and if you have 300 million pieces of data to input? which method would you use? WHY???

On what basis do you claim that the uppermost quintile was excluded from the data?


Using the median, as opposed to the mean as a measure of central tendency does not exclude data from the analysis. The top 20% is in fact counted when calculating the median, which is based on the 50% mark, and I think you're misunderstanding what a median is, it is not calculated by taking the average of whatever values someone sees fit from the dataset.

If you have some specific proof that values in the upper range were excluded from the presented dataset, I would like to see it.
Here's my proof

every body makes 1 dollar in 1973...(100*1) 100
mean 1 / median 1
now incomes go up for 2005..(60*1 + 40*10) 460
mean 4.6 / median..........1
no change in income reported with a 400% increase in overall income...which is reflected in the average.

From the census bureau.

Again.

The distribution of wealth in the
United States has a large positive
skew, with relatively few households
holding a large proportion of
the wealth. For this type of distribution,
the median is the preferred
measure of central tendency
because it is less sensitive than
the average (mean) to extreme
observations. The median is also
considerably lower than the average,
and provides a more accurate
representation of the wealth and
asset holdings of the typical
household. For example, more
households have a net worth near
the median of $55,000 than near
the average of $182,381.


And?

Where is data excluded? (btw, there would still be 100 people, 100, not 460 is what you would be dividing by)

Whatever.

If you had actually read mt post, you would see where I told you that there were still 100 people.

Go and find me something beside your opinion if you want to make a convincing argument. With all due respect, you just don't stack up against the Census Bureau when it comes to authority or consensus regarding statistical methods for census data.

Yes, the median is less sensitive to highly skewed data (like income data). Just bolding one part of the quote and disregarding the rest really isn't convincing at all.

You accused a poster of dishonesty for using the same measures when reporting census data that the census bureau does. All logic and firmly established mathematical principles in the world aren't sufficient against your opinions.

First you claim the median is a dishonest meaure. I show where it isn't with a substantial explanation from the US Census Bureau. Then you take issue with the explanation because you think it's negatively skewed, I showed where it isn't. Then You make wild claims using the median to exclude data without showing what values you're talking about, and claiming the median is an average of only part of the data. I show where neither is the case.

Now, you want to interpret the census bureaus explanation for the convention to to mean the exact opposite of what it says.


Whatever. 


I'm done with this "debate".

Typically, I charge by the hour for teaching math. Consider the schooling on central tendencies a freebie. I had it ready to go for the remedial math class I teach.

OHH, good insult. Applauded