• folkrav@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Nitpick, but that’d be the mean median, not average. Say intelligence is a scale out of 10, and we have a population of 4, that have intelligences of 2, 4, 5 and 10. The average would be (2+4+5+10)/4=5.25. 75% is actually worse than average. Extreme values mess with averages a lot - that 10 pulled up the average much higher than . The mean median would be (4+5)/2=4.5, which lines up with that statement, as it’s by definition the dead center of all the values in a statistical population.

    Edit: median, not mean

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the problem with small sample sizes, which is why we have standard deviation. Given that IQ is on a normal curve (it is) and we have a large sample size (we do), the deviation is going to be very small.

      So, very very close to 50% of the population is below average intelligence.

      • folkrav@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Let’s keep in mind modern IQ tests scores are normalized to a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and some fixed standard deviation on purpose (15? can’t remember), so of course they’ll fit a normal curve, they are literally made that way.

        I’m also admittedly extremely skeptical of IQ as a measure of general intelligence. It’s not like we have a shortage of high IQ morons out there. It’s a decent estimate of relative intelligence in certain areas, most notably of logical thinking, at best.