This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kdammers(talk | contribs) at 12:33, 7 July 2009(Why this is "paradoxical."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:33, 7 July 2009 by Kdammers(talk | contribs)(Why this is "paradoxical.")
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
This article has not yet received a rating on the 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. 143.252.80.11015:50, 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 | Talk21:15, 6 September 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. Lenoxus" * "20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the phen. is expressed in the abstract with-out details, it appears paradoxical because it sounds like you are getting some-thing for/from nothing: By "reducing," I actually increase. Kdammers (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
