this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
1048 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
1880 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1048
brains! (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

I understand that you're saying there are more incredible geniuses than full on retards.

However, IQ scores are a normal distribution with an arbitrarily defined mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

So, IQ scores of 0 or 200 are both 6.6 standard deviations from the mean. If IQ is truly a normal distribution, you'd expect the number of people with IQ scores <= 0 and the number with scores >= 200 to be exactly the same, simply because this is how the scores are defined.

If you try to look up what proportion of the population falls outside 6.6 standard deviations, the z-tables don't go out this far. It's essentially 0% (0/100) but how many is it out of 8 billion?

[โ€“] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 2 points 2 hours ago

If IQ is truly a normal distribution

It's not. Here's a list containing a number of people above 200.

However, no-one has a negative IQ.