>

Correct. But why a post with a simple math point? No one says it is 5 or they are just wrong, like when someone says 1+1=3.
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 >

Was coming here to say this! >

Wouldn't the average depend on the scores of the items being rated on that scale? >

That's the average sum of all ratings. 
5.5 is the middle, maybe average isn't the best word to describe what OP meant. >

Median maybe, that's literally just the middle value.
We would have to be talking specifically about the scale and not the items being ranked still. >

median also requires a data set so >

Yeah thats what my second sentence ia actually referring to. All the numbers between 1 and 10 being the data set >

That’s why the average of a d20 roll is actually 10.5 not 10, why a d12 is 6.5 not 6, etc…
If you play any Table Top RPGs (i.e. D&D) you should know this if you’re trying to optimize or figure out if something is good or bad.
Going from a d8 weapon to a d10 weapon not only boosts your maximum possible damage by 2, but it also raises your average from 4.5 damage to 5.5 damage. >

From 4.5 to 5.5 damage right? >

Oops yep 5.5 >

i think the better scale for anything “1-10” is -5 to 5. clearly 0 is neutral and 5 points is more than enough granularity for distinguishing between various degrees of emphasis >

Yes. And that’s why a 5.5 on a test means you just passed and a 5.4 you failed. >

On every test I've ever taken you need at least 70% to pass >

That’s percentage. 5.5 in the Netherlands is a pass but it usually comes down to 60-70% of the right answers. >

It would be 7 right answers out of 10 in US. Anything less is a D or F which are both failing grades >

D is passing >

In the US, this is a state by state basis. For my state, per their coded legislature:
"(a) Each local board of education shall establish 70 as the minimum passing score
for all subjects/courses taught in grades 4-12 in the public schools of the state. "
Might've been passing for you, but for a lot of others it is not. >

If the way a D is scaled is failing, then it's actually an F. >

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the letter is, either way they didn't let you pass with a D in the schools I went to. >

So... depends on what you intend the 1-10 scale values to represent. Personally, I think of them as ranges of uniformly distributed percentiles (i.e. deciles). 
1 pretty much has to mean "the first decile" of up to 10% (0-10%], 2 the second, 3 the third, etc.
5 is (40-50]%, 10 is (90-100%]. 
The mean & median value of 0-100% (uniformly distributed) is exactly 50, which is in the "5" decile. 
If 50% (the actual mean/median if it's uniformly distributed) is going to belong to one of these deciles, 5 is really the only one that makes sense. >

Dude this is confusing. I’m too tired right now. I think I get it, but each time I want to believe it, my mind is like 5.5 + 5.5 = 11 >

It's because you're not supposed to be adding them. 
Count 1- 10 on your fingers, and find the middle. As there are an even number of digits none of them can be the middle. It's between the 5th finger on your first hand and the first on your 2nd hand, so 5 and a half >

This is the best explanation >

Since there are no numbers between 5 and 6, they are both the middle. 
^(/s) >

I believe in you. >

Tbh I never thought about it but since the most answers you'll get on that question are either negative numbers or beyond 10 it doesn't really matter to me anyways. >

I play D&D, and a similar thing applies to the average roll for each die. An easy way I remember it is half the max value+0.5.
For example, on a d6, the average is 3.5. For a d20, the average is 10.5. >

The difference is in real life you can roll below 1... >

In the Netherlands you get grades from 1-10 and you need a 5.5 to pass >

Fuck you for telling me this...
But also...
Thank you so much haha >

I saw a Tom Scott video where he talked about using 1-9 system and I haven't looked back,
1 is to 3 the same as 3 is to 9 making 3 the middle value. This gives me a good range to describe something good and not a lot to describe something bad which is something I feel the 1-10 system abuses. For me 3 is avarge, 2 is below avarge and 1 is way below avarage. >

Which video? I’m having trouble finding it on YouTube. >

My mistake, it was a Vsauce video.
Around 7:27 in.