The Law of Stupids

[stinkeypete]

For a random symmetrical (Gaussian) distribution, the median and the average happen to be the same number.

When the distribution becomes skewed, the average tends towards the tail of the population graph compared to the median.

When it comes to stupid, I’m okay with half the people are below average. (I did see the rule about after midnight. After midnight, functioning IQ of a hundred is pretty rare in most taverns.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

For a random symmetrical (Gaussian) distribution, the median and the average happen to be the same number.

Point well taken. I was considered the data from a raw standpoint, not normalized. And to add to what you said, so too can the mode fit with the mean and median (though that would be rare).

In IQ distributions (which are normalized to be Gaussian), ~68% within 1 standard deviation of the mean set at 100.

 

[Pistoler0]

If it's AVERAGE then the largest number of people are going to have it.

To simplify it HALF the population is of average intelligence. A QUARTER are BELOW and a QUARTER are above. AND not all of the people who are below are even SIGNIFICANTLY bow.

No.

Not a single person would be exactly of average intelligence. It is a continuous distribution.

If this is the extent of your grasp of elementary high school statistics, I am starting to doubt your ability in following the tenets of your own "Law of Stupids". So I am not putting much stock into it.

 

[Pistoler0]

Point well taken. I was considered the data from a raw standpoint, not normalized. And to add to what you said, so too can the mode fit with the mean and median (though that would be rare).

In IQ distributions (which are normalized to be Gaussian), ~68% within 1 standard deviation of the mean set at 100.

YES!

But..... that standard deviation in relation to the expected deviation from the mean, (kurtosis or "peakedness" ) is a BIG DEAL. In fact, other bell shaped distributions such as the Pearson distribution are more flexible in that they do not conform to a pre-determined "peakedness" as the normal distribution does.

If IQs were distributed as the figure on the top, the difference between the "smart" and the "not so smart" would not be very pronounced. Furthermore as you said, IQ distributions are NORMALIZED form their raw percentile scores: they are forced to approximate a particular normal distribution but they are not necessarily distributed as such in reality. This is done for mathematical and estimation convenience. Of course there are tests to check for this (i.e: Jarque-Bera or Kolmogorov-Smirnov, but they assume that the parameters of the normal <the average and standard deviation> are known with certainty).

Moreover the calculation of IQ scores (by psychologists ) has always been controversial, with recoding and "re-designing" of results that do not fit, and convenient reparametrization of data. Psychology is not my area, but it is my understanding that IQs are not useful for comparisons among individuals or races (which by the way the Chinese LOVE to do), but they are more useful when comparing the same individual with himself/herself at different points in time, specially before and after some significant event (death of a loved one, PTSD, etc).

 

[Moonglum]

No.

Not a single person would be exactly of average intelligence. It is a continuous distribution.

If this is the extent of your grasp of elementary high school statistics, I am starting to doubt your ability in following the tenets of your own "Law of Stupids". So I am not putting much stock into it.

It really bothers you that I called your buddy out on his stories doesn't it

 

[JohnKSa]

I can't imagine where this will go if it stays open.

...well, actually I can. So...