Ask HN: Why is the metric Median less popular than Average?
In almost all real-world instances - From individuals making personal decisions, to inter-governmental groups - whenever one is to try inferring meaning from data, Average seems to be the 'natural' metric of choice. To me, a lot of them could be using Median for better decision-making, but that seems to be no one's first choice.
From a sociological point of view, what is that?
A few points on why I feel Average is the dominant statistic (and counter-points):
* Median requires one to keep an indexed, sorted list. Average can be computed without needing order. _- This seems to be only a positive in computational sense, not real-world-decision-making sense. Governments can wait extra 10 minutes to calculate Median income instead of Average income._
* Average is simple for the Human Brain to make sense of
6 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] threadhttp://web.archive.org/web/20071224022523/http://shlang.com/...
From a philosophical perspective, the median hides outliers which, however, contribute to the total value of a population.
It's because most people are mathematically illiterate and most people don't know that there's even a difference between median and average or a reason to use one over the other.
Computationally, computing the average vs the median is virtually instant for 99+% of data sets on modern hardware. I can't imagine what a data set would have to look like for it to take an extra 10 minutes to figure out the median.