And yes, 1 cm makes a lot of difference statistically the taller you are. If you are 191 cm ("vary tall") you are in the 97,8 percentil (wich is allmost again, like for short people (2 3%), only 2,2% (100-97,8) of population. The 0,1 difference may be either because I am not allways including millimeters or the gaussian distributation starts the deviation in the extremes.
Nvm I read it wrong, you're right. Most American men are somewhere around 180.
Your objection to SD's larger than three seems to be based on the increasing likelihood that sufficient sampling is not practical past them.
The normal distribution still exists even if you have sampling difficulties. There are maximum and minimum limits to pretty much everything so the normal distribution will break down in the extremes eventually almost every time you apply it.
I think you're being too demanding in your standards. It's an appropriate tool for conceptualizing human height.
You are right, (I talked about "mathematical" gaussean and "biological" gaussean) and I believe too it's a great tool for studies, research, medical and anthropological evaluation, etc, in fact maybe the single one for its purpose. I don't see much difference between your post and what I tried to explain. I don't criticise the technique even past 3 SD. We just have to know how to fully interpretate it. Often in some areas, the number of outliers may be exaggerated.
I am not being demanding, for me in practical terms this is irrelevant, if the 3 SD "delivers" a true or false value (comparing to reality) of 0,01 % or 0,02 % percentiles. It is a technical aspect of something that is much more practical, psychological, sociologic, personal, etc.
BTW, 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?...)
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.
