this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
755 points (98.0% liked)

Science Memes

20463 readers
844 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I think you mean then median person. ☝️🤓

[–] TheRedSpade@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can't speak for anyone else, but I was taught that mean, median, and mode are three different types of average.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh crap. Translating average to my language yields the same word as mean. But you're right.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because mean means average. I wouldn’t consider the median or the mode to be an average. Not sure what that commenter means by different “types of average”.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

What they mean is that all three are different kinds of averaging. This is correct, but I don't think people in general think 'median' when they hear 'average'

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Not a native English speaker here. Today I learned, too. Thank you.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Under a normal distribution/bell curve mean and median are the same.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Considering intelligence/stupidity isn't defined, it's a lot to assume that its distribution can be approximated by a Gaussian.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t totally disagree, I’ve never seen an actual distribution of random iq scores

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

And there's plenty of criticism of IQ tests as a proxy for intelligence, even if we did have the data.