I guess the graphs for questions like "At what age did you first X?" or "At what age did you start X-ing?" exclude people who never X-ed. It'd be nice if the curves grew fuzzier the higher the fraction of never-X-ers got, to show that the age of first X-ing becomes less and less well-defined.
I guess the graphs for questions like "At what age did you first X?" or "At what age did you start X-ing?" exclude people who never X-ed. It'd be nice if the curves grew fuzzier the higher the fraction of never-X-ers got, to show that the age of first X-ing becomes less and less well-defined.
This isn't just a nitpick. If you die as a never-X-er, you may be no longer alive, but you're still a never-X-er, and now you're doomed to remain one for eternity. Therefore, if your age of first X-ing is to be defined at all, it has to be infinity. As a consequence, any statistic including as much as one such person would show the mean age of first X-ing to be infinity.
Moral of the story: lose your never-X-erness or your never-X-erness will lose you.
I guess the graphs for questions like "At what age did you first X?" or "At what age did you start X-ing?" exclude people who never X-ed. It'd be nice if the curves grew fuzzier the higher the fraction of never-X-ers got, to show that the age of first X-ing becomes less and less well-defined.
This isn't just a nitpick. If you die as a never-X-er, you may be no longer alive, but you're still a never-X-er, and now you're doomed to remain one for eternity. Therefore, if your age of first X-ing is to be defined at all, it has to be infinity. As a consequence, any statistic including as much as one such person would show the mean age of first X-ing to be infinity.
Moral of the story: lose your never-X-erness or your never-X-erness will lose you.