>>10959008You can't have .6 partners. The median or mode would be a whole number.
A more apt critique of the study would be that you can't have negative sexual partners, and so the study should have asked of those that have had sex, how many sexual partners did you have. This would be a difficult study. Age of sample, cultural background, generational bias, sex workers, definition of sex, honesty of respondent.., would all contribute to this result.
But all of you miss something you will actually see if you ever do real world statistical studies: Does the population you are assuming even exist? Is there such thing as an "average number of sexual partners" and what are you using the data for? For the CDC, they are concerned with a number that can tell them transmission rates. It is a weird “philosophical reality bias” of inducing a reality from which ALL questions can be answered that will fuck you up if you do real studies, and you all better get rid of that bias right away! It makes you to make stories that cannot be supported, and will plague any academic work you do.
You have a story or theory that there must be an average number of sexual partners in a reality sense, but all stories have an intent as to why they were made, and when you change the intent sometimes, even though the story "makes sense" in a "story-of-what-reality-should-be" way, the story of reality doesn’t transfer to other stories because the reality story you made itself has no legs.
The reason to make the story changes the story made, so don't think that this statistic is anything but a way of gauging the transmission rates of STDs. It has nothing to do with incel bias or morality. It wasn't gathered that way, and so should not be used in any other story and judging it simply because “it makes no sense in a mathematical way” has nothing to do with whether the data can be used to accurately gauge STD transmission rates.
