 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 21/07/2010 21:11, Kevin Wampler nous fit lire :
> 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),
Let's take salary/income as a basic sample:
Mediam might be as low as 1500€/month.
Mean might be about 5000€/month... thanks to the few who earns/stole/...
about 100k€ or more (like 20m€) per month.
So, according to which one you select, you can say that the
buying-capability is about 5000€/month, or only 1500€/month... not
really the same numbers!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/07/2010 10:09 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? ;-)
>
> No. By then of course I will be significantly more stupid and/or dead.
>
Ah! Grasshopper sees beyond tomorrow. :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:14:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Oh, I see what you're saying - the distribution is actually more like 50%
of people fall into a range of 91-110 (if I remember correctly).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:11:34 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 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?
That well could be.
> 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?
I think so. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:26:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
More or less my point. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/20/2010 1:03 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>
> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out. Got 130.
I started rushing through the latter parts because I had no idea how
many questions it had and scored 131.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.07.2010 20:40, schrieb Mike Raiford:
> On 7/20/2010 1:03 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>>
>> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out. Got 130.
>
>
> I started rushing through the latter parts because I had no idea how
> many questions it had and scored 131.
Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The
test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The
> test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.
That wasn't very clever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>
> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out. Got 130.
It got very very repetitive (yes I figured out how to do the squares and
triangles inside that 2x2 rotating cube, no need to give me 100 questions
using the same idea), I got bored and clicked next repeatedly until the end
and got 125.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> It got very very repetitive (yes I figured out how to do the squares and
> triangles inside that 2x2 rotating cube, no need to give me 100
> questions using the same idea), I got bored and clicked next repeatedly
> until the end and got 125.
I love the way everybody else isn't even trying properly and yet they
manage to get much higher scores than me.
I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test.
It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
