[HN Gopher] Flaw of Averages (2002)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Flaw of Averages (2002)
        
       Author : tchalla
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2022-01-04 10:15 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (hbr.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (hbr.org)
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | Any average is a reduction of dimensionality.
       | 
       | Strange that people never see it that way. I wonder if they don't
       | worry about it in other everyday contexts (e.g. floor plans)?
        
       | wcrossbow wrote:
       | The example is not great. I wouldn't blame the use of averages
       | there, but rather not realizing that when the cost of
       | excess/spoil is not symmetrical the optimal answer in terms of
       | minimizing average cost is not going to be the forecasted value
       | regardless of how it was obtained.
        
       | kk6mrp wrote:
       | One of my favorite quotes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
       | Galaxy:
       | 
       | "Population: None. Although you might see people from time to
       | time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple
       | mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be
       | zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite
       | there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them
       | are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite
       | number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average
       | population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population
       | must be zero."
        
         | xboxnolifes wrote:
         | > But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite
         | number are.
         | 
         | Isn't this a leap in logic? Not all subsets of an infinite set
         | are finite.
        
           | kk6mrp wrote:
           | How do you mean that not all subsets of an infinite set are
           | finite, or in what cases would this be so?
        
             | xboxnolifes wrote:
             | Ex: {n [?] R | n is odd}
        
             | jcranmer wrote:
             | The set of prime integers is a strict subset of the set of
             | integers, and yet both are infinite (they have the same
             | cardinality even--that is, they are the same size, in one
             | sense of 'size').
        
             | feoren wrote:
             | Take all the even numbers. That's a subset of all whole
             | numbers. Is it a finite set? Clearly not. Both are
             | infinite; the population of even numbers is 50%. Sometimes
             | infinity/infinity = 0.5.
        
           | HWR_14 wrote:
           | The universe isn't infinite either. But neither of those is
           | the major error with his reasoning.
        
           | AnimalMuppet wrote:
           | Douglas Adams wasn't writing a treatise on mathematics...
        
             | xboxnolifes wrote:
             | He was not, but the usage of the quote in this context
             | implies some relevance to mathematical averaging and it's
             | flaws. If the reasoning is not sound, neither is the
             | usefulness in this context.
        
       | jw887c wrote:
       | My favorite flaw of averages isn't even mentioned in this
       | article. It's the aggregation of averages across covariates. The
       | more covariates (higher dimensions) your problem has, the less
       | likely the population will exist "in the average".
       | 
       | This was explored in a famous study of Air Force pilots and when
       | measuring across 10 different dimensions, found that 0 pilots
       | were "average" across all 10.
       | 
       | https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
       | 
       | >There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you've designed
       | a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you've actually designed it
       | to fit no one.
       | 
       | edit: wrong link
        
         | flohofwoe wrote:
         | You had the wrong link in your clipboard ;)
         | 
         | It's probably this one?
         | 
         | https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
         | 
         | (PS: this is my favourite pet theory why UX is such a
         | trainwreck these days, UIs are designed for an "average user"
         | that doesn't exist, driven by "telemetry averages")
        
           | kwhitefoot wrote:
           | User interfaces should be designed for the users you _will
           | have_ in the long run. In industry and commerce these will be
           | expert users.
           | 
           | I spent a large chunk of my life writing software to design
           | transformers. The UIs broke all of the naive 'rules' about UI
           | design and were crammed full of information, buttons, boxes,
           | entry fields, pull down lists, etc.
           | 
           | For the users they were designed for they were very
           | productive. For a casual or first time user they were
           | impossible to use. But we had no casual users, only experts
           | who were in a hurry and would not tolerate having to wade
           | through multiple screens to perform some small _what-if_
           | exercise. It was like an airliner cockpit, everything as
           | close to hand as possible and only the rarely used items on
           | other pages.
           | 
           | A frequent request was to enlarge the window so that _more_
           | could be fitted in at once, it was much rarer to be asked to
           | move something off the main window.
        
         | tenkabuto wrote:
         | You linked to the OP by mistake. Please share the article you
         | were referring to!
        
       | dariosalvi78 wrote:
       | that's why you should use guesstimate!
       | https://www.getguesstimate.com/
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-04 23:02 UTC)