I understand that you’re saying there are more incredible geniuses than full on retards.
However, IQ scores are a normal distribution with an arbitrarily defined mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
So, IQ scores of 0 or 200 are both 6.6 standard deviations from the mean. If IQ is truly a normal distribution, you’d expect the number of people with IQ scores <= 0 and the number with scores >= 200, to be exactly the same, simply because this is how the scores are defined.
If you try to look up what proportion of the population falls outside 6.6 standard deviations, the z-tables don’t go out this far. It’s essentially 0%
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
It’s not. I assure you there are far more outliers on the low end.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I endeavour to be as stupid as possible so more people can be above average.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
America thanks you for your service.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 months ago
But I’m sure there are more people with 200+ IQ than with <0.
blandfordforever@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I understand that you’re saying there are more incredible geniuses than full on retards.
However, IQ scores are a normal distribution with an arbitrarily defined mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
So, IQ scores of 0 or 200 are both 6.6 standard deviations from the mean. If IQ is truly a normal distribution, you’d expect the number of people with IQ scores <= 0 and the number with scores >= 200, to be exactly the same, simply because this is how the scores are defined.
If you try to look up what proportion of the population falls outside 6.6 standard deviations, the z-tables don’t go out this far. It’s essentially 0%
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s not. Here’s a list containing a number of people above 200.
However, no-one has a negative IQ.