Is a "right imbalance", which seems to be the central idea expressed here, somehow being illustrated by a counter example: the content of the article itself?
> In both mathematics and spirituality, there’s a fascinating echo of balance. The Central Limit Theorem in statistics illustrates how outcomes often converge around the mean, a concept mirrored by regression models emphasizing average relationships. While these mathematical ideas are grounded in data analysis, they metaphorically align with spiritual teachings that advocate for a middle path in life.
That’s begging the question. Regression towards the most likely outcome has nothing to do with balance or this kind of new age pseudo-mystical concept. It’s a direct consequence of the simple existence of a most likely outcome, or at least a local maximum in a probability density.
What this says is that your life will tend to regress to the mean for whatever metric given enough time whether you want it or not (with caveats because not everything has a nice, static probability distribution and one individual is not a great statistical sample).
What this does not say is that there is any moral imperative to try to make this regression faster. The conclusion that “ they metaphorically align with spiritual teachings that advocate for a middle path in life” is a non sequitur.
> While these mathematical ideas are grounded in data analysis, they metaphorically align with spiritual teachings that advocate for a middle path in life.
You can stop reading right here. The central limit theorem and gaussian distribution do not in any way align with "regressing" the behavior of an individual to the mean. That's a gross misunderstanding of the concept, bordering on complete bullshit.
