Intuitively, shouldn't variance always be 0?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter samh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Variance
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of variance in statistics, particularly questioning why variance is not always zero. Participants explore the intuitive reasoning behind variance and its mathematical definition, focusing on its implications in the context of random variables and their distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that variance should intuitively be zero because they believe the expected value of a random variable should always equal the mean, leading to a squared difference of zero.
  • Another participant counters that the variance is defined as the expected value of the square of the difference between the random variable and the mean, which is not zero unless the random variable is constant.
  • A third participant explains that variance measures the average of the squared differences from the mean, emphasizing that squaring the differences ensures only positive values contribute to the variance.
  • A later reply acknowledges the clarification about the expected value being akin to an average over many repetitions, indicating an understanding of the mathematical reasoning behind variance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial intuition regarding variance being zero, but there is agreement on the mathematical definition and implications of variance as discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the misunderstanding of the relationship between expected value and variance, as well as the role of squaring differences in calculating variance. There are unresolved nuances regarding the interpretation of variance in different statistical contexts.

samh
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Ok I know that Var[X] = E[(X-E[X])^2]. But I just can't help but think that the variance should always be zero. I think it makes so much sense, but obviously the formula says otherwise... But look, my reasoning seems so perfect:

1) The variance is the expected difference from the mean, squared

2) The expected value of X is the mean

3) So shouldn't we always expect X to be the mean, and so (X - mean)^2 = 0^2 = 0?

But obviously it doesn't work out that way...it's so weird. Does anyone know an intuitive reason why Var[X] shouldn't be zero? What's wrong with my logic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
samh said:
1) The variance is the expected difference from the mean, squared.

What's wrong with my logic?
The first item is what is wrong with your logic. While the expected difference from the mean is tautologically zero, but that is not what the variance is. The variance is the expected value of the square of the difference between the random variable and the mean.

What does this mean? The difference between a random variable and its mean is identically zero only for a constant random variable. In a way it is a bit silly to even talk about a constant random variable because there is no randomness. The cumulative probability function (CDF) for a constant is the step function. Not a very interesting random variable.

Now consider drawing a set of sample values from a random process whose underlying CDF is a smooth function. Some of these sample values will be above the expected mean, some under the expected mean. While the difference between the ith sampled value and the mean might be positive or negative, the square of this difference is always positive. The mean of a bunch of positive values is positive. It is this mean that forms the variance.
 
Variance is an average of the square of differences of observed values from the mean. It depends on the nature of statistical distribution. In other words, it is a measure of the deviation from the average.
The squaring part makes all the difference because when summing and taking average, we square the difference so that only positive quantities are added. Had we taken -ve sign for values below the mean, we would obviously have obtained the value equal to 0 as you said.
 
Ok I see. I forgot that E[...] is kind of like the average of many repetitions. I see what you guys are saying, it makes sense that the average of a bunch of positive numbers is positive. Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K