50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Motion
Next: Free Energy
From: Jerry on 14 Jan 2006 09:55 TMG wrote: > George Hammond wrote: > > 50% of the human race is below average intelligence. > > SHOCKING!!! > > Unbelievably SHOCKING!!! > > Next you'll discover that: > > Half of all ladders are below average ladder height. > > Half of all cars are below average car length. > > Half of all penguins are below average penguin weight. > > Half of all Hammond's posts are below the average Hammond post length. > > ..... > > SHOCKING!!!! I say! However, every manager knows (or ought to know) that 90% of all people are superior at SOMETHING. It's the secret to building winning teams out of ordinary people. Find out what each person does best, and take advantage of that knowledge. Jerry
From: Tony on 14 Jan 2006 12:20 It's also worth noting that most IQ tests have components that are culture specific. Standardizing tests is a bear of a problem, and you'd be surprised at how few data points often are used to establish the stardards. We'd score badly on a test standardized for Africa, or Lake Woebegon. The earlier WISCs I think was stardardized largely from -- guess where? -- WI! It's likely each population has pretty much the same native intelligences: issues like food and other cultural influences and limitations screw things up pretty badly. It's also probably true, getting into the math of it, that people with very limited intelligences die off faster, so there are more outliers at the high end than the lower end. If one computes the 'average' those will pull that number above the median, and more than 50% of the population will be below average. It's interesting how discussions like revert to smoking keyboard, but then again one need not demonstrate a lot of intelligence to get on the interent. I just proved that!
From: tadchem on 14 Jan 2006 12:58 George Hammond wrote: <snip> > The OP is aware that IQ is normally distributed in the population > a fact that has been known for 75 years... and therefore the mean, > "average", and the median are all identical, namely = 100. Your purported 'fact' is an approximation at best. Normal distributions are symmetrical with no upper or lower bounds. While IQ scores exceeding 200 are rare, they *have* been seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant OTOH, IQ scores below 0 are impossible. IQ has a lower bound of 0 and no upper bound. IQ scores are also "normalized" after the fact: the average raw score for any given demographic (i.e. British children over 10 years old but not over 11 years old - cultural bias is *strong*) in a test is *assigned* the value of 100. Individual scores are then related to the average for the applicable demographic as percentages. IQ distribution is skewed, the average is approximate, and its value is variable across different demographics. The median, mode, variance, standard deviation, and kurtosis are not even considered. It is at best a crude device for measuring the need for further education, and has been so since 1905. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ My assertion, rephrased, is that you are in more need of further educaiton in statistics than most of us. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: zzbunker@netscape.net on 14 Jan 2006 13:01 Tony wrote: > It's also worth noting that most IQ tests have components that are > culture specific. Standardizing tests is a bear of a problem, and you'd > be surprised at how few data points often are used to establish the > stardards. We'd score badly on a test standardized for Africa, or Lake > Woebegon. > > The earlier WISCs I think was stardardized largely from -- guess where? > -- WI! > > It's likely each population has pretty much the same native > intelligences: issues like food and other cultural influences and > limitations screw things up pretty badly. > > It's also probably true, getting into the math of it, that people with > very limited intelligences die off faster, so there are more outliers > at the high end than the lower end. If one computes the 'average' those > will pull that number above the median, and more than 50% of the > population will be below average. Well that's not true, it's just the opposite. Since idiots like Quantum Physcists always invent Companion Matrix Al Gores and Internets, so that George Bush's, Saddam Hussein's, GM's, and Ossama Bin Laden's can also use them. > > It's interesting how discussions like revert to smoking keyboard, but > then again one need not demonstrate a lot of intelligence to > get on the interent. I just proved that!
From: Tony on 14 Jan 2006 13:58
Mark noted You might also consider that 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class. so I'll remind all of you when you do go to your doctor with a sore throat, you don't want to see the degree on the wall, but the transcript: did he get an "A" in throat? Our local restaurants have to post their sanitation scores, so I worry when I see a 98 about what they screwed up to lose 2 points. Sort of like the written tests pilots take: 70% is passing. Think about this. What 30% of flying stuff are you comfortable with knowing your pilot failed? |