Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 21:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 537962
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-02
I still find it difficult to believe that people would actually answer 3. Maybe there are such people, but the article does not quote the related statistics from the paper, and the wording does not make me believe it even could. (Anyway, small children can't count).
Also, this simple question does not form a very strong basis for building a whole theory on (in all fairness, judging from the article, they have other arguments). I would be interested what people who answered 3 (if there ARE such people) would answer to other ranges, e.g. 1 and 50 (most likely 10, not 7), 1 and 16 or 1 and 100. I like to play with the thought that as the number gets bigger, the answers would converge to the arithmetic mean.