The problem is not with averaging. The problem is the misunderstanding of what the result means and where the result is actually coming from.
The average weight of a stable atomic nucleus—averaged over all stable nuclei [of all elements], for instance, is not an important fact from nuclear physics. It is almost entirely useless trivia so uninteresting that I wouldn’t be surprised if not a single nuclear physicist has ever calculated it. Likewise, the average human behaviour, when there is huge variance in human behaviour, is more of a demographical fact than psychological.
Likewise in the computer science example; there is a great variety of the work that is performed, with different consequences to mistakes; the average mistake’s average cost over time is much more of a fact about the average ratio between different types of work, than a fact about software development process and the fate of any particular mistake and correction. I develop software for living, and I am saying that this factoid is of about as much relevance to my work as the average atomic weight of a stable nucleus is important in the nuclear physics (or any physics).
Original post is a draft… I intend to rewrite it some to make it a good main post. It is much easier for me to respond to comments than to just make arguments from the blue which would address possible comments.
Is this true? My map says that most humans exhibit similar behaviour in most circumstances, but that as social animals we are tuned to pick out the differences more than the similarities, so we just feel that everyone is completely different. If I’ve got this wrong then I’ve got some serious updating to do.
On a related note, if I type human behavior or human ethology into Wikipedia I don’t seem to get a page explaining how humans behave, but instead get a few observations on how human behaviour is studied. Have I gone completely crazy here?
Any two things look the same if you look from far enough away. Any two things look different if you look from close enough in. Similarity, like probability, is in the observer, not the observed.
Missing that point drove my ontology wildly off course in a metaphysics course in undergrad. Seeing the obvious similarity between red things, even if they were reflecting slightly different wavelengths, led me to believe that Universals such as Red and Courage exist. It may be that that point should be pushed harder on this site.
Well, as far as attitude towards savings—or other topic being studied is concerned—yes the behaviour is very diverse. As far as human cognition goes—some people using mental imagery, some people not having mental imagery at all—ditto.
But what does ‘very varied’ mean? Well, too varied for the common methods would do. As varied as my atomic weight example.
The problem is not with averaging. The problem is the misunderstanding of what the result means and where the result is actually coming from.
The average weight of a stable atomic nucleus—averaged over all stable nuclei [of all elements], for instance, is not an important fact from nuclear physics. It is almost entirely useless trivia so uninteresting that I wouldn’t be surprised if not a single nuclear physicist has ever calculated it. Likewise, the average human behaviour, when there is huge variance in human behaviour, is more of a demographical fact than psychological.
Likewise in the computer science example; there is a great variety of the work that is performed, with different consequences to mistakes; the average mistake’s average cost over time is much more of a fact about the average ratio between different types of work, than a fact about software development process and the fate of any particular mistake and correction. I develop software for living, and I am saying that this factoid is of about as much relevance to my work as the average atomic weight of a stable nucleus is important in the nuclear physics (or any physics).
I found this comment clearer and more engaging than the original post.
Original post is a draft… I intend to rewrite it some to make it a good main post. It is much easier for me to respond to comments than to just make arguments from the blue which would address possible comments.
I agree with the grandparent and think those examples should be integrated in the main point.
Offtopic, but:
Is this true? My map says that most humans exhibit similar behaviour in most circumstances, but that as social animals we are tuned to pick out the differences more than the similarities, so we just feel that everyone is completely different. If I’ve got this wrong then I’ve got some serious updating to do.
On a related note, if I type human behavior or human ethology into Wikipedia I don’t seem to get a page explaining how humans behave, but instead get a few observations on how human behaviour is studied. Have I gone completely crazy here?
Any two things look the same if you look from far enough away. Any two things look different if you look from close enough in. Similarity, like probability, is in the observer, not the observed.
Missing that point drove my ontology wildly off course in a metaphysics course in undergrad. Seeing the obvious similarity between red things, even if they were reflecting slightly different wavelengths, led me to believe that Universals such as Red and Courage exist. It may be that that point should be pushed harder on this site.
Well, as far as attitude towards savings—or other topic being studied is concerned—yes the behaviour is very diverse. As far as human cognition goes—some people using mental imagery, some people not having mental imagery at all—ditto.
But what does ‘very varied’ mean? Well, too varied for the common methods would do. As varied as my atomic weight example.