 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Warp's done the same thing here as well - and in a small sample, sure, I
> can prove that over 50% of people are of above average intelligence as
> well by picking numbers that prove that. That doesn't prove anything
> with regards to a large population distribution, though.
>
Perhaps the difference is that Warp's making a theoretical point while
you're making a practical one? It's certainly true in a theoretical
sense that there can be distributions where the mean is different than
the median even with many samples (which is what Warp is saying), but
for the particular case of IQ this doesn't seem to be the case (which is
what I think you're saying).
Did I understand correctly?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> Well, yes, his point is correct in this case because he's crafted a small
> sample size that actually does bear out his assertion.
My point was that people tend to think that "the average IQ is 100"
automatically implies that half of the people will be below that and the
other half above it. That's obviously not the case. It depends on the
actual distribution of the samples (iow. if the distribution is asymmetric
around the average, then less than half of people will be on one side and
the rest on the other).
It just sounded like this misconception was being touted in this thread.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-07-21 14:21, clipka wrote:
> 144. Despite having not the slightest clue how those puzzles that looked
> like "twist'n'mix" were supposed to be solved, and just doing more or
> less "solid guessing" on them - I suspect you have to have seen this
> type of puzzles before. (Then again, you actually do during the test, so
> I did make use of the "back" button.)
Whoooa....oh wait. You used the back button? That's...cheating, you
know? You don't get to go back and correct answers on IQ tests once you
realise a mistake you made. :P
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Whoooa....oh wait. You used the back button? That's...cheating, you
> know? You don't get to go back and correct answers on IQ tests once you
> realise a mistake you made. :P
Here's an IQ test: Write a small Python script that tries every
combination of answers and finds the one that yields the highest score. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> At any rate, the IQ test I did at age ~10 was a lot more straightforward
> :-P
You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older
you are, the lower your score is, right?
It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the
*quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.07.2010 22:14, schrieb Tim Cook:
> Whoooa....oh wait. You used the back button? That's...cheating, you
> know? You don't get to go back and correct answers on IQ tests once you
> realise a mistake you made. :P
No?
IIRC the IQ test I took as a child was like, "oh, I'm not sure about
this yet, I'll do the others first, then go back to this one."
At any rate, they deliberately decided to include a "back" button, so if
you're /reall/ intelligent, you're gonna use it :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/07/2010 9:25 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> At any rate, they deliberately decided to include a "back" button, so if
> you're /reall/ intelligent, you're gonna use it :-P
Damn! LOL
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> well by picking numbers that prove that.
The basis of the bell curve and normal distribution are random samples. By
definition, if you pick samples to prove a point, it's not a random sample.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/07/2010 9:22 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older
> you are, the lower your score is, right?
>
> It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the
> *quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P
>
Does that mean when you are my age your score will be 60? ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older
>> you are, the lower your score is, right?
>>
>> It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the
>> *quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P
>>
>
> Does that mean when you are my age your score will be 60? ;-)
No. By then of course I will be significantly more stupid and/or dead.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
