Talk:Will Rogers phenomenon

Attribution

Attribution: see this thread on Google Answers; the attribution to Will Rogers is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.186.67 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this considered a paradox? It seems mathematically obvious that moving a value from a set in which it is the lowest to a set in which it is the highest will raise the average of both sets. If you chop the left-hand side off one tree and nail it onto the right-hand side of another tree, then both will tend to fall over towards the right. 143.252.80.110 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything paradoxical about it either, it's just common sense. But the same could be said of many other things people think of as paradoxes. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt the same way. I know the joke of course (the local variant involves Limburg and the Netherlands) but I've no idea why this is an "apparant paradox". Wouter Lievens 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Over a year later, here's my guess -- I think its a simple mix-up of averages and totals. If you chop off part of one tree and add it to another, you obviously haven't increased the volume of both trees. Similarly, the movement of a group of people from one area to another can't decrease or increase the total "intelligence" (which I guess would be the sum of IQ test results, or something). Either it's that, or it's that people forget that the average intelligences of the two locations are meant to be understood as different at the outset. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my opinion, this doesn't seem to be a paradox in any way shape or form - It's simple common sense. It may be noteworthy enough to mention but I don't believe it should be under paradoxes - Perhaps on the appropriate person's bio page or similar? Basiclife (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When the phen. is expressed in the abstract with-out details, it appears paradoxical because it sounds like you are getting some-thing for/from nothing: By "reducing," I actually increase. Kdammers (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been claimed that there are no paradoxes at all, and that all seemingly paradoxical situations go back on a lack of thought and understanding. While no friend of categorical statements, I have never seen an indisputable counter-example. (I admit that the WRP would be a comparatively shallow pseudo-paradox, compared to e.g. "This statement is a lie".)188.100.205.18 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy - dismissing valid counterexamples as being "pseudo" and "shallow".

Also, IMO a better counterexample than "This statement is a lie" would be Curry's paradox. See the Curry's paradox talk page, "There is no paradox" section for an interesting discussion of this. Guy Macon 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with @Kdammers: As a New Zealander, I've often heard this phenomenon remarked or joked about, in the form of late Prime Minister Muldoon's quip regarding Kiwis moving to Australia (seen in New Zealand humour under section The trans-Tasman Rivalry). Sometimes I've not understood immediately, and it seemed an impossibility, a paradox, an unrealistic win-win situation, until I did. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Obvious Question Would Be...

Is there a name for the opposite phenomenon? In other words, what if the smartest of the Californians had left for Oklahoma, thereby lowering the average intelligence of both states (so to speak)? 67.171.222.203 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsure why there is reference to this being a form of an equivocation fallacy?

Having reviewed the literature, I have not seen any reference to this being described as a form of an "equivocation fallacy". Perhaps someone could direct me to a reference? If this is not forthcoming, I think that reference to this being an equivocation fallacy should be removed since I think that this is misrepresenting the problem. 2A02:6B66:D964:0:8001:938E:6EE5:EC66 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)