Live data from Hacker News

When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

thestar.com

1–10 of 116 posts

Re: When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

#5
Been noted here on HN: the average web form excludes lots of people. Lots of folks cant fill in: First/middle/last name; unique username/password; social security number; street address; bank account.

And not just folks in Micronesia or whatever. Heck my business partner hasn't got a deliverable street address - no mailbox at his house. He has a PO box. Is a nightmare getting Amazon deliveries that aren't lost, or left in the bushes, or returned undeliverable.

Anyway, yes, there is no average person.

Re: When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

#6
post #2

> any system designed around the average person is doomed to fail. Daniels published his findings in a 1952 Air Force Technical Note entitled The “Average Man”?

Which you can read here https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/010203.pdf

Re: When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

#7
Note that this is not some sort of unexpected effect due to humans not behaving mathematically ideally; this is what happens when your intuitions about 1, 2 and 3 dimensions are applied to higher dimensional spaces. Consider the goal of being in the middle 50% of a random value on one dimension; you have a 50% chance. But if you have two dimensions, and you want to be in the middle 50% for both of them, it's a 25% chance. And if you have 3, it's a ~12% chance. This already is counterintuitive, but when you ramp it up to 10 dimensions, it's a ~0.01% chance. That means that if you have a thousand people, only one of them (on average) will be in the middle 50% of all of them. Even the praised end state of the air force, with 9 dimensions and a required support of 90% of individuals of each dimension, implies that only 38% of individuals will be supported overall. (Granted, human dimensions aren't wholly uncorrelated.)

Re: When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

#8
This is a really interesting article. The most fascinating part is to learn that the AF actually listened to the man and changed their policies.

This kind of thing can happen even when only measuring a single dimension, if the distribution is multimodal. If everyone is either really short or really tall, then nobody will be near the average height.

Re: When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

#9

Note that this is not some sort of unexpected effect due to humans not behaving mathematically ideally; this is what happens when your intuitions about 1, 2 and 3 dimensions are applied to higher dimensional spaces. Consider the goal of being in the middle 50% of a random value on one dimension; you have a 50% chance. But if you have two dimensions, and you want to be in the middle 50% for both of them, it's a 25% ch…

Great explanation. This is an example of the curse of dimensionality. An intuitive way to think about this is that each dimension you add is another “chance” for one of them to fall outside of the range.

Another way to think about it is the often-cited unit n-dimensional sphere. If you were to uniformly sample points from within this n-dimensional sphere, as n increased, the proportion of points lying near the surface of the sphere would increase.

Re: When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages (2016)

#10
> Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions.

> Less than 40 of the 3,864 contestants were average size on just five of the nine dimensions and none of the contestants — not even Martha Skidmore — came close on all nine dimensions.

This seems more an issue of the "curse of dimensionality"[0] more than the "flaw of averages". Be very wary when you are trying to draw conclusions from a dataset with many dimensions.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality

Post reply on HN