From: John McWilliams on 2 Jun 2010 00:47 Savageduck wrote:> On 2010-06-01 19:18:22 -0700, Mike Russell > said: > >> >>> On 2010-06-01 18:39:41 -0700, Rich said: >>>> 72% have IQ's under 95... >> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:03:00 -0700, Savageduck wrote: >>> ...and you know that little fact, how? >> >> It's part of the definition of IQ. >> http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx > > Mike, > I would have thought you would actually have read and understood what > you posted. > What Rich stated had nothing to do with the "definition of IQ". > > By definition the mean IQ of any given test population is 100. Therefore > as per your own source average IQ falls in the 90-110 range. > Also the scoring for any test population group is assumed to be evenly > distributed, simply meaning there should be as many scoring above 100 as > below. > > Also from your source; > "Thus the deviation IQ replaced the ratio IQ. It compares people of the > same age or age category and assumes that IQ is normally distributed, > that the average (mean) is 100 and that the standard deviation is > something like 15 (IQ tests sometimes differ in their standard > deviations). > > What is a standard deviation (SD)? Simply put, the standard deviation > is a measure of the spread of the sample from the mean. As a rule of > thumb, about 2/3 of a sample is within 1 standard deviation from the > mean. About 95% of the sample will be within 2 standard deviations from > the mean (3). > > With the standard deviation and a mean, you can calculate percentiles. > Percentiles tell you the percent of people that have a score equal to or > lower than a certain score." > > Given that you are not going to find 72% of any test population scoring > below 95. Don't they grade on the curve?? And how come all the children in Lake Wobegone are above average?? Flatulent minds wanna know..... -- john mcwilliams From: Twibil on 2 Jun 2010 01:20 On Jun 1, 8:10 pm, Peter Irwin wrote:> > > >> > dex.html "72 percent said that their iPhone made them happier." > >> > Better than Prozac. > > >> 72% have IQ's under 95... > > > Yup. > > That can't be right. Of course it isn't "right". Follow along: RichA was claiming that anyone who enjoyed an iPhone must have an IQ of less than 95; and that's not "right". So I ironically agreed with RichA while pointing out that even if it were true that 72% of the population had an IQ of under 95 there is no proof that that 72% was composed of the same people who enjoyed iPhones. So even if he hadn't been lying he *still* wouldn't have had a point. See? Apparently we need a sign of some sort to let people know when our irony meters have been working overtime. http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u214/JRLloydIII/WebStuff/th_irony-meter..gif From: Mike Russell on 2 Jun 2010 03:35 On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:02:13 -0700, Savageduck wrote: > Mike, > I would have thought you would actually have read and understood what > you posted. sorry - thought you had an actual question, and not a snare. All the bets -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com From: Peter on 2 Jun 2010 06:25 "John McWilliams" wrote in message news:hu4non\$ugc\$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > Don't they grade on the curve?? And how come all the children in Lake > Wobegone are above average?? > > Flatulent minds wanna know..... > Because they walk barefoot to school in the winter, uphill both ways. -- Peter From: Allen on 2 Jun 2010 10:07 Savageduck wrote: > Given that you are not going to find 72% of any test population scoring > below 95. One exception: the population of my killfile for this group. Allen First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last