I was having a conversation with my best friend and they said that the average height is a subject thing bc in order for it to be objective they need to have study or gotten all the heights from every man in American. I’m not certain how data or stats work. But maybe it’s objective only by those who have been tested on average? Idk how to explain it to them or if I’m wrong help me understand a bit better.
In: 0
Your friend seems to have the wrong impression of what “subjective” means.
A study of average heights if run correctly would be “objective”
This does not require that every single person in the world be measured.
There is basically nothing in science that does that.
Rather, for studies like that a “sample” of people are measured.
Basically, if you randomly picked a big enough bunch of people, the odds that you got (un)lucky , and for example: picked only tall people, are low enough that you can start making generalizations about the entire population.
Science will also make a note that based on how small your bunch is, what’s the biggest amount you’re likely to be wrong by.
Now sampling isn’t perfect, in addition to random chance there are a whole bunch of ways that a sample could get skewed by a certain way (intentionally or not). But good science notes these and if possible tries to correct them.
I don’t know what a “subjective study” would look like, but probably just a guy going to some countries and coming back and saying: “I think people in country X are really tall”
I think both of you are misunderstanding what objectivity is.
A measure of height is always objective, if you’re giving it as a numerical measure anyway.
That doesn’t mean it’s correct or accurate. Some people seem to have the impression that a claim is objective if it’s true and subjective if it’s not, but that’s not what those words mean.
Subjective means based on opinion or feelings. Judging whether someone is tall or short is subjective, because it comes down to personal opinion which heights are considered “tall”. Judging that someone is 6 foot 2 is not subjective. I measured you and that’s what your height is. No personal feelings enter the equation.
Calculating an average does not consider any personal opinions. It’s either correct or incorrect, but that’s a different thing.
Saying “I measured the average height of American men and found that it is 500 feet” is completely objective. It being obviously wrong doesn’t make it less objective.
Whether the average of the sample is representative of the whole population is somewhere in between. Partly subjective, partly objective.
You can’t sort everything in the world into purely objective or purely subjective. It’s a gradient not a binary.
I think both of you are misunderstanding what objectivity is.
A measure of height is always objective, if you’re giving it as a numerical measure anyway.
That doesn’t mean it’s correct or accurate. Some people seem to have the impression that a claim is objective if it’s true and subjective if it’s not, but that’s not what those words mean.
Subjective means based on opinion or feelings. Judging whether someone is tall or short is subjective, because it comes down to personal opinion which heights are considered “tall”. Judging that someone is 6 foot 2 is not subjective. I measured you and that’s what your height is. No personal feelings enter the equation.
Calculating an average does not consider any personal opinions. It’s either correct or incorrect, but that’s a different thing.
Saying “I measured the average height of American men and found that it is 500 feet” is completely objective. It being obviously wrong doesn’t make it less objective.
Whether the average of the sample is representative of the whole population is somewhere in between. Partly subjective, partly objective.
You can’t sort everything in the world into purely objective or purely subjective. It’s a gradient not a binary.
Your friend seems to have the wrong impression of what “subjective” means.
A study of average heights if run correctly would be “objective”
This does not require that every single person in the world be measured.
There is basically nothing in science that does that.
Rather, for studies like that a “sample” of people are measured.
Basically, if you randomly picked a big enough bunch of people, the odds that you got (un)lucky , and for example: picked only tall people, are low enough that you can start making generalizations about the entire population.
Science will also make a note that based on how small your bunch is, what’s the biggest amount you’re likely to be wrong by.
Now sampling isn’t perfect, in addition to random chance there are a whole bunch of ways that a sample could get skewed by a certain way (intentionally or not). But good science notes these and if possible tries to correct them.
I don’t know what a “subjective study” would look like, but probably just a guy going to some countries and coming back and saying: “I think people in country X are really tall”
Your friend seems to have the wrong impression of what “subjective” means.
A study of average heights if run correctly would be “objective”
This does not require that every single person in the world be measured.
There is basically nothing in science that does that.
Rather, for studies like that a “sample” of people are measured.
Basically, if you randomly picked a big enough bunch of people, the odds that you got (un)lucky , and for example: picked only tall people, are low enough that you can start making generalizations about the entire population.
Science will also make a note that based on how small your bunch is, what’s the biggest amount you’re likely to be wrong by.
Now sampling isn’t perfect, in addition to random chance there are a whole bunch of ways that a sample could get skewed by a certain way (intentionally or not). But good science notes these and if possible tries to correct them.
I don’t know what a “subjective study” would look like, but probably just a guy going to some countries and coming back and saying: “I think people in country X are really tall”
Average height has a lot more underlying variables than most people realise. For instance –
Genetics. What heights were your parents or your grandparents? If no-one in your family has ever been over 6 feet tall going back 6 or 7 generations then the odds are that you never will be either.
Nutrition. How well were you fed and how healthy was it when you were in your formative years? Did you have a balanced and varied diet?
Poverty. Factors into nutrition, early development etc. Standard of living is a huge factor in how tall you grow. Was there neglect, insufficient food, parenting etc.
You might think this is all nothing, but just look at countries such as the Netherlands – after WW2 the country poured resources into food security because of child starvation during WW2 and now they are the tallest European country.
The question itself isn’t subjective. But you can only really get an objective answer by adding detailed data. So maybe the figures aren’t as detailed as they should be, so really they are incomplete datasets.
As a tangential point on this back in history Hunter Gatherers in Europe were on average around 6 feet tall mainly due to a varied and healthy diet. Early Neolithic farmers on the other hand were around 5 foot 6 inches tall mainly due to a restricted diet based on cereals and the animals they kept. So diet and environment are crucial in determining how tall you could be rather than are.
I think what they mean is that unless you have the heights of all the people in America then the average that you have is an estimate, rather than a calculation. Objective/subjective are different, as other posters have explained.
I think what they mean is that unless you have the heights of all the people in America then the average that you have is an estimate, rather than a calculation. Objective/subjective are different, as other posters have explained.
Average height has a lot more underlying variables than most people realise. For instance –
Genetics. What heights were your parents or your grandparents? If no-one in your family has ever been over 6 feet tall going back 6 or 7 generations then the odds are that you never will be either.
Nutrition. How well were you fed and how healthy was it when you were in your formative years? Did you have a balanced and varied diet?
Poverty. Factors into nutrition, early development etc. Standard of living is a huge factor in how tall you grow. Was there neglect, insufficient food, parenting etc.
You might think this is all nothing, but just look at countries such as the Netherlands – after WW2 the country poured resources into food security because of child starvation during WW2 and now they are the tallest European country.
The question itself isn’t subjective. But you can only really get an objective answer by adding detailed data. So maybe the figures aren’t as detailed as they should be, so really they are incomplete datasets.
As a tangential point on this back in history Hunter Gatherers in Europe were on average around 6 feet tall mainly due to a varied and healthy diet. Early Neolithic farmers on the other hand were around 5 foot 6 inches tall mainly due to a restricted diet based on cereals and the animals they kept. So diet and environment are crucial in determining how tall you could be rather than are.
Average height has a lot more underlying variables than most people realise. For instance –
Genetics. What heights were your parents or your grandparents? If no-one in your family has ever been over 6 feet tall going back 6 or 7 generations then the odds are that you never will be either.
Nutrition. How well were you fed and how healthy was it when you were in your formative years? Did you have a balanced and varied diet?
Poverty. Factors into nutrition, early development etc. Standard of living is a huge factor in how tall you grow. Was there neglect, insufficient food, parenting etc.
You might think this is all nothing, but just look at countries such as the Netherlands – after WW2 the country poured resources into food security because of child starvation during WW2 and now they are the tallest European country.
The question itself isn’t subjective. But you can only really get an objective answer by adding detailed data. So maybe the figures aren’t as detailed as they should be, so really they are incomplete datasets.
As a tangential point on this back in history Hunter Gatherers in Europe were on average around 6 feet tall mainly due to a varied and healthy diet. Early Neolithic farmers on the other hand were around 5 foot 6 inches tall mainly due to a restricted diet based on cereals and the animals they kept. So diet and environment are crucial in determining how tall you could be rather than are.
Latest Answers