>

Was coming here to say this!
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

My wife swears that 5 is average just to make me feel better. >

The important thing is that you know how to use your 5! >

Well, 120 is pretty good I'd say >

r/unexpectedfactorial >

r/subsIDidntKnowExisted >

r/thirdsub >

r/TheOddOne >

I think most people mean a scale from 0-10 when they say a scale from 1-10. >

When people say "1-10" they mean really any number (or thing) you can imagine.
Heck, I've heard, "On a scale 1 to *insert thing here* how good is *insert comparable thing here*?"
Basically 1-10 is less about the number range itself and more a way to express that you want someone to provide an assessment of something's rating in light of the initial scale, though the scale is not exclusive or limiting to the range of numbers presented, as 0 or negative, excessively large, and non-numbers can be valid rating methods that convey more meaning than saying any of the numbers in the initial 1-10 range. >

When I ask my patients at work to rate their pain on a scale from 0-10 and they say 47, I am not documenting 47. I might make a clinical note that they said 47, but I'm going to educate them on how that scale works or use a different pain scale. >

I've seen a lot of "face" scales. Have you seen those and/or do you find them more or less helpful if so? >

They’re just going to translate that face scale to a number most likely. It’s only meant to be useful to the patient since most people can’t easily translate a qualitative feeling to a quantitative rating. >

I love the descriptive pain rating scales. Like a 2 might be, I can mostly ignore it. A seven might be it's the only thing I can think about, it gets in the way of life activities, etc. >

Oh they’re good for the patient. I’m not disputing that. But I always imagine some poor nurse having to chart

patient indicated their pain was “green-yellow with slight smile and and open eyes”

so it’s good they also include the numbers.
I prefer a more pragmatic scale.
(0).    it doesn’t hurt at all 
1.  I’m aware something is there
2.  it hurts a little
3.  it hurts a lot
4.  it’s the worst pain I’ve ever remained conscious for
5.  I actually passed the fuck out for a second there >

Since we are being pedantic, average would depend entirely on the data... not the scale range from which it is measured. >

No thats the scale >

Because if we're rating how soggy a fish taco is, your data set doesnt make sense >

Tell that to my college , my stem course average to pass is 7 >

I scored 81% one time and got a C+ because it's graded on a curve. >

Grading on a curve only makes sense if the students are being judged against each other, rather than being judged on their competence at the subject. 
Grading on a curve even fails when comparing students from different groups, as each curve would have adjusted them differently. >

It’s works for employers/universities to seek out students who are in the top 10 percentile etc… which ultimately is the point of being graded in school. >

But only if they were on the same curve. 
If there were potential employees that were in different school years, they wouldn’t be comparable by their letter grade. A from a 20 year old could be worse than B from an 18 year old, depending on how the rest of each of their years did. >

Very true. >

Welcome to understanding average results on commonly rolled D&D dice