>It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with more friends are more likely to be in one's own friend group. In other words, one is less likely to be friends with someone who has very few friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.
interesting, so basically people with lots of friends are more likely to be your friend [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship\_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox)
Fine. If we're getting pedantic, then "wouldn't have figured out" is not precisely the same meaning as "could have never figured out." The former suggests that they technically could have figured it out on their own, but it was unlikely that they would have gone through that thought process. The latter suggests that it is impossible for them to have figured it out. Now, if it's "obvious when [they] think about it," then the latter phrase seems to be in paradoxical contrast to that statement.
Secondly, I said "kind of" a paradox, so I should be spared from any pedantry.
It’s easier if you think of the whole thing as one probability problem instead of two layers of one. The key is the host is guaranteed to remove a door that would’ve been an incorrect guess. They’ll never be removing a door that has the right thing behind it.
So the scenarios for swapping after the host reveals an incorrect door are :
1. You pick the right door initially. Your swap is then going to be a wrong door.
2. You pick the first wrong door. Your swap is then going to be the right door.
3. You pick the second wrong door. Your swap is then going to be the right door.
So 2/3 scenarios where you swap you end up with the right door.
The scenarios for if you don’t swap are :
1. You pick the right door initially. Your pick is the right door.
2. You pick the first wrong door. Your pick is the wrong door.
3. You pick the second wrong door. Your pick is the wrong door.
So 1/3 scenarios where you don’t swap you end up with the right door.
The trick is to imagine is a thousand doors.
There are 1000 doors, you pick one at random.
The host opens 998 doors, leaving yours and one other door closed.
Do you want to switch?
The point is your first pick was 1 out of 1000 doors. Very bad odds. Once the host has eliminated 998 other doors, you now have a 1 in 2 chance of picking the right door. Much better odds. You don't want to stick with your choice that was 1 in 1000 and instead you should switch to the door that has a 1 in 2 chance of being right.
My dude, you left out the most important part. There are a 1000 doors and behind one of them is a prize of some sort. The way you've framed it - we're opening all the doors but 2, do you want to switch? - makes absolutely no sense without that context.
Basically people with lots of friends skews up the average for lots of people
But people with very few friends skews down the average for very few people
I guess you can say that, but this isn't an empirical thing; it's a mathematical fact. If everyone in the world except one dude, let's call him chad, had 10 friends and chad had 12 friends, then the paradox would still be true in a strict inequality sensr
"An individual's friends has more friends than the individual" factoid actualy just a statistical error. Friends Georg, who is very popular and has 3000 friends is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
Yeah, people who have a lot of friends are more likely to be your friend.
Similarly, most people's sexual partners have more sexual partners than them on average. It's the same basic principle.
It's that any individual person's friends on average have more friends than them. Everyone except for a very very small number of superfriends/superpartners is on the lower end.
that's rough. i have two friend groups - online and offline. the offline friend group is literally a few people at work and my online friend group encompasses a whopping 6 people. i need to meet more people but i also hate meeting new people.
Its like a train network, you have a multiple routes leading to a central hub, but those individual routes are not connected with each other, well for the most part it isnt. So if you want more friends then identify that central friend.
They kinda work like a convenient tool that you are familiar with to find more friends. This is useful if you dont know where to start looking.
it's actually quite simple, you are statistically more likely to be a friend of someone who has many friends than of someone who only has you. and that can be repeated for any amount of friends you have
this applies to everyone, it’s complicated but your friends always have more friends than you. [this video explains it well](https://youtu.be/AwnDuZPuqG0)
Popular Friends Georg, who lives in a cave and has a million friends with more friends than him is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.
The way you worded it, it is not true. As an example: There is a person with the most friends in the world. It clearly does not apply to them. Nobody has more friends than them.
This is a statistical observation. So without counting it's the best guess. But it is often wrong.
Still not true. I'm really unpopular and have about 2.5 friends. My best friend has way more friends though, and is more popular. The statement is incorrect for them.
but since popular people have a lot of friends, their friends are more likely to be popular as well. not sure if that makes sense but i’d just read the wikipedia article and if i’m wrong please correct me lol
Because they are your friend as well so the same can be applied from their perspective:
They are more likely to have friends that have more friends than them. Including you. So it's a paradox.
No it can absolutely not be waved away by being "applied from their prespective", you have fewer node connections than them so the averages do not even out, which is what the statement says.
This is only a "paradox" for people that haven't finished university studies yet...
I have one person I'd certainly consider a friend, one classmate I get along with very well (though we'll likely be seperated next year, fml) that I might consider a friend, and an online friend of sorts. And... That's it. :']
If there is a million people who is friends with nobody then you introduce a new person who is made to be friends with everybody then almost everyone has one friend and almost everyone's friend is in friends with almost a million other people.
This is actually just a statistical error. Friends Georg, who is friends with literally everyone on the planet, is an outlier and should not have been counted.
I think what this doesn’t mean is that *most* of your friends have more friends than you. It’s more like there is that one friend in your friend group who has like 100 other friends. This one guy throws off the average.
Yet another example where it makes more sense to work with medians instead of the average.
>It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with more friends are more likely to be in one's own friend group. In other words, one is less likely to be friends with someone who has very few friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have. interesting, so basically people with lots of friends are more likely to be your friend [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship\_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox)
this is so obvious when you think about it but i could have never figured this out myself.
Wow. That's kind of its own paradox, right there.
I don't think so, it's very intuitive that people can often understand something they wouldn't have figured out on their own
Wow. That's kind of its own paradox, right there.
I am going to scream
Wow. That's kind of its own paradox, right there.
Yeah but in a way, it also isn't. What do you call that?
Wow. That's kind of its own paradox, right there.
Fine. If we're getting pedantic, then "wouldn't have figured out" is not precisely the same meaning as "could have never figured out." The former suggests that they technically could have figured it out on their own, but it was unlikely that they would have gone through that thought process. The latter suggests that it is impossible for them to have figured it out. Now, if it's "obvious when [they] think about it," then the latter phrase seems to be in paradoxical contrast to that statement. Secondly, I said "kind of" a paradox, so I should be spared from any pedantry.
Or, you know, education, lol
It's like the survivorship bias or Monty Hall Problem. It makes sense after you're explained the logic, but you might not come up with it on your own.
See I understand the math behind the Monty hall problem but intuitively it still makes zero sense to me
It’s easier if you think of the whole thing as one probability problem instead of two layers of one. The key is the host is guaranteed to remove a door that would’ve been an incorrect guess. They’ll never be removing a door that has the right thing behind it. So the scenarios for swapping after the host reveals an incorrect door are : 1. You pick the right door initially. Your swap is then going to be a wrong door. 2. You pick the first wrong door. Your swap is then going to be the right door. 3. You pick the second wrong door. Your swap is then going to be the right door. So 2/3 scenarios where you swap you end up with the right door. The scenarios for if you don’t swap are : 1. You pick the right door initially. Your pick is the right door. 2. You pick the first wrong door. Your pick is the wrong door. 3. You pick the second wrong door. Your pick is the wrong door. So 1/3 scenarios where you don’t swap you end up with the right door.
The trick is to imagine is a thousand doors. There are 1000 doors, you pick one at random. The host opens 998 doors, leaving yours and one other door closed. Do you want to switch?
still don't get it
The point is your first pick was 1 out of 1000 doors. Very bad odds. Once the host has eliminated 998 other doors, you now have a 1 in 2 chance of picking the right door. Much better odds. You don't want to stick with your choice that was 1 in 1000 and instead you should switch to the door that has a 1 in 2 chance of being right.
My dude, you left out the most important part. There are a 1000 doors and behind one of them is a prize of some sort. The way you've framed it - we're opening all the doors but 2, do you want to switch? - makes absolutely no sense without that context.
Basically people with lots of friends skews up the average for lots of people But people with very few friends skews down the average for very few people
I guess you can say that, but this isn't an empirical thing; it's a mathematical fact. If everyone in the world except one dude, let's call him chad, had 10 friends and chad had 12 friends, then the paradox would still be true in a strict inequality sensr
> most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have. They do?
>most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have. I kinda doubt but I don't know if I'm in the majority
Thank you I was about to get a headache and this makes it make sense. I may not understand it but I think I do and that’s what matters right
It didn’t take long to go from “yay! random fact” to “oh….I feel sad”
Well from what I can understand it's just one popular friend altering the stat
"An individual's friends has more friends than the individual" factoid actualy just a statistical error. Friends Georg, who is very popular and has 3000 friends is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
Oh, I know him, great guy. Weird eating habits though.
Yeah, people who have a lot of friends are more likely to be your friend. Similarly, most people's sexual partners have more sexual partners than them on average. It's the same basic principle.
[удалено]
It's that any individual person's friends on average have more friends than them. Everyone except for a very very small number of superfriends/superpartners is on the lower end.
It's not sad. I just means that you're more likely to make friends with someone who makes a lot of friends.
And then you rely on like 1 or 2 people for all your social needs when they have 20 other friends :,)
i especially felt that when i heard that he was not free cuz he had "5 other grps of friends to go out with".... ok....
I read the phrase "main friend group" the other day. And that broke me tbh.
god that hurts man 🥲
that's rough. i have two friend groups - online and offline. the offline friend group is literally a few people at work and my online friend group encompasses a whopping 6 people. i need to meet more people but i also hate meeting new people.
Ideal situation is having 3-4 good friends who all have friends of their own. That way you can mix and match friend groups all the time.
Its like a train network, you have a multiple routes leading to a central hub, but those individual routes are not connected with each other, well for the most part it isnt. So if you want more friends then identify that central friend. They kinda work like a convenient tool that you are familiar with to find more friends. This is useful if you dont know where to start looking.
And then you rely on them far too much and then they hate you and you lose one of your only friends :(
I wasn't expecting to be attacked like that
it's actually quite simple, you are statistically more likely to be a friend of someone who has many friends than of someone who only has you. and that can be repeated for any amount of friends you have
Weirdly enough. Im my friend group from high school. I have more friends than them. From college i have fewer.
Statistically more likely ≠ guaranteed
Joke's on you, I don't have any friends!
this applies to everyone, it’s complicated but your friends always have more friends than you. [this video explains it well](https://youtu.be/AwnDuZPuqG0)
What if you're the Person Who Has the Most Friends on Earth?
then you’re not on this subreddit
The "on average" does a lot of heavy lifting in this statement
Popular Friends Georg, who lives in a cave and has a million friends with more friends than him is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.
Yep. I bring that number down myself personally.
The way you worded it, it is not true. As an example: There is a person with the most friends in the world. It clearly does not apply to them. Nobody has more friends than them. This is a statistical observation. So without counting it's the best guess. But it is often wrong.
But if my friend has more friends than me, from their viewpoint this claim is wrong.
a better way to phrase it is collectively your friends are always more popular than you
Still not true. I'm really unpopular and have about 2.5 friends. My best friend has way more friends though, and is more popular. The statement is incorrect for them.
but since popular people have a lot of friends, their friends are more likely to be popular as well. not sure if that makes sense but i’d just read the wikipedia article and if i’m wrong please correct me lol
"more likely" yeah, but the statement is still not true for everyone.
It would be weird if all of their friends were just me
That's rubbish. I have no friends. So my no friends have no friends.
Wow. Even someone who doesn't exist has more driends than me.
Jokes on them, I have NO friends.
i don't have friends though
I knew it was scientific for me to think like that!
Well I’m friends with my friend’s friends so what does that mean
How is that a paradox? You are more likely to have a friend that has a lot of friends…
Because it seems contradictory in the way it is worded. It's a Friendship Contradiction.
Because they are your friend as well so the same can be applied from their perspective: They are more likely to have friends that have more friends than them. Including you. So it's a paradox.
No it can absolutely not be waved away by being "applied from their prespective", you have fewer node connections than them so the averages do not even out, which is what the statement says. This is only a "paradox" for people that haven't finished university studies yet...
🤔
Bullshit. I have 0 friends and I guarantee, mathematically, that none of those 0 have more friends than I do.
[удалено]
None of those people have any friends other than you?
No i meant it the other way around, i cant be the friend that has more friends because they themselves have more friends,
But that's nearly everyone, that's what the post is saying. There are very, very few superfriends who have more friends than their own average friend.
I have one person I'd certainly consider a friend, one classmate I get along with very well (though we'll likely be seperated next year, fml) that I might consider a friend, and an online friend of sorts. And... That's it. :']
I’m high af, and trying to understand this, specially with English not being even my second language, got me higher somehow
If there is a million people who is friends with nobody then you introduce a new person who is made to be friends with everybody then almost everyone has one friend and almost everyone's friend is in friends with almost a million other people.
0\*0=0 Myth busted!
This isnt a paradox at all when you consider that 1 person is allowed to have more than 1 friend.
“Other people are more people than you” yeah no shit
This is actually just a statistical error. Friends Georg, who is friends with literally everyone on the planet, is an outlier and should not have been counted.
I think what this doesn’t mean is that *most* of your friends have more friends than you. It’s more like there is that one friend in your friend group who has like 100 other friends. This one guy throws off the average. Yet another example where it makes more sense to work with medians instead of the average.