From the link on PT's thread.

Originally Posted by

**ptgatsby**
...

The thing to note, for those that aren't able to read it, is that it is *more accurate to say that Ss compose a large percentage of lower IQs than Ns*, not that Ns are "smarter"... although they are significantly over represented.

This is another one of those data problems... it is correct to say that if you take a random N and a random S, the N is very likely to be smarter than the S. However, if you take a random smart person, they are not significantly more likely to be a N than a S (about 50/50, despite the 30/70 mix).

...

Correct me if I'm wrong here:

If there are more S's in the lower IQ's, then the N's would have to be in the higher IQ's, which the study says is not the case. So to make the numbers work, for instance:

Half of all people have IQ's in the top 50%, and half of these are N's, and half are S's. This is also true of the bottom half, except 3/4 of the S's in the lower half (so 3/8 of all S's total) are in the lowest 25%, and only 1/4 of N's in the lowest half are in the lowest 25% (so 1/8 of all N's total).

Assuming you can sort through and understand my confusing scenario, this doesn't seem likely. So N's are 30% of the population and S's are 70%, and according to PT "...if you take a random smart person, they are not significantly more likely to be a N than a S...".

Does this mean?:

If you were to take a sample of all the people in the top 50% for IQ, half would be N's and half S's. So 1/4 of the entire population in the top half are N's, and only 30% of the pop. are N's, then that would mean 5/6 of all N's are in the top half, and only 1/6 of all N's are in the lower half.

I would like to see the original study, this is all very interesting.