I'm not surprised about the median figure because there's a much larger group of marriageable people on the older side of 20 than the younger side.
Dawn: You're not fleeing. You're... moving at a brisk pace. Buffy: Quaintly referred to in some cultures as the Big Scaredy Run Away.
'Touched'
Natter 47: My Brilliance Is Wasted On You People
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
bon bon - Oct 17, 2006 8:07:35 am PDT #3972 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
Topic!Cindy - Oct 17, 2006 8:09:55 am PDT #3973 of 10001
What is even happening?
That's why I'm wondering if there's another reason they're using median instead of mean.
Tom Scola - Oct 17, 2006 8:10:12 am PDT #3974 of 10001
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
Is there a particular advantage to looking at the median, rather than the mean, in a table like the one linked above?
The distribution isn't bell-curve shaped. There will be quite a few people getting married in their twenties, and it will tail off as people get older. While there may be only a few people getting married in their 90s, it will make the average much higher than the median, and misrepresent the data.
flea - Oct 17, 2006 8:10:36 am PDT #3975 of 10001
information libertarian
My guess (ex-cloaca) is that in 1890 people waited to get married until they could afford to set up their own households, i.e. in rural areas. It took a while to amass the cash to do that.
megan walker - Oct 17, 2006 8:10:37 am PDT #3976 of 10001
"What kind of magical sunshine and lollipop world do you live in? Because you need to be medicated."-SFist
What I found interesting (and comforting I guess) in the marriage stats was the huge jump in the "Never Marrieds" found here: Percent Never Married 1970-2004
Jesse - Oct 17, 2006 8:10:48 am PDT #3977 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Is there a particular advantage to looking at the median, rather than the mean, in a table like the one linked above?
I think it guards against outliers, so someone marrying for the first time at 50 doesn't throw it off as much as it would in a mean. If you have 15, 20, 20, 20, 25, 25, 50, the median is 20, but the mean is 25.
Topic!Cindy - Oct 17, 2006 8:13:24 am PDT #3978 of 10001
What is even happening?
Okay, that makes sense. Well then, I want all these tables in median, mean, and mode.
Topic!Cindy - Oct 17, 2006 8:13:55 am PDT #3979 of 10001
What is even happening?
I also want a cookie for remembering 'mode'.
flea - Oct 17, 2006 8:14:05 am PDT #3980 of 10001
information libertarian
I want a pony.
Jesse - Oct 17, 2006 8:15:11 am PDT #3981 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
The mode in my post is 20.
Anyway, married couples aren't even the majority amoung households anymore. [link]