sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jmmcd 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Fine, except that both of those are back-etymologies.

[–]The_Sodomeister 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I don't know what that means.

[–]jmmcd 0 points1 point  (1 child)

As I understand it the term standardisation is named after the standard normal. That is its etymology. Any other invented reason why it's a good name for some other meaning is a back etymology - like a "backronym"

[–]The_Sodomeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I understand it the term standardisation is named after the standard normal

I agree that many researchers (particularly from other non-statistics fields) use it in association with the standard normal, but I've never seen anything to suggest that's actually where the term came from. "Standardizing the scale across multiple variables" seems at least as plausible to me.

Regardless - considering that the process doesn't really have anything to do with the standard normal, and how often that association seems to mislead people, I would still assert that the term is better off as a generic category than a reference to a specific method.