I rate movies on a scale of 1 (bad) to 5 (good). This is an absolute scale. Initially, I assumed that I would watch as many good movies as bad ones. So I'd have about as many 1s as 5s, and 2s as 4s. But, when I looked at my ratings for movies over the last year, I had far more 4s than 2s. My movie ratings were not normal.
| Rating | Frequency |
|---|---|
| 1 | 8 |
| 2 | 31 |
| 3 | 98 |
| 4 | 81 |
| 5 | 18 |
The reason is clear. I pick good movies rather than bad ones, based on reviews. If I rated every movie there was, the ratings may be normally distributed (or they may not). But when I pick movies, I consciously reject those I know would have a low rating (based on reviews), so my ratings would be more clustered around the top.
Even if I redefined my scale, I'd still have more than 50% above the average. This is not a contradiction. I watch a LOT of good movies with very similar ratings, and a few disastrously bad movies. The good movies will have a higher-than-average rating, and there'll be more of them than the bad movies. This is a skewed or asymmetric distribution.
So, selective picking can wreck the normal curve.
Yet, almost everything is selectively picked. Colleges try and pick the best students. Organisations tend to pick the best employees. If they rate performance, they're likely to find a bias towards the higher side -- at least, the good colleges and organisations. Force fitting a normal distribution pushes down genuinely good people. (In bad colleges and organisations, it pushes up genuinely bad people).
Comments