Comment on brains!
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoNo one has an IQ of 200
I linked to a list of many examples
this has a z score of 6.33.
Only if normal distributions are assumed. Clearly this assumption is incorrect.
But we do agree that a negative IQ is impossible?
blandfordforever@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
You provided a link to reader’s digest. It’s not the most credible reference.
A negative IQ score and an IQ score above 200 would be possible with larger populations.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m struggling to see how a negative IQ can be practically assessed.
blandfordforever@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
I think the confusion is that IQ is not an objective measurement. It’s subjective.
Its not like say, height, where you can have a normal distribution and then a statistical outlier.
The IQ point isnt a constant, tangeable unit of measure, like an inch. Intelligence isn’t something you can put a ruler up to and say, oh that’s weird, this person with an iq of 300 is a statistical outlier.
IQ is defined statistically. You use some method of claiming that each person has a certain ranking of intelligence. Then you use a defined mean and SD to determine what IQ value that corresponds to, in the context of everyone else in the population.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes, a ranking. Ideally the same test for the whole population.
Here is your error. Limiting the description of the population distribution to only 2 parameters severely restricts the range of distributions that can be selected. Forcing the population distribution to be Normal is done for arithmetic convenience only. Not because intelligence must be normally distributed.