On 4/12/04 6:20 pm, in article
usenetter-550126.10200104122004@news.telus.net, "Gordon Mulcaster"
<usenetter@telus.net> wrote:

> In article <808703ec.0412030955.a5cb24f@posting.google.com>,
>  JohnKane9996@hotmail.com (JRKRideau) wrote:
> 
>> "Judith Wheat" <judithwheat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<oV5rd.12780$kI6.837470@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <norfolk.inspam@dev.null> wrote in message
>>> news:2pipq05b9mji4a9mukngt255iokng11igk@4ax.com...
>>>> On 30 Nov 2004 10:56:07 -0800, fornewsgroups@shaw.ca (DiscoDuck)
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
>>>>> statistic-85% of people know that." :)
>>>> 
>>>> Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
>>>> spot ;-)
>>> 
>>> Statistics have shown that 65.34% of statistics are inaccurate.
>>> And 80% of people consider themselves to be above average.
>> 
>> This last is perfectly possible if you define the average as the
>> arithemetic mean (that is, add up all the numbers and divide by the
>> number of people) :)
> 
> Ummm, no.
surely you mean 'Umm, yes' as you demonstrate.
> If you use the arithmatic mean 50% of the people will be above
> the mean and 50% below the mean, that's what the mean means.
 
That is the median, not the mean. Go back to maths 101.

> A majority 
> can be above average no problem. See example:
> 
> 
> 2, 7, 9 , average = 6, 66.7% of the numbers are above average.

mean = sum of values divided by number of values
median = the middle value.
mode = the most observed value.

..d