Comment on brains!

• blandfordforever@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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%

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If IQ is truly a normal distribution

    It’s not. Here’s a list containing a number of people above 200.

    However, no-one has a negative IQ.

    source

    • blandfordforever@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I have to disagree.

      IQ as a measure of intelligence doesn’t work that way. The number can’t just get higher and higher because a person is really smart. A supreme, godlike intelligence doesn’t have an IQ of say, a million. IQ has a statistical definition.

      If there are about 8 billion humans, then 1 of them is “the smartest” in some way. 1/8,000,000,000 is 1.2x10^-10, this has a z score of 6.33.

      The current smartest person will have an IQ of (6.33x15)+100=195. No one has an IQ of 200. This isn’t because a person can’t be any smarter, it’s because this is how IQ is defined. If a pure, perfect, godlike intelligence exists in our current human population, their IQ is 195.

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No 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?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit. IQ has specific testing criteria and imo the most important part of it is its basis in general distribution - if we don’t know the IQ of the average peasant, we can’t know the IQ of Shakespeare

      besides, IQ is a borderline pseudo science to begin with. i was made to take an official IQ tests and the second i stepped out of the test room i started wondering how is this going to accuratly portray my “innate” intelligence when the vast majority of the things on the test can be learnt or otherwise trained to be better at

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit.

        There are people alive on that list.

        IQ is a borderline pseudo science

        Dude, you are the one trying to prove it’s legitimacy with normal distributions and confidence levels.

        source

        • -> View More Comments