Image not available

1200x723

IQ.png

🧵 Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16365801

Why isn't IQ a number from 0 to 100, instead we have this stupid range for whatever reason.

Anonymous No. 16365837

>>16365801
IQ doesn't follow normal distribution.

Anonymous No. 16365847

>>16365801
It's interesting that other scores such as SAT, ACT, and FICO don't have zero as their minimum but they all have a maximum, while IQ has no maximum but zero is minimum (probably only achievable if brain dead).

Anonymous No. 16365862

>>16365801
Just use terf(x), the gaussian error function offset to unbalanced trits {0,1,2} and multiply by 50.

[math] 50 \operatorname{terf} ( x ) [/math]

Anonymous No. 16365894

>>16365801
I believe they enforce a nonuniform scaling to force the distribution into being a gaussian because gaussians are easy to understand and work with since the mean and variance is all you need to know the distribution completely. We have lots of methods to deal with Guassians since they are fundamental thanks to CLT.

Anonymous No. 16366123

>>16365801
For ease of use, as >>16365894 said, IQ distribution are often VERY skewed on one tail or the other, which implies that there additional assumptions to be made on how intelligence is distributed. To be more precise, a gaussian emerges when either: 1.. is the limit of a binomial distribution 2. When you only know the mean and variance, this is the closest apporximation you can ever get. 3. Central limit theorem: the sum of independant events that all follow the same distribution tends to a normal distribution.
Of course, if you add extra conditions on top of it, it's no longer a normal/gaussian distribution

Anonymous No. 16366135

>>16365801
>Why isn't IQ a number from 0 to 100?
IQ doesn't have the same maximum as temperature, OP. You can always find a smarter person.

Anonymous No. 16366156

It would be interesting to see a set of fifty short interviews with each 2% segment of the distribution. What questions could be asked to best demonstrate the essence of each slice?

Ryan Cooper No. 16366163

Probably they made it so the average will be 100. (However people slowly get smarter over years, so probably 100 is not average anymore)

Anonymous No. 16366181

>>16366163
Immigration is driving down intelligence in most western nations.

Anonymous No. 16366185

>>16366181
Yeah right. How would that even work

Anonymous No. 16366187

>>16366181
False. The average Canadian has a higher IQ if he is replaced by any average immigrable poo.

Ryan Cooper No. 16366188

>>16366181
And? If a person moves from one country to another, average human intelligence doesn't change. In many cases immigrants need to be smart to move somewhere and find a job

Anonymous No. 16366191

>>16366185
Mixing African retards with UK retards reduces the average IQ of both races.

Anonymous No. 16366241

>>16366185
>How would that even work
t. third world immigrant

Anonymous No. 16366259

>>16366241
Have you ever lived in a majority white country?

Anonymous No. 16366369

>>16365801
I guess because every question is worth a set number of points, and their sum becomes your score

Anonymous No. 16366379

>>16366163
>However people slowly get smarter over years
Wrong, people just learned how to do IQ tests better and how to imitate intelligent stereotypes in public, they are still retarded thougheverbeit.

Anonymous No. 16366383

>>16366241
Have your kind ever created anything of worth?

Raphael No. 16366657

>>16365801
It’s mental and physical age times 100

If it were from 0 it would be retarded

“Bro what’s your Iq”

“It’s 12”

Fucking kek

Anonymous No. 16366670

>>16365801
It's a number 1 to 200.
Is that too hard for you??

Raphael No. 16366967

>>16366670
It starts at 40 and ends at 160 for FSIQ some sub tests go to 172’considering is Gaussian curve norms

Anonymous No. 16367004

>>16366185
(100+95+105)/3=100
Now add in some 80s.
(100+95+105+80+80)/5=92
Why did you need something so basic explained to you?

Anonymous No. 16369304

>>16365801
we dont know the iq limit xd

Anonymous No. 16369377

>>16366185
>add samples to a distribution with a lower value than the mean
>mean of new distribution shifts downwards
>HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO ME

Image not available

614x614

1725873164297.png

Anonymous No. 16369407

I don't get it. IQ is a number from 0 to 100. I got 100% on the IQ test.

Anonymous No. 16369458

>>16365837
it literally does by definition

Anonymous No. 16369467

>>16365801
why is water frozen at 0 Celsius and vapor at 100 Celsius? and why are Americans using the retarded Fahrenheit scale? so many questions, so little answers.

Anonymous No. 16372734

>>16366185
Long-term, not so well...

Anonymous No. 16373081

>>16365847
IQ scores below 60 or above 160 are almost entirely meaningless, you are splitting hairs so fine the entire result is noise and thats assuming IQ is a serious measurement in the first place.

t. Mensa member

Anonymous No. 16373086

>>16365801
you would understand if your IQ was above 90.00

Anonymous No. 16373230

>>16366379
This is true. When I had to go to IQ Fitness Camp the first time, I was scared but then my mother told me IQ Fitness Camp is where she met my father. Lots of people meet their spouses that way as IQ Fitness Camp is mandatory for everyone so everyone can learn how to get higher scores on IQ tests. By the seventh or eighth time at IQ Fitness Camp, I was no longer scared and knew it was for the best that we all attend annually.

Anonymous No. 16373239

>>16369467
>why amerikanrraski [do/not do] [thing] [from old time].
Congress.

raphael No. 16373583

>>16373081
you're fucking stupid iq starts at 40 and ends at 160 HRTs go to 190 for MR and 172 for sub tests on the old gre

mathamatical ability that predicts life outcomes is highly g loaded

you're a retarded larp

raphael No. 16373587

>>16373583
>t. 100 FSIQ anti memer neet

Anonymous No. 16374692

>>16365801
/sci/ is dead.

Anonymous No. 16374695

>>16374692
and no one cares

The economizz No. 16374820

>>16365801
It's fucking over
https://youtu.be/IdNwAD0ywg0?si=Y_UakkGj-4_44YgR

Anonymous No. 16374876

>>16365847
>zero is minimum
It's not, though. In principle, given a large enough population and a sufficiently calibrated IQ test, you could measure IQs over 200 and below zero.

In practice, a world population of 8 billion means the range of IQs _should_ extend from 5 to 195 -- but any IQ test has a much smaller range of valid results, because it can't be calibrated on anything like the entire population. As other posters have said, typically 40-160.

Anonymous No. 16374890

>>16374876
4ce.

Anonymous No. 16375834

>>16369458
>by definition
Nope

Anonymous No. 16376898

I know IQ is a relative measure normed to a particular time and place, meaning a test result from Norway in 1979 can't be meaningfully compared to a result from Ghana in 2021. I also know about the Flynn effect and such.
But why do it that way? Why not just pick one test and one norm- let's say a widely known, well-studied, culture-independent one- and use that everywhere forevermore? Then you could easily demonstrate changes across time and space.