What is the reasoning behind standardization (dividing by standard deviation)?












6












$begingroup$


Why does dividing a dataset by sigma make the sample variance equal to 1? Assuming a zero mean for simplicity.



What's the intuition behind this?



Dividing by the range (max-min) makes intuitive sense. But standard deviation does not.






standardization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The zero mean assumption isn't necessary. You can take this as three separate statements: dividing by SD gives an SD of 1; the variance is the square of the SD; and the square of 1 is 1.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When people say intuitive, I translate that as "familiar to me", and most of the time it fits. Reasons for not dividing by the range are practical rather than theoretical. The range can be highly labile. Also, often the range of all values is enormously larger than the that of the bulk of the values, so the results wouldn't be very helpful. Income illustrates both points: the observed maximum may vary capriciously and values divided by the range would often be concentrated near 0.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago


















6












$begingroup$


Why does dividing a dataset by sigma make the sample variance equal to 1? Assuming a zero mean for simplicity.



What's the intuition behind this?



Dividing by the range (max-min) makes intuitive sense. But standard deviation does not.






standardization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The zero mean assumption isn't necessary. You can take this as three separate statements: dividing by SD gives an SD of 1; the variance is the square of the SD; and the square of 1 is 1.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When people say intuitive, I translate that as "familiar to me", and most of the time it fits. Reasons for not dividing by the range are practical rather than theoretical. The range can be highly labile. Also, often the range of all values is enormously larger than the that of the bulk of the values, so the results wouldn't be very helpful. Income illustrates both points: the observed maximum may vary capriciously and values divided by the range would often be concentrated near 0.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago
















6












6








6


2



$begingroup$


Why does dividing a dataset by sigma make the sample variance equal to 1? Assuming a zero mean for simplicity.



What's the intuition behind this?



Dividing by the range (max-min) makes intuitive sense. But standard deviation does not.






standardization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Why does dividing a dataset by sigma make the sample variance equal to 1? Assuming a zero mean for simplicity.



What's the intuition behind this?



Dividing by the range (max-min) makes intuitive sense. But standard deviation does not.






standardization




standardization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Karolis Koncevičius

2,09941527




2,09941527










asked 2 days ago









alwayscuriousalwayscurious

1985




1985








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The zero mean assumption isn't necessary. You can take this as three separate statements: dividing by SD gives an SD of 1; the variance is the square of the SD; and the square of 1 is 1.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When people say intuitive, I translate that as "familiar to me", and most of the time it fits. Reasons for not dividing by the range are practical rather than theoretical. The range can be highly labile. Also, often the range of all values is enormously larger than the that of the bulk of the values, so the results wouldn't be very helpful. Income illustrates both points: the observed maximum may vary capriciously and values divided by the range would often be concentrated near 0.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The zero mean assumption isn't necessary. You can take this as three separate statements: dividing by SD gives an SD of 1; the variance is the square of the SD; and the square of 1 is 1.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When people say intuitive, I translate that as "familiar to me", and most of the time it fits. Reasons for not dividing by the range are practical rather than theoretical. The range can be highly labile. Also, often the range of all values is enormously larger than the that of the bulk of the values, so the results wouldn't be very helpful. Income illustrates both points: the observed maximum may vary capriciously and values divided by the range would often be concentrated near 0.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago










1




1




$begingroup$
The zero mean assumption isn't necessary. You can take this as three separate statements: dividing by SD gives an SD of 1; the variance is the square of the SD; and the square of 1 is 1.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
2 days ago




$begingroup$
The zero mean assumption isn't necessary. You can take this as three separate statements: dividing by SD gives an SD of 1; the variance is the square of the SD; and the square of 1 is 1.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
When people say intuitive, I translate that as "familiar to me", and most of the time it fits. Reasons for not dividing by the range are practical rather than theoretical. The range can be highly labile. Also, often the range of all values is enormously larger than the that of the bulk of the values, so the results wouldn't be very helpful. Income illustrates both points: the observed maximum may vary capriciously and values divided by the range would often be concentrated near 0.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
2 days ago






$begingroup$
When people say intuitive, I translate that as "familiar to me", and most of the time it fits. Reasons for not dividing by the range are practical rather than theoretical. The range can be highly labile. Also, often the range of all values is enormously larger than the that of the bulk of the values, so the results wouldn't be very helpful. Income illustrates both points: the observed maximum may vary capriciously and values divided by the range would often be concentrated near 0.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
2 days ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















15












$begingroup$

This stems from the property of variance. For a random variable $X$ and a constant $a$, $mathrm{var}(aX)=a^2mathrm{var}(x)$. Therefore, if you divide the data by its standard deviation ($sigma$), $mathrm{var}(X/sigma)=mathrm{var}(X)/sigma^2=sigma^2/sigma^2=1$.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
    $endgroup$
    – alwayscurious
    2 days ago



















5












$begingroup$

Standardizing is is just changing the units so they are in "standard deviation" units. After standardization, a value of 1.5 means "1.5 standard deviations above 0". If the standard deviation were 8, this would be equivalent to saying "12 points above 0".



An example: when converting inches to feet (in America), you multiply your data in inches by a conversion factor, $frac{1 foot}{12 inches}$, which comes from the fact that 1 foot equals 12 inches, so you're essentially just multiplying your data points by a fancy version of 1 (i.e., a fraction with equal numerator and denominator). For example, to go from 72 inches to feet, you do $72 inches times frac{1 foot}{12 inches}=6feet$.



When converting scores from raw units to standard deviation units, you multiply your data in raw units by the conversion factor $frac{1sd}{sigma points}$. So if you had a score of 100 and the standard deviation ($sigma$) was 20, your standardized score would be $100 points times frac{1 sd}{20 points}=5sd$. Standardization is just changing the units.



Changing the units of a dataset doesn't affect how spread out it is; you just change the units of the measure of spread you're using so that they match. So if your original data had a standard deviation of 20 points, and you've changed units so that 20 original points equals 1 new standardized unit, then the new standard deviation is 1 unit (because 20 original units equals 1 new unit).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    yesterday













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f398116%2fwhat-is-the-reasoning-behind-standardization-dividing-by-standard-deviation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









15












$begingroup$

This stems from the property of variance. For a random variable $X$ and a constant $a$, $mathrm{var}(aX)=a^2mathrm{var}(x)$. Therefore, if you divide the data by its standard deviation ($sigma$), $mathrm{var}(X/sigma)=mathrm{var}(X)/sigma^2=sigma^2/sigma^2=1$.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
    $endgroup$
    – alwayscurious
    2 days ago
















15












$begingroup$

This stems from the property of variance. For a random variable $X$ and a constant $a$, $mathrm{var}(aX)=a^2mathrm{var}(x)$. Therefore, if you divide the data by its standard deviation ($sigma$), $mathrm{var}(X/sigma)=mathrm{var}(X)/sigma^2=sigma^2/sigma^2=1$.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
    $endgroup$
    – alwayscurious
    2 days ago














15












15








15





$begingroup$

This stems from the property of variance. For a random variable $X$ and a constant $a$, $mathrm{var}(aX)=a^2mathrm{var}(x)$. Therefore, if you divide the data by its standard deviation ($sigma$), $mathrm{var}(X/sigma)=mathrm{var}(X)/sigma^2=sigma^2/sigma^2=1$.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



This stems from the property of variance. For a random variable $X$ and a constant $a$, $mathrm{var}(aX)=a^2mathrm{var}(x)$. Therefore, if you divide the data by its standard deviation ($sigma$), $mathrm{var}(X/sigma)=mathrm{var}(X)/sigma^2=sigma^2/sigma^2=1$.







share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer






New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









Chao SongChao Song

2015




2015




New contributor




Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Chao Song is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
    $endgroup$
    – alwayscurious
    2 days ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
    $endgroup$
    – alwayscurious
    2 days ago








1




1




$begingroup$
that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
$endgroup$
– alwayscurious
2 days ago




$begingroup$
that helps, thanks. Do you have an intuitive approach?
$endgroup$
– alwayscurious
2 days ago













5












$begingroup$

Standardizing is is just changing the units so they are in "standard deviation" units. After standardization, a value of 1.5 means "1.5 standard deviations above 0". If the standard deviation were 8, this would be equivalent to saying "12 points above 0".



An example: when converting inches to feet (in America), you multiply your data in inches by a conversion factor, $frac{1 foot}{12 inches}$, which comes from the fact that 1 foot equals 12 inches, so you're essentially just multiplying your data points by a fancy version of 1 (i.e., a fraction with equal numerator and denominator). For example, to go from 72 inches to feet, you do $72 inches times frac{1 foot}{12 inches}=6feet$.



When converting scores from raw units to standard deviation units, you multiply your data in raw units by the conversion factor $frac{1sd}{sigma points}$. So if you had a score of 100 and the standard deviation ($sigma$) was 20, your standardized score would be $100 points times frac{1 sd}{20 points}=5sd$. Standardization is just changing the units.



Changing the units of a dataset doesn't affect how spread out it is; you just change the units of the measure of spread you're using so that they match. So if your original data had a standard deviation of 20 points, and you've changed units so that 20 original points equals 1 new standardized unit, then the new standard deviation is 1 unit (because 20 original units equals 1 new unit).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    yesterday


















5












$begingroup$

Standardizing is is just changing the units so they are in "standard deviation" units. After standardization, a value of 1.5 means "1.5 standard deviations above 0". If the standard deviation were 8, this would be equivalent to saying "12 points above 0".



An example: when converting inches to feet (in America), you multiply your data in inches by a conversion factor, $frac{1 foot}{12 inches}$, which comes from the fact that 1 foot equals 12 inches, so you're essentially just multiplying your data points by a fancy version of 1 (i.e., a fraction with equal numerator and denominator). For example, to go from 72 inches to feet, you do $72 inches times frac{1 foot}{12 inches}=6feet$.



When converting scores from raw units to standard deviation units, you multiply your data in raw units by the conversion factor $frac{1sd}{sigma points}$. So if you had a score of 100 and the standard deviation ($sigma$) was 20, your standardized score would be $100 points times frac{1 sd}{20 points}=5sd$. Standardization is just changing the units.



Changing the units of a dataset doesn't affect how spread out it is; you just change the units of the measure of spread you're using so that they match. So if your original data had a standard deviation of 20 points, and you've changed units so that 20 original points equals 1 new standardized unit, then the new standard deviation is 1 unit (because 20 original units equals 1 new unit).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    yesterday
















5












5








5





$begingroup$

Standardizing is is just changing the units so they are in "standard deviation" units. After standardization, a value of 1.5 means "1.5 standard deviations above 0". If the standard deviation were 8, this would be equivalent to saying "12 points above 0".



An example: when converting inches to feet (in America), you multiply your data in inches by a conversion factor, $frac{1 foot}{12 inches}$, which comes from the fact that 1 foot equals 12 inches, so you're essentially just multiplying your data points by a fancy version of 1 (i.e., a fraction with equal numerator and denominator). For example, to go from 72 inches to feet, you do $72 inches times frac{1 foot}{12 inches}=6feet$.



When converting scores from raw units to standard deviation units, you multiply your data in raw units by the conversion factor $frac{1sd}{sigma points}$. So if you had a score of 100 and the standard deviation ($sigma$) was 20, your standardized score would be $100 points times frac{1 sd}{20 points}=5sd$. Standardization is just changing the units.



Changing the units of a dataset doesn't affect how spread out it is; you just change the units of the measure of spread you're using so that they match. So if your original data had a standard deviation of 20 points, and you've changed units so that 20 original points equals 1 new standardized unit, then the new standard deviation is 1 unit (because 20 original units equals 1 new unit).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Standardizing is is just changing the units so they are in "standard deviation" units. After standardization, a value of 1.5 means "1.5 standard deviations above 0". If the standard deviation were 8, this would be equivalent to saying "12 points above 0".



An example: when converting inches to feet (in America), you multiply your data in inches by a conversion factor, $frac{1 foot}{12 inches}$, which comes from the fact that 1 foot equals 12 inches, so you're essentially just multiplying your data points by a fancy version of 1 (i.e., a fraction with equal numerator and denominator). For example, to go from 72 inches to feet, you do $72 inches times frac{1 foot}{12 inches}=6feet$.



When converting scores from raw units to standard deviation units, you multiply your data in raw units by the conversion factor $frac{1sd}{sigma points}$. So if you had a score of 100 and the standard deviation ($sigma$) was 20, your standardized score would be $100 points times frac{1 sd}{20 points}=5sd$. Standardization is just changing the units.



Changing the units of a dataset doesn't affect how spread out it is; you just change the units of the measure of spread you're using so that they match. So if your original data had a standard deviation of 20 points, and you've changed units so that 20 original points equals 1 new standardized unit, then the new standard deviation is 1 unit (because 20 original units equals 1 new unit).







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered 2 days ago









NoahNoah

3,3161316




3,3161316








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    yesterday
















  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    yesterday










2




2




$begingroup$
Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Some of your answer needs an extra assumption that you have subtracted the mean, but you don't mention that. The thread question is equivocal here too, as in statistics subtracting the mean is the default, but it asks only about dividing by the SD.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
2 days ago












$begingroup$
I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
$endgroup$
– Noah
yesterday




$begingroup$
I don't think my answer requires that assumption if we're defining standardization as just dividing by the SD (which OP does). I'm just talking about a change of units, not with reference to the center of the data. E.g., for a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10, I'm saying a score of 20 would have a standardized score of 2, not -3. Subtracting the mean (centering) is a separate issue.
$endgroup$
– Noah
yesterday












$begingroup$
Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
yesterday






$begingroup$
Fair point. I don't think defining standardization as merely dividing by the SD is at all standard, so to speak, but granting your definition that value / SD $=: z$, say, then all data points that are positive are then above 0 on the standardized $z$ scale and only points that happen to be negative are below 0 on the $z$ scale. Whether that is as useful a standardization as (value $-$ mean) / SD is open to question.
$endgroup$
– Nick Cox
yesterday




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f398116%2fwhat-is-the-reasoning-behind-standardization-dividing-by-standard-deviation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
Read more

Puebla de Zaragoza

Image
Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
Read more

Musa

Image
Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
Read more