Most people have more than the average number of feet. People with bigger hands are better readers than those with smaller hands. Researchers have found that Republicans enjoy sex more than Democrats do
.
Most people have more than the average number of feet. People with bigger hands are better readers than those with smaller hands.
LOL. I’m a numbers guy and #1 is one of the best things I’ve heard in a loooonnnng time!
What’s the basis for #2 though? Is it an age based bias?
I don’t get it.
We’ll let people think about it a bit first. These were taken from a book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/books/03gewen.html
THE NUMBERS GAME
The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life
By Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot
210 pages. Gotham Books. $22.
I don’t get it.
You don’t believe it, you don’t understand it, what does “I don’t get it” mean?
Very cool. I’ll have to pick that one up!
Thanks!
Most people have two feet. Because of birth defects, injury, etc., many people have one foot or no feet. The people with one foot or no feet far exceed the number of people who for some reason may have three or more feet. Thus, depending upon how or if you round, the average number of feet that people have is something less than two.
Example: 10 people, 1 with three feet (birth anomaly), 1 with one foot and 1 with no feet (lost in accident or war or birth anomaly), 7 with two feet. Thus we have 10 people with a total of 18 feet. The average is 1.8 feet per person. Nevertheless 80% of those people have more than the average number of feet.
#1 is indeed funny. For that matter, most of us have more than the average number of hands and more than the average number of eyes.
There are a lot of interesting facts about numbers that can mess people up. For instance, if you take some quantity, increase it by 10%, then decrease it by 10%, and repeat that pattern a few more times, you end up with less than you started with.
You just have to do it once.
10 apples increased by 10 % is 11 apples.
11 apples decreased by 10% is 9.9 apples.
For instance, if you take some quantity, increase it by 10%, then decrease it by 10%, and repeat that pattern a few more times, you end up with less than you started with.
You don’t have to repeat it at all, as I’m sure you well know.
Here’s the classic example: You start with two containers. One has 50 spoonfuls of brandy, one has 50 spoonfuls of water. Take one spoonful of brandy and add it to the water. Mix well. Take one spoonful of that and add it back to the brandy container. Does the first container contain more brandy than the second container does water?
Here’s the classic example:
I thought the classic example was Worker 1 “My 401K just lost 50%. It’s going to take a long time to get that 50% back”. Worker 2 “Yes a lot longer because now your portfolio has to grow by 100% to get back to where you were” 
~Matt
People with bigger hands are better readers than those with smaller hands.
Hmmm, I always thought big hands meant something else.
~Matt
Of course, I was just emphasizing the point. Eventually, your quantity would approach zero in the limit.
Hmmm, I always thought big hands meant something else.
I have big hands.
I wear big gloves.
Of course. See my post to brick.
Statistics for Dummies.
What’s the basis for #2 though? Is it an age based bias?
Must be.
Here’s an interesting numbers question: Assuming that you’re using an IQ scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 (as the Stanford-Binet is supposed to be), what percentage of the total IQ points is “owned” by the top 1%?
I feel safe raising the question, since no one has figured out any means of redistributing this kind of “wealth.” 
Depends on the type of distribution.
Thanks. I did not understand it.