Comment

Comment on brains!

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

IQ is defined statistically.

Yes, a ranking. Ideally the same test for the whole population.

Then you use a defined mean and SD to determine …

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.

source
- blandfordforever@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I’m not saying intelligence is a normal distribution. I’m saying that IQ scores are a normal distribution.
  
  The metric, IQ is a normal distribution because that’s how the metric is defined.
  
  I’d like to hear your explanation how an IQ of above 200 is possible and what that would actually mean.
  
  Its only possible if there are about 10x more humans. With a population of around 80 billion, the smartest one person would have a z score of roughly 6.6 and an IQ of roughly 200. This is calculated from a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, which is how it’s defined.
  
  source
  - Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    I’d like to hear your explanation how an IQ of above 200 is possible and what that would actually mean.
    
    It means that the mean and standard distribution have been calibrated to a population, but that the population kurtosis is significantly non-normal
    
    Its only possible if there are about 10x more humans.
    
    Incorrect. It’s also possible if human intelligence isn’t normally distributed.
    
    With a population of around 80 billion, the smartest one person would have a z score of roughly 6.6 and an IQ of roughly 200. This is calculated from a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, which is how it’s defined.
    
    Only if intelligence of the human population is normally distributed.
    
    So, as I’ve been saying, you just put everyone’s test scores in order from worst to best,
    
    No you don’t. You have invented this unnecessary step.
    
    calculate the z score of the person you’re interested in, multiply by the SD (15) and add the mean.
    
    No, because the “person” and the z score have no link.
    
    It is also the case that for populations over 80 billion, you can have negative IQ scores, using the same logic that was used for a person with an IQ of >=200.
    
    If a rock has zero intelligence, how can something score lower? Negative intelligence is impossible.
    
    source
    blandfordforever@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Look, I’m saying the same thing that I also found on Wikipedia. You just put the scores in order and then you fit them to a normal curve. This is what it means to scale them ordinally and then fit this to a normal distribution.
    
    Its clear that we aren’t going to agree on this.
    
    You seem to incorrectly think that an IQ of 0 would mean zero intelligence when I have explained exactly what an IQ of zero would mean.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments