META: The Age of RACC Posters and Readers...

[Arthur Spitzer]

Tarq wrote:
> On Oct 2, 11:42 am, Arthur Spitzer <arspit... at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Back in 2004, I did a survey for the age of RACC readers...
>>
>> Nine people answered it... (well 10 if you count Brian Perler's too old)
> 
> Nine people have answered again now as well.

Actually, now that I think about it last time a couple of posters
sent me an e-mail with there age...

I think it was Jesse Willey and Byron Molix...

Can't remember what the ages were...

(23 and 31 maybe)..

So it was actually 11 plus Brian Perler's too old)

> 
>> The average age back then was 28.33...
> 
> The average now is 30.777...

31.167 with the people who responded after this post...


> 
>> the youngest person was 19... the oldest was 37...
> 
> The youngest is 16, the oldest 40, making for a range of 24.
> Interesting that both have changed by three.
> 
>> But I suppose RACC could have a bunch of young people now that
>> would bring the average down....
>>
>> So I ask again just to see if the average is going to keep going up...
> 
> And it would appear that it is!
> 
>> I'm 31 at the moment... (in a few more days I'll be 32)
> 
> The above figures come from calling you 32. Happy birthday, for
> whenever it is!

Thanks.

> Assuming that Arthur is 32, the mode and median are both also 32.
> 
>> Arthur "Scientifically inaccurate" Spitzer
> 
> Technically, my age is far enough removed from the mode that I
> shouldn't be counted in the average -- I'm an 'outlier'. Damn it,
> science. This is why we can't have nice things.
> 
> ~Mitchell.

I thought the point of stats was to manipulate them till you got the
effect that you wanted.  :)


Arthur "The Average" Spitzer