On 16/01/2014 7:02 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 16/01/2014 06:25 PM, Warp wrote:
>> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>>> No, that's pretty well defined: The average person is the one that has a
>>> higher intelligence than 50% of the remaining population, and a lower
>>> one than the other 50%.
>>
>> Is the scoring scaled so that 100 points is assigned to the average
>> or to the median score?
>
> And is that the arithmetic mean or the geometric mean?
>
> And with population are you sampling to get your calibration curve?
>
> And...
>
> ....like I said, each test design probably gives slightly different
> answers.

Does it make any difference?
It is all hogwash, anyway.

If you only have a vague idea of what you are testing for. How can you 
have any confidence in the results?
And how do you weight them for cultural, gender and educational bias.

IMO It is more commercial, educationalist  and wishful thinking, 
gobble-de-gook than anything that approaches a science.
Western world Hoodo.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message