It’s taking the median across two different axes independently, then sticking the results together. In principle, if we measure x and y values in a population, there may not actually be anybody in the population with median x value and median y value. Point is, the concept of “median” doesn’t neatly generalize to multiple dimensions.
So I sneakily swept all that under the rug and fudged it by saying “average”.
I wonder what the downside of assuming it is the median, instead of the median in each group, for the purpose of writing posts is. And if there’s a convenient statistical measure of that.
ETA: If one assumed that, we’d figure that our posts would be read by professional programmer, who is a technical undergrad, who majored in CS, and took at least a course in economics, and probability, and read the sequences. If we assumed no correlation and treated the ratios as probabilities, then multiplied them together, the chance of a reader being exactly that would be 2.4%. The chance of them having at least that knowledge would be about 12%.* I was asking whether it’s actually higher or lower than that based on the survey data.
This looks like the median.
It’s taking the median across two different axes independently, then sticking the results together. In principle, if we measure x and y values in a population, there may not actually be anybody in the population with median x value and median y value. Point is, the concept of “median” doesn’t neatly generalize to multiple dimensions.
So I sneakily swept all that under the rug and fudged it by saying “average”.
I wonder what the downside of assuming it is the median, instead of the median in each group, for the purpose of writing posts is. And if there’s a convenient statistical measure of that.
ETA: If one assumed that, we’d figure that our posts would be read by professional programmer, who is a technical undergrad, who majored in CS, and took at least a course in economics, and probability, and read the sequences. If we assumed no correlation and treated the ratios as probabilities, then multiplied them together, the chance of a reader being exactly that would be 2.4%. The chance of them having at least that knowledge would be about 12%.* I was asking whether it’s actually higher or lower than that based on the survey data.
*(.504+.252)(1-.236-.195)(1-.089-.297)(1-.134)(.537+.272+.138)(.537)=0.11631737422