If 50% of people are above average, then 50% are below average.

>>9096711
>surely SOME must be "average" right?
Not if you're using discrete people or your distribution is a weird shape. Alice is 5 feet tall. Bob is 6 feet tall. Average is 5.5 feet but 0 people are that height.
>49.999...%
=50%

>>9096734
if you use the terms "above average" and "below average" someone MUST be average

>>9096746
says who?

>>9096711
Common misconception.

Look at the average number of legs on a human. It's slightly below 2 because quite a few people are missing legs and only a handful of people have an extra leg.

Therefore MOST people have an above average number of legs.

You're thinking of average as a split down the middle, when really it's no such thing.

>>9096750
what if you're not talking about something as absolute as legs, what if we're talking about Intelligence

>>9096711
It is wrong that 50% are above (or below) average.
By definition, 50% people are above the median value.

>>9096761
So, with things like that the word "average" is often used in place of the correct term, median (e.g. IQ of 100 is the median score, not actually the average!).

Medians do split populations. In that case, for large groups, the answer is yes. There is in fact an "average" (middle!) person (or at least a person right next to it).

We don't really see that precision though, so we just say 50% above/50% below.

>>9096711
"On average" humans have 1 ovary.