Talk:Will Rogers phenomenon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:04, 16 April 2008

Oklahoma Unassessed

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why is this considered a paradox? It seems mathematically obvious that moving a value from a set in which it is the lowest to a set in which it is the highest will raise the average of both sets. If you chop the left-hand side off one tree and nail it onto the right-hand side of another tree, then both will tend to fall over towards the right. 143.252.80.110 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything paradoxical about it either, it's just common sense. But the same could be said of many other things people think of as paradoxes. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same way. I know the joke of course (the local variant involves Limburg and the Netherlands) but I've no idea why this is an "apparant paradox". Wouter Lievens 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over a year later, here's my guess -- I think its a simple mix-up of averages and totals. If you chop off part of one tree and add it to another, you obviously haven't increased the volume of both trees. Similarly, the movement of a group of people from one area to another can't decrease or increase the total "intelligence" (which I guess would be the sum of IQ test results, or something). Either it's that, or it's that people forget that the average intelligences of the two locations are meant to be understood as different at the outset.

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:04, 23 October 2006 edit Wlievens (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,559 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:04, 16 April 2008 edit undo Lenoxus (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,250 edits reply Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::I felt the same way. I know the joke of course (the local variant involves [[Limburg]] and the [[Netherlands]]) but I've no idea why this is an "apparant paradox". [[User:Wlievens\|Wouter Lievens]] 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)		::I felt the same way. I know the joke of course (the local variant involves [[Limburg]] and the [[Netherlands]]) but I've no idea why this is an "apparant paradox". [[User:Wlievens\|Wouter Lievens]] 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
			:Over a year later, here's my guess -- I think its a simple mix-up of averages and totals. If you chop off part of one tree and add it to another, you obviously haven't increased the volume of both trees. Similarly, the movement of a group of people from one area to another can't decrease or increase the ''total'' "intelligence" (which I guess would be the sum of IQ test results, or something). Either it's that, or it's that people forget that the average intelligences of the two locations are meant to be understood as different at the outset. <math>\sim</math> [[User:Lenoxus\|Lenoxus]] [[User talk:Lenoxus\|" * "]] 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)