Why does IQ cluster around 100 points?

[Loren Pechtel]

Except that intelligence is how you answer a question or find a solution.

Looking at end results tells you absolutely nothing about intelligence.

You're assuming a problem has a single correct solution. In the real world that is often not the case.

Consider a real-world example. Back in grade school I was given an IQ test. Part of the test was making a given shape out of some blocks with patterns--the scoring being how fast it was solved. Apparently I drove the tester nuts because when he revealed the blocks I apparently did nothing--then I would reach out and fiddle with the pieces, then crunch them into the solution and yet end up with a very good score. They obviously expected the problems to be solved physically, but it was simple enough I could solve it in my head and then translate that to the blocks rather than build up the result block by block. Since I could use any suitable block (they only had a few different patterns) there was a lot less of the slowest part of it--reaching out and moving pieces.

 

[untermensche]

You know Saint Exupery's "Little Prince" and the drawing of the elephant inside a boa constrictor?

No I don't.

Show me the shape you think you can produce and give me a link to some researcher that has produced something besides a normal curve with a written test.

You're basically saying you can produce a lot of questions that people with a lower IQ score can answer that people with a higher score can't.

Nope. It's been a long-standing problem in teaching programming--some people get it, some don't. The result is grades in the early classes tend to produce a double-humped curve--the lower hump from those who don't get it, the upper hump from those who do. There are no magical questions that the dumb ones get right.

There is a normal distribution among those who get it and those who don't.

There are not two separate groups.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that intelligence is how you answer a question or find a solution.

Looking at end results tells you absolutely nothing about intelligence.

You're assuming a problem has a single correct solution. In the real world that is often not the case.

No I'm not.

I'm assuming there is more than one way to skin a cat.

And the way you skin the cat is intelligence not a skinned cat.

 

[Jokodo]

I've offered you a bet. If you are afraid you, you're right to be so - just have the guts to admit it!

I have no idea what the bet is.

Show me the exact curve you think you can produce.

And how exactly are you going to prove your test produces it?

I gave you a numeric definition: a trough at least 0.2 sds wide to both Sodes if which there are peaks of the same width with frequencies at least 5% higher than in the trough. I'm not going to administer a new test, the claim is this can be achieved from any existing real life result Set by adjusting the weightings. You get to select the data set. Or be chicken, your call.

 

[untermensche]

I've offered you a bet. If you are afraid you, you're right to be so - just have the guts to admit it!

I have no idea what the bet is.

Show me the exact curve you think you can produce.

And how exactly are you going to prove your test produces it?

I gave you a numeric definition: a trough at least 0.2 sds wide to both Sodes if which there are peaks of the same width with frequencies at least 5% higher than in the trough. I'm not going to administer a new test, the claim is this can be achieved from any existing real life result Set by adjusting the weightings. You get to select the data set. Or be chicken, your call.

Yet you have no real world example where this has been done?

No I don't believe you.

And you playing with existing data to demonstrate your point could have been done at any time.

Show me somebody who besides you who says it can be done.

Explain why it would occur.

 

[Jokodo]

I gave you a numeric definition: a trough at least 0.2 sds wide to both Sodes if which there are peaks of the same width with frequencies at least 5% higher than in the trough. I'm not going to administer a new test, the claim is this can be achieved from any existing real life result Set by adjusting the weightings. You get to select the data set. Or be chicken, your call.

Yet you have no real world example where this has been done?

No I don't believe you.

And you playing with existing data to demonstrate your point could have been done at any time.

Show me somebody who besides you who says it can be done.

Explain why it would occur.

You don't have to believe me, just select a dataset and deposit those 500 Euros. If I can't do it, as you claim, that's some easy cash for you

 

[untermensche]

I gave you a numeric definition: a trough at least 0.2 sds wide to both Sodes if which there are peaks of the same width with frequencies at least 5% higher than in the trough. I'm not going to administer a new test, the claim is this can be achieved from any existing real life result Set by adjusting the weightings. You get to select the data set. Or be chicken, your call.

Yet you have no real world example where this has been done?

No I don't believe you.

And you playing with existing data to demonstrate your point could have been done at any time.

Show me somebody who besides you who says it can be done.

Explain why it would occur.

You don't have to believe me, just select a dataset and deposit those 500 Euros. If I can't do it, as you claim, that's some easy cash for you

So you can't show me where it has ever been done?

You select a data set and show me.

And tell me what you're doing. Since the goal of the test is only to find variation not create the form the variation takes.

I don't believe you.

 

[steve_bank]

Why do human heights cluster about a mean?

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...orm=IEQNAI&selectedindex=0&exph=0&expw=0&vt=0

A bell or Gaussian empirical curve be it IQ or physical characteristic infers a random variable. Randomness somewhere in the process.

Disagree--a bell curve infers multiple random variables. A single random variable gives all outcomes of equal probability.

Random combinations of environment growing up, education, parenting, and genetics. Random in the semse of Gausian means uncorrelated variables. Genetics and parenting are uncorrelated random variables.

Height is affected by both genetics and nutrition while young. North Koreans are stunted. Nutrition and genetics are uncorrelated random variables affecting height.

 

[steve_bank]

Except that intelligence is how you answer a question or find a solution.

Looking at end results tells you absolutely nothing about intelligence.

Intelligence has a number of contextual meanings. You are just blabbering the word with no context.

It was acknowledged back in the 70s when IQ testing came under fire that IQ tests do not test all aspects of intelligence. The term 'emotional IQ' was coined.

The iconic brilliant academic scientist who understands nothing about communication, social dynamics, and human social politics. The flip side is a brilliant politician and communicator who can not comprehend basic scince and math.

In the context of the OP IQ is that which is measured by standard types of IQ tests. From what I see of the IQ tests you could not be a working engineer in electronics without being able to work those kinds of problems.

I took the sample MENSA test online back in the 90s. Try it and see how you fare. The automated results said I'd have a chance on the real test.In 8th grade we had to take IQ tests for entrance into the Catholic high school..

Harvard did a long term study on what facers predict whether a student will graduate from college or not and post grad success. Turns out standard tests like IQ, ACT, and other tests given in high Scholl were not the best predictors. Average people from average families had a higher probability of finishing college that high scorers and over achievers in high school. There was a shift away from giving a lot of weight to standardized tests.

IQ does not mean a lot IMO. Someone who has the drive with an average or better IQ can become an engineer and do. They may have to work at it a little harder.

 

[Jokodo]

You don't have to believe me, just select a dataset and deposit those 500 Euros. If I can't do it, as you claim, that's some easy cash for you

So you can't show me where it has ever been done?

You select a data set and show me.

And tell me what you're doing. Since the goal of the test is only to find variation not create the form the variation takes.

I don't believe you.

The less you believe me, the surer you can be you'll win the bet.

So, no more talking please: In or out?

 

[untermensche]

You don't have to believe me, just select a dataset and deposit those 500 Euros. If I can't do it, as you claim, that's some easy cash for you

So you can't show me where it has ever been done?

You select a data set and show me.

And tell me what you're doing. Since the goal of the test is only to find variation not create the form the variation takes.

I don't believe you.

The less you believe me, the surer you can be you'll win the bet.

So, no more talking please: In or out?

I don't want to bet.

I want you to show me where it has occurred in the past.

I do not believe you.

Prove it.

 

[untermensche]

Except that intelligence is how you answer a question or find a solution.

Looking at end results tells you absolutely nothing about intelligence.

Intelligence has a number of contextual meanings. You are just blabbering the word with no context.

No it doesn't.

Intelligence is what is used to solve all problems.

And how the problem is solved is the intelligence. The answer is merely the end result of the intelligence.

The answer tells you nothing about the intelligence that found it.

 

[Jokodo]

The less you believe me, the surer you can be you'll win the bet.

So, no more talking please: In or out?

I don't want to bet.

I want you to show me where it has occurred in the past.

I do not believe you.

Prove it.

Because you're afraid you'll lose. Good call. If only you weren't to chicken to admit it...

 

[untermensche]

The less you believe me, the surer you can be you'll win the bet.

So, no more talking please: In or out?

I don't want to bet.

I want you to show me where it has occurred in the past.

I do not believe you.

Prove it.

Because you're afraid you'll lose. Good call. If only you weren't to chicken to admit it...

You have nothing.

If you did you would have shown me something more than a horribly under powered study by now.

You can't produce one thing to even suggest you are right.

Give me the slightest hint you are right.

I can produce normal curve after normal curve on all kinds of written tests and you know it.

 

[Jokodo]

Because you're afraid you'll lose. Good call. If only you weren't to chicken to admit it...

You have nothing.

If you did you would have shown me something more than a horribly under powered study by now.

You can't produce one thing to even suggest you are right.

Give me the slightest hint you are right.

I can produce normal curve after normal curve on all kinds of written tests and you know it.

The raw scores rarely if ever have anything near perfectly normal curves. The curves you see are the product of often quite intricate normalization algorithms, on top of using a question set specifically designed to produce as closely as possible a normal distribution. If you want to learn more about the kind of algorithms typically employed, go here: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/Angoff.Scales.Norms.Equiv.Scores.pdf If you want me to spoonfeed this information to you, you're henceforth going to have to pay.

Using tricks of similar complexity, one could just as easily force a bimodal distribution. Indeed, the raw scores sometimes do show a bimodal distribution. You don't have to take it from me, take it from Mr John Raven of the Raven test fame: " First, as was evident from Fig. 2 the within-age score distributions for the RPM (and, according to a personal communication from Robert Thorndike, the subscales of the Stanford–Binet test) are generally not Gaussian and are, indeed, often bimodal." - http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStability.pdf

Even when the raw scores aren't bimodal, a simple reweighting of the per-question results can always force a bimodal result (unless the questions are all of equal difficulty and there is no inter-correlation of results): Just pick a handful of questions almost everyone was able to answer, and multiply the score of each of them by 2. then pick a subset of intercorrelated difficult questions where most people either answered all or none (because they're of similar difficulty and question the same kind of reasoning), and multiply their weighting by 2. Multiply all other questions' weighting by 0. Voilá, a peak at 10 and a secondary peak at 20. And if that doesn't work (it wil), pick one question towards the difficult end of the scale and multiply its weighting by 10: again: a peak at 10 for the people who solved all of the easy questions but not the difficult one, and a secondary peak at 20 for the ones who solved all of the easy ones plus this one difficult question.

 

[untermensche]

The raw scores rarely if ever have anything near perfectly normal curves.

There is no such thing as a perfect normal curve with real biological data. There are normal distributions.

Here are a few random distributions of written tests I just found.

All normal distributions. None are perfect distributions. None ever will be a perfect distribution.

 

[Jokodo]

The raw scores rarely if ever have anything near perfectly normal curves.

There is no such thing as a perfect normal curve with real biological data. There are normal distributions.

Here are a few random distributions of written tests I just found.

All normal distributions. None are perfect distributions. None ever will be a perfect distribution.

That's an odd way of saying "I was wrong, thanks for educating me".

 

[steve_bank]

Except that intelligence is how you answer a question or find a solution.

Looking at end results tells you absolutely nothing about intelligence.

Intelligence has a number of contextual meanings. You are just blabbering the word with no context.

No it doesn't.

Intelligence is what is used to solve all problems.

And how the problem is solved is the intelligence. The answer is merely the end result of the intelligence.

The answer tells you nothing about the intelligence that found it.

All definitions are learned by example to demonstrate. Communication is not possible using verbal language by abstract declarations of meaning. Metaphor, allegory, analogy, simile. If you do not see that then you do not understand that problem solving require4s communication and similar experience.

Without some level of real world experience you and I can not communicate. Back in the 90s I worked for a manufacturing manager with no technical knowledge or experience. He came to me with a problem. I cogitated briefly and gave him the solution. He asked me to lay out in a step by step fashion how I arrived at the solution, which I could not. He got pissed thinking I was playing games. If it was an experienced engineering there would be a mutual understanding that would not need explanation.

The only possible general definition of intelligence would be rather useless in communication.

Things go a lot deeper than you imagine. It took me years of hard knocks to understand communications. You have to be able to put yourself in the other guy's shoes, that too is part of intelligence.

Part of intelligence is realizing when a lack of common experience precludes peer to peer communication, and further exchange only results in repetitious exchanges.

You have the last word.

 

[untermensche]

The raw scores rarely if ever have anything near perfectly normal curves.

There is no such thing as a perfect normal curve with real biological data. There are normal distributions.

Here are a few random distributions of written tests I just found.

All normal distributions. None are perfect distributions. None ever will be a perfect distribution.

That's an odd way of saying "I was wrong, thanks for educating me".

I agree.

Since nothing close to that has happened.

You have made an empty claim you could not back up.

 

[untermensche]

Things go a lot deeper than you imagine.

No they don't.

Intelligence is the capacity that solves the problem.

It is not the answer.

It is how the answer is reached.

Knowing somebody got an answer right tells you nothing about how they got it right.

It tells you nothing about the intelligence used to get the answer.

It tells you nothing about intelligence.

 

[Jokodo]

That's an odd way of saying "I was wrong, thanks for educating me".

I agree.

Since nothing close to that has happened.

You have made an empty claim you could not back up.

I quoted a source on how  Raven's Progressive Matrices, a common component of many current IQ test suites, often yield bimodal distributions of raw scores.

I linked a book-sized description of the different techniques that are employed to normalize results, i.e. to get from whatever distribution the raw scores show (including, explicitly so, multimodal ones) to a normal distribution.

The fact that your unable to read and barely able to think is not my problem.