8

Why are measures of dispersion calculated relative to some central point? Why wouldn't, for instance, all possible non-repeated, pairwise differences in the dataset be a valid measure of spread?

trichman22
  • 83
  • 4
  • 4
    When $X$ and $Y$ are identically distributed random variables, then $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}((X-Y)^2)$--which measures all pairwise differences--is *exactly* the common variance of $X$ and $Y$. This shows there isn't necessarily any difference at all between the two approaches. – whuber Apr 29 '14 at 19:14
  • 4
    The same theme is developed, rather differently, in L-moments (start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-moment). The second L-moment is essentially a reincarnation of an often invented measure based on comparing using absolute differences rather than squared differences. See also https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.ss/1028905831 for an accessible (double sense) historical perspective. – Nick Cox Apr 29 '14 at 19:33

1 Answers1

8

Actually, not all measures of dispersion are calculated relative to some central point. Examples include the $Q_n$ and $S_n$ statistics. Your intuition is sharp, as indeed, the calculation of these only relies on pairwise differences.

A downside of these two estimators is that they are less efficient at the gaussian distribution than the classical variance. However, an advantage is that they are more robust.

Deathkill14
  • 2,140
  • 10
  • 17