![]() This can divert discussion into technical areas when the real disagreement is about something more substantive. In particular, it can introduce a straw man fallacy, implicitly or explicitly accusing the metric of not being something it never claimed to be. ![]() The third criticism is often (not always) a red herring. A one-to-one scale map is no use for navigation. The first of the criticisms listed above is always correct, but uninteresting given we need to somehow model the world into a simpler form to grasp it. I won’t bother linking to individual articles, because googling “why is BMI a bad measure” comes up with plenty to choose from. Gross Domestic Product wins the award for attracting the biggest collection of criticisms in this pattern, but BMI would be high up in the list of also-rans. …anyway, I think Z is really important.…but if you tweaked it (by method Y) it would somehow be much better.reality is much more complex than any single measure M could represent.Criticisms of these types of measures typically come in three varieties: However, BMI is one of those single dimensional metrics that gets widespread criticism on account of being a single dimensional metric. It is actually extremely successful in this regard certainly it tells you a lot more about someone than either the weight or height individually. So BMI - the weight (in kilograms) divided by the height (in metres) squared - gives a scaled version of weight that aims to be rougly comparable for people of different heights. BMI has an expectations management problemīody Mass Index (BMI) is an attempt to give a quick back-of-envelope answer to the question “if someone weighs W kg, is that a lot or not very much?” Clearly the answer to that question has to take into account at a minimum the person’s height in general, whatever may constitute a healthy weight, it has to be higher for tall people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |