In another thread the term 'average person' surfaced. Someone insisted that everybody knows what the average person is. Someone insisted we can derive conclusions from the average person. This simplified vision might be common in sociology circles but is it indeed so obvious and simple? What is the average person? If you use the keywords 'average person definition' in google you will not find anything interesting. The average person seems to exist, but at the same time the average person is not defined. I can tell you that the average person does not exist. I can already show you this by asking you one question. Is the average person male or female? Your thoughts on the topic of 'average person' are welcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloggs John Doe: a hypothetical average man I'll add Jane Doe: a hypothetical average woman I see what he's saying in that post, to be honest. He didn't word it to be spurious monkey proof though, that was his downfall Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If he'd said something like "Can't you see how, on average, people who are exposed to media absorb what they're told and are effected by it; in that they make decisions, form opinions and can be persuaded easily by it?" it might have been better. Maybe that wasn't what he meant at all though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The 'average person' is not a real person who exists in a specific manner, but rather a term applied in order to define the common traits within a defined human group. You can find an average person the same way you establish an 'average' anything else' but the criteria have to be defined and limited, as an average person at an AA meeting for example is an alcoholic, whereas that same person might be married and thus not the average person if attending a 'singles' party. So to find an 'average person' you need first to define the 'setting' or culture where a 'group' can be observed and then define the criteria for observing what is different and what is alike. I could be described as an 'average' female in my friendship circle based on certain criteria, and yet I am the least average within the school mums circle using the exact same criteria. Thus an 'average' can be found but only after the parameters have been defined and the criteria for rating a minority, majority group etc. If someone is using a global reference to 'average person' that can only be done using extreme parameters, such as the 'average person' is not a serial killer. I think this is a fair assumption. The average person is not over 100yrs of age. Another fair assumption. .
Hang on actually, I just read the thread past the 'average person' bit. ripleofdeath sounds like he has a background in merchant banking.
We can live in hope. or God forbid. I can't decide which.. Slightly more males according to this - http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html click 2006 and submit at bottom of page
Re the thread quoted in first post, Riple has misused the word 'average', as the average group he refers to is the world population, and thus harder to establish that entire world on average is easily influenced by the media. While the media is designed to 'infleunce' and it is undoubtably effective the average cannot be easily determined re how the response to it is met as there are too many defining criteria. The 'average' person I know would NOT be easily influenced by the media. BUT, the average person that I know does make them the 'average' for the worlds population, which they more than likely are not. The 'average' person in a third world country who has no access to media is also not infleuenced. The deeply religious will not be influenced by any amount of anti religion media, the deeply health conscious will not be persuaded by media to eat fat filled sandwiches etc etc. So what is the group the 'average' has been drawn from and what are the defining 'criteria' for establishing an 'average' within that group.
Average traits are shared by many people. Were you to graph a trait, its distribution through a population would tend to look like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! People with many such traits are average people.
I misuse the term "average" in this context and I think most people do too, and in the same way. I would say more precisely, "a person who is not a statistical outlier and therefore is not excluded from the sample space when performing statistical calculations such as averaging." Since almost no one understands statistics, much less the statistical method, they won't say it that way, but what they mean, loosely, is, "a person who is not so extreme, by any measure relevant to the current discourse, that what we assume to be general traits of human beings don't apply to him." Psychopaths are not "average people" in any milieu we're likely to willingly encounter. When we say that the average person doesn't kill people for pleasure or because he hears voices in his head, we're identifying psychopaths as outliers. University professors are not "average people." No one, not even a professor, will disagree when we say that the average person doesn't understand the theory of relativity, couldn't find Tannu Tuva on a map, and is unaware that Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian are not related to the other major European languages. But the unspoken definition of "average" is not easily extended very far beyond these obvious examples. Are cops average people? City council members? Librarians? Drag racers? Doctors? Lesbians? Marijuana smokers? You unknowingly meet people of these demographic groups every day in the grocery store, at PTA meetings, and perhaps even at your kids' birthday parties. You talk with them and they seem "average" in this context. Their world view is similar enough to yours that you easily establish common frames of reference for discussion and your disagreements are civil if not downright cordial. But what if you're discussing a political issue in which you have great emotional investment? Would you consider a cop an average person when talking about civil liberties? A doctor when talking about the spread of HIV? A lesbian when talking about childrearing? Don't feel hostile if you happen to be a member of one of those groups, just keep reading... And what if you're on the outside looking in? Mensa members--with IQs of 135 or greater putting them in the 98th percentile of that particular scale--regard everyone else as average. We IT professionals feel the same way about the probably equal size (and somewhat overlapping) portion of the population who don't readily grasp the concepts of computing. Every elite group, when they get together and talk shop, implicitly dismiss the rest of us as average. So does every group with any commality, such as lesbians, Presbyterians, and blind people. So the word is entirely dependent on context. About all we can say about it is that it is an inaccurate term, a convenient shorthand for "unexceptional."
Exactly. Very few people are average in every way possible. So I like the way you put it, Roman. People with many such traits (traits that are common) are average people. However, if you insist that an average person must be average in every single possible way, then you're going to have a problem.
I believe so, a good deal of the male population gets spatted in wars, plus women naturally live longer, but maybe nature redresses the balance by producing more males. Isn't a greater proportion of females better for populating this puss filled orb of ours, anyway though? So maybe it is a 50-50 random chance that a fetus is a boy or girl.
Let's say we have a hypothetical population of organisms where 80% of offspring are female, the population is 80% female. Then a mother has a mutation that makes it so her offspring are 80% male. Guess what's going to happen? That gene is going to spread very quickly, as her offspring (mostly male) will be able to mate with many females. 50% is a sort of balancing point where neither sex is winning in spreading genes. Thanks. I know a lot of average people with a few non-average abilities. But Fraggle has a good point about what certain individuals call average. If you're of minority group A, are all non-A average?
Thats not how it works, evolution will find the balance best suited to maintaining and increasing the population as much as possible. If say producing a 60% average of females is the best for growth that is what will be selected for.
Wrong. Evolution, as scientists know it today, is through natural selection, which is based on individuals reproducing and spreading their traits, not on what's best for a population. If there was some reason that having 60% of your offspring females gave you a better chance at spreading your genese around, then there could be possible selection for it.
May I add: Women are more usefull reproductively but that may not be the only factor for best population growth. If a society produces loads more baby growing factories than ass kickers, more of the population may be subject to premature death due to lack of defence. Evolution will select the best balance though.
No. Natural selection may determine a ratio. Sexual selection may determine a ratio. Random genetic drift may determine a ratio. Evolution are simply those changes, over time.