Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Sure you can, if the ones above average are WAY above and the majority are below avearage.

Point taken, but that isn't demonstrably true(yet) in the human population, as that kind of specialization hasn't been going on and would likely take many generations of deliberate effort to see significant results.

Sure you can, if the ones above average are WAY above and the majority are below avearage.

You're describing a skewed distribution. Intelligence follows a normal, i.e. symmetric, distribution. Hence a majority can never be above the mean. Conversely, a majority can never be below the mean either.

Does it, though?

As measured, by IQ tests, yes. Of course, that's only because the IQ system was specifically designed to produce that kind of distribution.

But what about all those celebs who claim an IQ of 150? ;)

Since by definition and design the average IQ is 100, half of them are probably lying.

@AJ
But what about all those celebs who claim an IQ of 150? ;)
@DS
Since by definition and design the average IQ is 100, half of them are probably lying.

By definition and design the average IQ is 100, and the standard deviation is 15. So, an IQ of over 150 is three and a third standard deviations or more above the average ... about 0.1%.
I'd say it's more likely that 99.9% of them are lying.

Since there isn't a thumbs up facility, I'll write some irrelevant gibberish to show my approval instead

That might have been irrelevant, but it wasn't gibberish. :-P

IQ tests do measure general intelligence. Arguments like 'IQ test only measure how well you do on IQ tests' are usually put forth by those who are afraid of or don't like what IQ tests reveal. Most people don't want to know their real IQ scores as most people like to think they smarter than average and would be disappointed with the real results. So they poopoo IQ tests.

They're getting better, but they're still highly subjective and can be easily skewed depending on how they're setup. The biggest issue is the IQ Testing tends to (historically) favor "general knowledge" testing among other things, as obviously a really smart person should know lots of things right?

..unless they don't happen to speak the language being tested as their first language. Or they happen to come from an economically(and educationally) disadvantaged background, in which case their "general knowledge" will be lacking and they score poorly as a result. But surprise surprise, you put them through a solid general educational program and their IQ magically skyrockets.(Or even give them an IQ test tailored to their language/cultural group)

...Except IQ doesn't work that way in theory, but it sure does on a lot of the tests that measure it! (And probably how so many rich/famous people score so high, they paid for tailored instruction specific to the series of IQ Test they were going in to take, and only pursued The formal test after reliably hitting their target on the practice tests.)

The Intelligence Quotient is a great theory, but we're still pretty bad at measuring it.

In theory though, it should be something of a bell curve with normal at 100 and something like 70% of the population landing within 10 points from there. But curves can be distorted all the same.

It also should be noted that prior to the Tech Boom of the late 1990's, high IQ test results actually were more of a curse than a blessing. Outside the Tech sector, your typical CEO or Business tycoon is more likely to score under 125.

And the idea that only people who score low on IQ tests are the ones who want to critique IQ tests is risible and a little insulting.

I find it funny more than anything else. Never bothered with one, but based on other skills assessments back in High School I should likely fall somewhere between the 91st and 97th percentile. Which as I recall would leave me somewhere in or near the 120's(from high teens to low thirties).

So I guess MENSA would try to claim it is potential sour grapes over the likely outcome of being (barely) unable to meet their entry criteria? LOL, I know people who were in it, not interested in joining, by and large, it seems the only MENSA members worth knowing are the ones who leave MENSA shortly after joining.

Most evidence (that I've seen, at least) shows that effort, more than IQ counts for most success. Those that try harder succeed more often, while the high IQ set rarely push that hard.

Grit by Angela Duckworth largely makes that point, and references several studies.

Most evidence (that I've seen, at least) shows that effort, more than IQ counts for most success. Those that try harder succeed more often, while the high IQ set rarely push that hard.

I would fully agree with that, and it is the largest complaint re: MENSA as well.

They're often lazy, even within the intellectual arena as well. As many like to conclude that thanks to their high IQ, they're right, and anyone who disagrees is intellectually deficient in being unable to appreciate their brilliance. (Where have I heard that trope before?),

Another aspect of things for the higher IQ range is their socialization can be rather poor or simply abnormal. At the younger age range in particular, their age-group is not very likely to hold their interest, and the ones they can relate to mentally won't generally want much to do with them, and for those that do, other "age related" factors are likely to come into play regardless.

Which moves into that whole "emotional intelligence" side of things, where high IQ types tend to do poorly. Sure they're really smart, but they're not particularly sociable or personable, quite likely they're either going to be "socially awkward/inept" or they will simply be an asshole.

They're often lazy, even within the intellectual arena as well.

I'd like to receive some public recognition of my status as a genius. I wouldn't feel so lonely with that knowledge anymore and I also like it as an excuse for my laziness.

I'd like to receive some public recognition of my status as a genius. I wouldn't feel so lonely with that knowledge anymore and I also like it as an excuse for my laziness.

Well, it "is only reasonable" that someone with high latent intelligence may be "academically challenged" in the sense that it fails to challenge them.
Which in turn leads to lack of interest in the material they're supposed to be working on.
Which then leads to poor/very bad study/work habits because that same high intelligence helps them get away with it.
Which can in turn be used as fodder for discussing failed/failing schools geared to the "lowest common denominator" where even people with simply "above average intelligence" could be bored out of their minds.

As to the "don't you understand how smart I am?" crowd. There is no accounting for them. Einstein, who already has been mentioned, had "problems" as a student in traditional formal education settings. He also was largely unknown and not particularly successful until after he published two scientific papers within a couple years of each other in the late 1910's. Keep in mind, he was born in March, 1879(do the math).

It wasn't until the early 1920's after some proofs of his theories could be verified that he started to really get accolades as being "a genius." In the interim, he was just a theorist with some controversial ideas, that while compelling, were yet to be proven.

Do you live in a lamp and only come out for a rub'n'tug?

Not exactly; it's not a lamp, it's a tub, and I bathe within the resplendent shine of unworldly glory.

ETA: Now that I think about it, maybe too frequent visits for a rub'n'tug could have something to do with it.

I was called a 'genius' in business, based on my ability to make unexpected leaps in logic, ...........................Thus all 'genius' really means is 'exceeds expectations' for a very limited circumstance,

I got that appellation for finding a way to help a bank customer - I remembered a system used 50 years before which computers etc. had made redundant.

'exceeds expectations' for a very limited circumstance

- Me a genius? You're joking.

You're describing a skewed distribution.

It all depends on your sample group. A 'random sample' does not mean you will get 'average' people. ANY study can be manipulated by carefully selecting where you get your 'random' participants.

Well, about 50% of the US population have had their brains destroyed by the media already, that's why they voted the way they did in the last presidential election

It doesn't matter which party/candidate you are trying to disrespect. The winner got a minority of all the votes (by people) except in the electoral college. I don't see the result as the media's fault. For the most part they were supporting the Democratic Party's candidate. She lost in the electoral college, was that the media's fault?

It doesn't matter which party/candidate you are trying to disrespect. The winner got a minority of all the votes (by people) except in the electoral college. I don't see the result as the media's fault. For the most part they were supporting the Democratic Party's candidate. She lost in the electoral college, was that the media's fault?

It should be noted that in 2016 no presidential candidate managed to even obtain a majority vote by population. Although the largest plurality holder failed to win the EC.

@Ernest Bywater
Thus it means a candidate can't just focus on a couple of very populous states, but has to focus on a much wider part of the country's population to win the EC.

At least someone on the other side of the world gets that.

In case anyone is interested, take California out of both totals and Trump wins both popular and EC vote. You have a detailed understanding of the rationale of the Founding Fathers, Ernest. Most US citizens don't get that.

In case anyone is interested, take California out of both totals and Trump wins both popular and EC vote.

I'm too lazy to run the numbers, but taking New York out would probably have the same effect.

hus it means a candidate can't just focus on a couple of very populous states, but has to focus on a much wider part of the country's population to win the EC.

Actually, from a strictly mathematical perspective, it is possible to win the electoral college by winning just the 11 most populous states.

And thanks to the winner take all system currently in effect, you only need 51% of the vote in each of those states. Which would only require 29.14% of the national popular vote.

A lot depends on the voter turn out in each state.

However, The top 11 states adding up to 270 electoral votes comprise just over 57% of the national population, and 51% of that comes to 29.14%.

It may be possible to win with a lower % of the national popular vote if you mix in a few low population states, by mine is the fewest number of states won to win the electoral college.

The problem with that concept is: the Senate and the Electoral College were originally established in a way to directly to stop a popular vote winning the whole deal.

1. The winner take all rule is actually relatively recent, having been adopted by most states in the mid 20th century. There is one state still using the method I laid out (one of the east coast states, Main I think, but I'm not sure).

There is a not insignificant movement out there to reform and/or eliminate the electoral college.

There are already a few states that have adopted a national popular vote bill that would assign the states electors, winner take all based on the national popular vote.

Of all the proposals out there, what I laid out will do the least damage to the electoral college system.

1. The winner take all rule is actually relatively recent, having been adopted by most states in the mid 20th century. There is one state still using the method I laid out (one of the east coast states, Main I think, but I'm not sure).

There are two states which allocate their delegates that way, Maine and Utah. A 3-1 split in Maine is likely in a close election, but it would take a national landslide to the Democrats for them them to ever win a delegate in Utah.
The proposal sounds fine in theory, but states are reluctant to do it unilaterally because it would result in an advantage being given to the minority party in that state. It could only be achieved by a Constitutional Amendment. I don't see that happening anytime soon. The Democrats would certainly resist it given the GOP's recent efforts to gerrymander their Congressional district boundaries.

but states are reluctant to do it unilaterally because it would result in an advantage being given to the minority party in that state.

Again, true. However, if the national popular vote compact ever goes into effect, that would give an even bigger advantage to Democrats in Republican majority states.

There are two states which allocate their delegates that way, Maine and Utah.

I think you mean Maine and Nebraska. ;) I am not aware of Utah doing anything beyond WTA.

I think you mean Maine and Nebraska. ;)

You are right. Nebraska is the other state which allocates two delegates for the state, at large, and one for each Congressional district.

However, state boundaries are fixed, having very rarely changed over history, while congressional districts change every 10 years. This would give even more incentive to gerrymander district boundaries to maximize districts won.

That is the only legitimate objection to that variation that I've heard. It's one I'm kind of split on, as it also results on political parties needing to decide if they want a "safe" congressional district or two competitive electoral districts. (Or the reverse, maybe they want the "safe EC vote" instead, which likely also means a safe congressional district)

It would certainly add a new layer to the calculations that happen when it comes to gerrymandering a district.

I would just like to see first past the post replaced by instant-runoff to mandate either a 50%+1 majority before a district is decided, or as close as they can get before people refuse to participate in protest against the (popular) options.

If the Republicans used IR for their primary race in 2016, Donald Trump probably would not have been nominated.

I would just like to see first past the post replaced by instant-runoff to mandate either a 50%+1 majority before a district is decided, or as close as they can get before people refuse to participate in protest against the (popular) options.

Australia has been using that method for over 100 years and in my view it's the only rational system there is.
Proportional voting, as used in much of Europe, sounds good in theory, but in practice it produces too many weak coalition governments unwilling to make hard decisions. The first-part-the-post system used in US and UK is much worse. It tends to entrench two-party systems because a vote for any other candidate favours the party you least want to win. For example, Gore would have won in 2000 with that method of vote counting: he'd certainly have won NH, and I think OR too, on the preferences of Nader voters. OTOH, Bush , the sane one, would have beaten Clinton in 1992 if Perot hadn't taken away so many voters who favoured him.

For example, Gore would have won in 2000 with that method of vote counting: he'd certainly have won NH, and I think OR too, on the preferences of Nader voters.

With Instant Runoff, there were enough Nader voters in Florida to have likely given Gore that state. In fact, IIRC about some of the butterfly ballots used, some claimed they accidentally voted for Nader instead of Gore "because the ballot confused them."

Where I then have to wonder if their right to vote shouldn't be revoked if they cannot either bother to ask for assistance, or figure it out on their own. The "hanging chads" they also had going on just added to the madness.

there were enough Nader voters in Florida to have likely given Gore that state.

Not really: the voters who mattered were always going to vote 5-4 for Bush.
But for those who dislike the Electoral College, because the candidate with the most votes may not win, consider what it would be like if all the madness in Florida 2000 was repeated in every state, in every close election. :(

You mean I Q doesn't stand for I Quit?

Interesting Question ...

more like Idiotic Questions

more like Idiotic Questions

Idiocy Quotient

Edit: Just how dumb can you make your great ideas?

more like Idiotic Questions

like one on the radio yesterday. One presenter got it reasonably quickly but the other failed entirely;

A lily pad on a pond doubles in size every day. On the twenty eighth day it covers the pond; on what day did the lily pad cover half the pond?

anything over one second to answer and .....

SAT (scholastic aptitude test) scores may be the new IQ. The guys with 800 scores, or 1600 for both English and math are the new "genius".

Realistically, any test that samples and ranks(or can be used to rank) certain attributes against the general population can be used to "rough in" what the likely IQ range is that a person would fall into if specifically tested with an IQ test. As the concept/theory is that human IQ falls along a bell curve with a reasonably even distribution with most falling near the center(100).I

The only variable as to the accuracy of a particular test battery being applied that way is what it tests, and how it is scored and structured.

To improperly cite teh great wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

When current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less, although this was not always so historically. By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115. About 5 percent of the population scores above 125, and 5 percent below 75.

Which goes back to my initial complaint in the OP where the author for that particular story had some aliens proclaim that by our(humanity's) own measure, most of the population had an IQ below 100. I was simply too lazy and time constrained to bother to revisit wiki before posting at the time, then discussion moved elsewhere...

But that also is how I also based my earlier assertion I was "probably" somewhere in the high 110's to low 130's. As by that methodology, 50+33.3= 83.3% of the human population should have an IQ of 115 or lower, while only about 5% should be above 125. As I never took a standardized test that ranked me below the 89th percentile, with low to mid 90th percentile rankings being normal(with the highest that I recall being a 97) it is a pretty safe bet I would clear 115. I wouldn't place any personal bets on my clearing 125 though.

For example, the words were something like "Christmas dinner". The answer was "turkey" (come to think of it, is that religion biased?).

The trouble is that some less than morons would actually take exception.
IMHO a sizeable proportion of people in the US and EU are or are close to being Christian so Christmas is a well-known date (just like Fit-al-Id and Ramadan and Diwali). If Moslems or Hindus complain about Christmas then the most of the rest of us can complain about their festivals.

Given that these are dates in the calendar there should be no problem

For example, the words were something like "Christmas dinner". The answer was "turkey" (come to think of it, is that religion biased?).

The trouble is that some less than morons would actually take exception.

IMHO a sizeable proportion of people in the US and EU are or are close to being Christian so Christmas is a well-known date (just like Fit-al-Id and Ramadan and Diwali).

There is another pitfall. In most countries of the EU the answer to "Christmas Dinner" wouldn't be "turkey". It could be "goose" or "carp" or ... Traditional Christmas Dinners vary widely throughout Europe.

HM.

There is another pitfall. In most countries of the EU the answer to "Christmas Dinner" wouldn't be "turkey". It could be "goose" or "carp" or ... Traditional Christmas Dinners vary widely throughout Europe.

It was defined that the girl was at school in the UK hence the turkey reference. (Oh, I don't think we refer to cold turkey other than to the foodstuff)

Surely the question was whether the mention of CHRISTMAS dinner was religion biased as opposed to "dinner on the 25th December" (though I am sure that there re rat-faced ooloos who would object to that date for similar reasons)?

ooloo - a word used by a master at school to define a stupid ignoramus, the word said to have been originally an Urdu description.

They take exception, not to the fact that no one celebrates Christmas, but that the wrong people are celebrating it. To me (a non or 'ex'-Christian)

Not quite. What they take exception to is people celebrating the holiday while refusing to make any reference to "Christmas" i.e. attempts to re-brand secular celebration as a generic "Winter" holiday, people insisting on using "happy holidays" while objecting to the use of "Merry Christmas".

Some of them also object to "Xmas" because they think it's another secular scrub of Christ from Christmas, but it's not. It comes from the Greek Orthodox church. The Greek letter that looks like a Latin X is Chi and is the first letter of the Greek spelling of Christ.

Note: Secularist attempts to remove any reference to Christ from public celebrations of Christmas are out there, but not nearly as common as the "war on Christmas" crowd thinks.