 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2010 6:06 AM, 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.
So, then ... it's adaptive?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2010 7:38 AM, Invisible wrote:
> 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..."
Eh.. looks like my score is about average for this group. Andrew, you're
well above average (in terms of most humans) you have nothing to worry
about.
For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses. I really
wouldn't worry about what your IQ is compared to others here. It's
tantamount to some sort of ...brain envy.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
