such person as the "average person". it is a mythical person.
it is only applicable to those who think in terms of collectivism. science does not study individuals. they study groups and the so-called "average person" is just the numerical average of a group. by using that term it creates a misleading idea about individuals.
in that picture, each space between the vertical lines represent a group of people perceived as a singular unit.
I was not Relating Incentives and Motivation to Test Scores and Grades, Griper. I was Relating it to Motivating Students to Learn. I see now, though, how what you were Saying about Grading on a Curve is Correct, for Incentives and Motivation would Indeed effect the Test Scores, but not the Grades.
Incentives and Motivation also Relate to other Things, though. In Relation to Blogging, this Relates to Motivating People to Read and Understand. In Marriage, it Relates to Motivating your Mate to do that which Pleases you. In Politics, it would be to Motivate those on Welfare to get a Job, or Motivating Businesses to Hire.
Griper,
Here's a Response to your Reply to Man of Wonder.
But there is a Place for Every Individual on the Bell Curve. Also, When I Think of Average, or Actually the "Norm", I Think of a Range on the Bell Curve, not a Specific Number in the Middle. Perhaps Average is not the Right Word for that, but I was Trying to Keep it Simple.
"I was not Relating Incentives and Motivation to Test Scores and Grades, Griper. I was Relating it to Motivating Students to Learn."
test scores is the means by which a teacher uses to measure learning, lista. so it is all related.
it is from test scores that a teacher can determine whether or not students need incentives or not.
"When I Think of Average, or Actually the "Norm",..."
lista, you and i was saying the same thing. the only difference between your explanation and mine was that you were using scientific terminology while i was using common terminology.
Thinking about "They can be further identified by the idea that externally motivated persons accept the premise of determinism while internally motivated persons accept the premise of free will." I suspect only the purest will be on either bell curve tail, for
most of us inevitably run into both internal/external motivation as well as
determinist/free will situations. For example, for many years I got up at 5 AM, for I had people starting at 6AM. Many mornings this was an external motivation! Now,
even after being retired for 8 years, I STILL get up at 5 AM, but it is
internal motivation (or
an ingrained bad habit), for there is no external
compunction to do so. In addition, whenever free will and determinism are considered, we run into
the nurture/nature phenomena..which, from what I have read, (with the caveat that these
social science things are hardly concrete) seems to
be a bit of both. For examples the work of steven pinker ..who finds
a modicum of genetic predisposition for language
in new infants (determinism), in addition to the free will concepts
of Locke's 'tabula rasa'..for how that predisposition is nurtured
surely affects the linguistic skill as that child ages. So, IMO, we
need be tentative in assigning absolutes in terms of whether a single
individual is internally or externally motivated.
But, I accept that in general terms, such can
be discribed in a random distribution bell curve.
Now, being motivated to make a sandwich, gotta go!
that was the purpose of using the Bell curve, BB. by its use we illustrate that there are no absolutes. but we can use absolute terms to illustrate dominant attributes as opposed to subordinate attributes. what we cannot do is determine the absolute measurement of dominance or subordination in each individual. the most we can do is use comparative words to indicate a greater or less dominance of an attribute. and this is what the bell curve does.
When Grading on a Curve, Griper, the Grades do not Actually Measure Learning, at Least not in Comparison to Oneself. It Only Measures the Actual Level that a Student is at when the Test is given in Comparison to the Level of the Other Students when the Test is Given.
To Actually Measure the Learning of any Individual Student, you would have to Compare what they Knew at an Earlier Date to what they Know at a Later Date and when you Grade on a Curve, the Grades don't Measure that. Instead, if a lot of the Students are all Learning at about the Same Speed, their Grades would not Change in Relation to Each Other, yet that doesn't Mean that the C and D Students are not Learning.
Considering this, I Suppose the Test Scores, as you said, are more informative about the Level of Learning than the Grades.
In Your Second Comment, you Lost me Again. Both Average and Norm are Scientific Terms and as far as I Know, Average always Refers to a Number that can be Figured Out Mathematically. I've Never Heard of any Other Definition. Norm, or Normal, also Means the Same Both inside and out of the Scientific Community and it Refers to a Range of Numbers or Personality Characteristics that are Considered "Normal", so what you are saying, Once Again, does not Make one Bit of Sense.
BB,
As to the Internal/External Motivation and Determinism/Free Will. Those who are Internally Motivated are Better Able to Preserve their Freedom and Ability to Make their Own Choices because they are not as Dependent on Others for their Motivation. Externally Motivated People, though, are all the Time being Paused in their Progress and Choices, because the Circumstances in Life Interrupt them and they go into Periods of Frustration and Depression.
What Frustrates me is when Internally Motivated/Free Will People do not Realize that they are Acting on a "Determined" (Predestined, Out of Ones Own Personal Control) Gift that was Given to them either at Birth (Nature or Genetics), or Later by their Parents in Relation to a Supportive and Loving Environment (Nurture), such as not Everyone has been Given.
Whether you believe more in the Nurture or Nature Idea is Irrelevant. Either Way, the Ability to be Internally Motivated was Originally Received from a Source Other than Oneself, so it is not Accurate to Attribute to Oneself the Credit for the Internal Motivation. In Fact, such can be Accurately Called Arrogance.
I Thought that it was Interesting, BB, how you Compared Internal Motivation to a Learned Habit, in that Once you Learned the Habit of Getting Up Early, after Awhile it was an Internally Motivated Habit.
You are Right, BB, that Life is made Up of Both Nature and Nurture and which is more Predominant Depends on the Individual.
Like Usual, I Agree with you whenever you Discourage against the Black and White, One or the Other Idea, when in Reality, so many Things are Both. When Black and White Means Nothing more than "Keep it Simple", though, as I believe Man of Wonder is all about. Now, that is a Form of Black and White that I Agree with. Remember, you Guys, there is someone Trying to Follow us that May not have Studied Psychology.
Thank You, Griper, for the Bell Curve, for it does Exactly as you have said and because of it, I am not Going to Accuse you in this Comment Thread of Black and White Thinking. I Still do Disagree, However, with your Habitual Use of Absolute Terms. In Doing so, it is Easy to Forget Things, such as that a Submissive is Really not as Submissive as a Certain Dominant would Like her to be.
Considering this, if an Internally Motivated Dominant is More Dominant than the Externally Motivated Submissive that he is Attracted to is Externally Submissive, then this may not be a Good Match. There is Really no Point in Trying to Make this "Submissive" More Submissive than she Actually is.
One Last Thought about Grading on a Curve. In a Way, Life itself is this way, for when there are X Number of Exceptionally Good Jobs Available (A Jobs), Only a Certain Number of People will Get them and the Same is True of Good Jobs (B Jobs), Average Jobs (C Jobs), Not so Good Jobs (D Jobs) and then there is Of Course the Unemployment Statistics (the F).
The Unemployment Statistics are Like a Guaranteed F to a Certain Number of People. Even if Everyone Alive is Trying their Very Best, those who are Weaker are Still Going to Get the F.
Once again, when Grading on a Curve, Meaning that Only a Certain Number of Each Grade is Available, this does not Really Measure Level of Learning, nor does it Measure Level of Effort, at Least not in Comparison to Oneself. All it Measures is how we Compare to Each Other.
In a Way, the Work Force is the Same Way and Unfortunately, as Long as their is an Unemployment Rate Based on How Many Jobs are Actually Available, there will be Guaranteed Fs Granted to those who Can't Compete with the Others and Sometimes Effort has Nothing to do with it.
Oh, and before I Close, I Guess I Should Admit to Griper that there are Times in which Average Refers to a Range of People in the Middle, not just to an Individual. I just Realized that as I was Typing this Comment. That would not be, however, the Scientific Definition, but a more Common One.
"Oh, and before I Close, I Guess I Should Admit to Griper that there are Times in which Average Refers to a Range of People in the Middle, not just to an Individual. I just Realized that as I was Typing this Comment. That would not be, however, the Scientific Definition, but a more Common One."
lista, we are speaking of statistical analysis when referring to these words. and that involves the use of numbers of absolute values.
range is defined as just the difference between the largest and smallest values.
the words "means" is the scientific word for a type of average and average is how a group of things are being represented in comparison to another group.
thus it would be very appropriate to use absolutes to describe things when this is considered because we are referring to an absolute value given to that group.
there are two other forms of averages and they are the mode and the median
Hi Griper,
When I First Read your above Comment, I was Thinking that "You Correct me Over very Little Things that are not Really that Important and that is why I get the Feeling that you just Want me to be Wrong."
Along with that Thought, I saw what Appeared to me to be a Contradiction and here are the Two Quotes that Appear to Contradict.
"lista, you and i was saying the same thing. the only difference between your explanation and mine was that you were using scientific terminology, while i was using common terminology."
and
"lista, we are speaking of statistical analysis when referring to these words and that involves the use of numbers of absolute values."
In the first of these Quotes, you Claim that you are the One Who is Using Common Language and in the Second, you Appear to be Saying that Statistical Language is what should be Used.
This Comment Explains my Initial Response to you. In my Next Comment, I will Explain a Second and Perhaps Better Response, yet also Tell you Why I Think my Initial Responses to you are the Way that they are.
Here's the Thing... When I Stepped Back a Few Feet and Read the Second of the Above Quotes Again, I Realized Something and that is that My Initial Interpretation that you were Trying to Discredit my Words and Were Contradicting yourself were not the Only Interpretations that could be Made. The Other Interpretation is that you are Simply Explaining why you Use Absolutes.
I Think I Told you Once in Awhile when I am Annoyed, I have a Conditioned Anger Response to you. Well, now I'm Starting to Think that I also have a Conditioned Suspicious Reaction to you and that is Based on the Fact that it Really does Appear that you are Often Trying to Discredit me and at Least One of the Reasons why I Think that is Because it is Extremely Rare that you will Ever Acknowledge anything at all that I say as being Correct and I Know with Absolute Certainty that I am not Wrong about Absolutely Everything.
Also, a Conditioned Suspicious Reaction is Based on Mistrust and when you Told me Once that you don't Care whether or not I Trust you, this Conditioned Suspicious Reaction is One of the Consequences of your Decision to Not Care About Trust.
Ok, that being said, I'm Going to Set my Initial Suspicions about you Trying to Discredit all that I say Aside and Assume Instead that you Only Meant to Explain why you Use Absolutes and here is my Response to that...
The Absolutes that I am Referring to that you Use Far too Often, Griper, are Words such as "All", "None", "Always", "Never", "Everyone", "No One", "Everything", "Nothing", Etc. I've Said this to you a Million Times, Griper, and yet you still Seem to Think that I Mean Something Else when I Talk of Absolutes. These are the Absolutes that Relate to a Negative Type of Black and White Thinking.
When I am the One Using the Words, I Know what it is that I Mean, Griper, and anyway, it's just as Man of Wonder Said, "folks is folks and we don't fit with the science of facts." Since this is True, it doesn't Make Sense to Speak in Absolute Statistical Terms when Speaking of the Individuals that Make Up the Real World. Put Another Way, there is a Place for Statistics and for Statistical Language, but there is also a Time when Such should be Set Aside for the Sake of Actual Real Life Individuals.
Ok. Now for the Definitions of Words.
The Word "Range" sometimes Refers to the Largest and Smallest Values within what is Considered Normal. This is not the Largest and Smallest Values on the Bell Curve. In Grading, those who get the Cs are Considered Average and this is an Average Range, not the Absolute Average Number, as Figured Out Mathematically. It’s a Different Definition. That’s all.
It's Funny because Websters Defines the "Mean" as the Number in the Exact Middle between Two Extremes. That is Different then Average, because the Average is Figured Out by Adding Up the Numbers and then Dividing by the Number of the Values that were Added.
Well, When I Got my Statistics Book Out, I Realized that the Word Average does Indeed Refer to Several "Measures of Central Tendency".
I'd Like to Write Out the Definitions for you, but I don't Want to Take the Time. There is an Entire Chapter on "Central Tendency" in the Statistics Book, but it has been Awhile since I Studied it.
The Point that I Want to Make Now, though, Griper, is that I am Willing to Admit that you Might be Right about the Multiple Definitions of the Word Average within the Study of Statistics. You see, I am Willing to Admit when you Might be Right About Something. I so Wish that you would Occasionally Return that Favor, but you Rarely, if ever, do.
I Wonder where Man of Wonder Went. Did he have Trouble Finding an Adequate Step Ladder to Help him Understand what we've been Talking about?
You see, Griper, this is another Reason why being Limited to Scientific Terms is not such a Good Idea, for in Doing so, we Exclude Certain People from the Conversation who haven't Studied the Subject, nor the Technical Language that we are Using.
We have to be Careful, Griper, that in Our Efforts to Show Off all that we Know, we do not Cause too much Confusion in those who are Not Understanding a Word that we Say. To Me, Making an Impression with Technical Words is not Worth what it Costs us in the Area of Confusion.
lista,
i've already said we were in agreement earlier. the only thing i did was clarify what you were already saying.
Huh. What I Wonder now is whether or not BB-Idaho would Agree that your Previous Comment was nothing more than a Clarification of what I was already Saying. But then again, he is Quite Likely to just Step Back and say "No, Way! I'm not going to get Involved in the Conflict between you Two.", so I Tell you What...
At this Point, I'm just going to Drop it and Acknowledge that you Did Indeed Point Out an Agreement between us in your Comment on 2/10/11, at 12:35 AM, so Thank You.
Post a Comment