Title.
And I heard that the heights above ±3SD deviate from the normal distribution. I dunno why.
I used the height percentile calculator to count the percentile of 185cm in American white males and the result showed '86%', which means 185cm in America is taller than 86% or the American white males. Does it stick with the fact?
Quote from: Medium Drink Of Water on November 10, 2021, 01:50:05 PMHuman height is subject to the normal distribution. 3SD is not the limit of the normal distribution.
Normal distribution can eradicate some girls' illusions that there are no men under 185cm or they are not men. Those are btches beyond crazy TBH
Quote from: Audous on November 10, 2021, 05:54:39 AMI guess it's true, I've been to the US and around 85% of the men I saw were less than 185cm. Around 25% of the men I saw while walking was below 170cm, 35% below 173cm and 50% below 175cm. This however varies between regions because the Midwest probably has an average of 179cm as it has high percentage of Scandinavian DNA in their local population so being 170cm there would probably mean you're only taller than 10% of men whereas in California the average is probably 172cm-173cm as there is a lot of Asian and Latino population as well as people from other immigrant backgrounds.
Edit: Also a lot of white Americans have Greek and Italian DNA and they tend to be shorter on average than other Europeans so it's not surprising to see that 85% of white men are below 185cm. Median white man (50th percentile) is probably 178cm but as soon as you add 1cm the percentiles increase like a rocket hence why 185cm is such a high percentile.
But I dunno why, for instance, one place's average height is 173cm, but if you are 172cm then you are short in that place while if you are 174cm then you are not tall, very absurd. Seems like the standard of tall is higher implicitly than that of short.
Quote from: zaozari on November 10, 2021, 02:25:38 PMIt doesn't deviate. The problem with more than 3 SD is that because the variable (individuals height) is so rare above that, that it is subject to an enormous error margin; the values are not to trust. If you express in percentage of population you can have for example either 0,1 % or the double, 0,2%...
For example if you have 150 cm (3,5 standard deviation), male, USA, you are theoretically (mathematically) in the 0.024 Percentile but in reallity this value is most probably not exactly true, far from that (calculator in Tall.com).
Is there any scientific paper that has proven the normal distribution will go out of line with the actual situations when the variable goes beyond ±3SD? I think Gauss mentioned this strange phenomena in the statistics in his writings or scripts or something.
Quote from: zaozari on November 11, 2021, 04:23:23 PMBTW, that "wording" for less or more than 1 2 or 3 SD is not mine, it's the usual approximate terminology used in science for fuman height.
Some countries prefer to consider for example 160 cm or less for adults without any concomitant disease (even if not corresponding to 3 SD) to define "Constitutional Short Stature". This has practical implications in growing charts in treating or not treating the trend while still child/adolescent and it wouldn't be practical the reference to 2
SDs in hospitals for each child (updated when ? Based in what study or sample's composition?...)
I think the another reason why the sample over ±3SD doesn't subject to the normal distribution is that either they are dwarfisms or gigantisms, excluded by authoritative anthropometric researches and people tend to mistake 198, 199cm tall men for ≥200cm tall men and likewise mistake 150, 151cm tall men for 148, 149cm tall men and yeah you got it right for you mentioned subjective factors.
That's also why I'm all the time thinking 'men under 180cm are not men', 'There has been no men under 180cm' and similar bs told by idiots and retards as just laughing stocks.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
