User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 444

  1. #141
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    "I have an IQ of 132 based on a SD of 15" has meaning.
    "I have an IQ larger than 98% of the population" has meaning.
    "I have an IQ of 132" means nothing in itself.
    Yes, real IQ distributions don't match Gaussian distributions. (those with 'gifted' level IQs are more common than expected)
    It still has limited applicability to individuals as the uncertainty of the test result is not specified. Individuals can get drastically different results depending on the test that they chose to do, levels of fatigue or concentration, mood etc.

  2. #142
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    Yes, real IQ distributions don't match Gaussian distributions. (those with 'gifted' level IQs are more common than expected)
    Any source(s) for this?
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    IQ tests are supposed to be tuned to match Gaussian distributions with P50 being 100 where a Gaussian distribution would return a value of 1. This is news to me.

  4. #144
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    IQ tests are supposed to be tuned to match Gaussian distributions with P50 being 100 where a Gaussian distribution would return a value of 1. This is news to me.
    And the problem with curve fitting... (you lose sensitivity and or specificity when you test independent samples)

    The reality is that real population groups often deviate from the Gaussian distribution when IQ tests are used. There are many potential measurement artefacts, it is just that some are more known than others (such as that suggested by the Flynn effect).
    The fact that the measured distributions keep changing is why tests like the Stanford-Binet tests have been messed with so many times. (more than resetting P50 scores as required by the Flynn effect)

    The fact that the results of these supposedly normalised tests don't often form a neat bell curve has long been discussed in the literature:
    http://psycnet.apa.org/books/11228/018
    The Terman Study found far more children with high IQs than would be predicted by the expected distribution:
    http://www.archive.org/details/genet...iesof009044mbp

    http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/casesblm.pdf (From the Roeper Review journal, 1992)

    http://pps.sagepub.com/content/3/6/518.abstract
    (discusses significant kurtosis and skew)

    I was going to mention more, but I ran out of time. I need a better way of filtering Google Scholar results, because I was getting to many hits on IQ in groups with particular diseases, rather than general population distributions.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60289699000045
    Quote Originally Posted by JL Rogers
    Thus, Flynn's findings are consistent with increased variability in the upper half of the intelligence distribution, and/or decreased variability in the lower half of the distribution. While the simple models implied above suggest changing variability at the overall distributional level, different processes can in theory occur in the different halves of the intelligence distribution. For example, increased variability in the upper half of the intelligence distribution with no change in the lower half would result in a Flynn Effect, detectable in positively selected samples taking two different IQ tests. Decreased variability in the lower half of the intelligence distribution would result in a Flynn Effect, detectable in negatively selected samples. Finally, if variability in intelligence increased over time in the upper half and simultaneously decreased over time in the lower half (possibly caused by two entirely different processes), this would also produce a Flynn Effect that would be detectable in either positively or negatively selected samples.
    Quote Originally Posted by JL Rogers
    The re-analysis of Flynn's (1984) data and Flynn's (1987) research account for changes in the overall distributions. However, whether the mean changes are systematic ones across the whole distribution, or whether they are caused by decreasing variance in the lower half of the distribution and/or increasing variance in the upper half is not resolved by this investigation. Since some empirical evidence (reviewed above) suggests contraction in the lower half of the distribution, the issue of whether the Flynn Effect is a fundamental shift in the mean of the overall distribution, or in the variance from a subset of the distribution is still open to future research. In fact, other moments of the IQ distribution besides the mean and variance — those related to skewness and kurtosis — are of theoretical interest, and are substantively interpretable. We will only begin to understand the Flynn Effect when we interpret it at the distribution level, with particular focus on the raw scores themselves. Only at this level can the issues of select samples, differential contraction or expansion of parts of the distribution, and the substantive interpretations attached to these patterns begin to clear up. Micceri (1989) studied many empirical distributions found in nature, and few of those followed the traditional normal form. He found, for example, many more “lumpy” distributions than standard statistical procedures (or researchers who account for them) typically expect. Following Micceri, we need to understand in much more detail the nature of the whole distributions of IQ scores to unravel the puzzles underlying the Flynn Effect.
    The assumption of Gaussian distribution of intelligence seems to be almost ideological in nature. While it is increasingly accepted that there are a higher distribution of scores at the very low end due to disease, this does not account for the incidence of individuals with high IQs, especially males.
    This is why academics never say "IQ scores match a normal distribution". They say that IQ scores within a certain SD approximate that of a Gaussian distribution.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    The assumption of Gaussian distribution of intelligence seems to be almost ideological in nature. While it is increasingly accepted that there are a higher distribution of scores at the very low end due to disease, this does not account for the incidence of individuals with high IQs, especially males.
    This is why academics never say "IQ scores match a normal distribution". They say that IQ scores within a certain SD approximate that of a Gaussian distribution.
    Therefore they follow a log-normal distribution? Wouldn't the smart man simply redistribute the quality of the questions to match a standard distribution? You are after all only fudging the process to give a standard result.

    I also agree with your point regarding standard deviation, hence what I was harping on about earlier.

  6. #146
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Therefore they follow a log-normal distribution? Wouldn't the smart man simply redistribute the quality of the questions to match a standard distribution?
    There are issues with such normalisation because it doesn't account for the significant factors (genetic, as indicated by sex differences in distribution and effects of disease, environmental effects such as nutrition etc) that shift the distributions away from normal or log-normal distributions.

    The smart man would try to take these variables into account before normalising the data.
    But then again, why do we want to force the data into a normal distribution, except for convenience? Remember that IQ is only scientifically useful on the population level, not the individual level.

  7. #147
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    [SIZE="7"]
    According to the data presented, since you're an electrical engineer, it is also quite possible that your IQ is below 100. In fact, since the bottom and top 10% are excluded from the graph, it is possible (should we not use common sense and only use the graph) that your IQ is zero or infinite or both at the same time. What of it?

    Statistics is a wonderful discipline; it gets its bad reputation when people misuse it. If you have an issue with what is presented on the graph, might I suggest taking a look at the reference material.
    Peeing at my tree to favor statistics on the cost of common sense and life experience isnt really necessary. if you love statistics, you can go by them all day if you like.

    It is common practice in every major company I've been in now to never trust statistics. If it says that on a scale from B-E everything is possible it basically says nothing, so its not useful for anything. But the small addition of the letter A or F is what statistics really says. And people never read them in a case like, as if there is the possibility that a not so smart guy could become a doctor, they read them like: smart guys are doctors.

    This is dangerous imho. I dont want my kids to believe things like that. I#d like for my kids, if they are dumb, to still believe they can become doctors. Thats the danger I see with statistics, they are trieing to quantify a thing thats not quantifiable. With the op's statistics, well it's based on iq tests. And like discussed in the iq thread, iq isnt really quantifiable by any test. Those tests provide a measurement of a certain skill, but they wouldnt say for example that the high iq doctor would have it what it takes when push comes to shove and he has to save the patients life. The tests are in that dimension, simply meaningless. And to transform them to other dimensions or to understand only a part of the image is completly impractical and useless.

    if you like that do it, but please dont shit on my turf.

    I have seen that there is a kinda obsession with gaussian distribution or statistics in Western-western academia. I remember having the gaussian distribution in a purely mathematical relation in highschool but after that I never used it for anything. Maybe to calculate scrap parts in production but thats it.

    I do not understand why the obsession to put human qualitative abilities into numbers ? I mean do you want "gattaca" ? Do you have such a limited understanding of yourself that only statistics provide an answer ? What is the key I am missing here
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    There are issues with such normalisation because it doesn't account for the significant factors (genetic, as indicated by sex differences in distribution and effects of disease, environmental effects such as nutrition etc) that shift the distributions away from normal or log-normal distributions.

    The smart man would try to take these variables into account before normalising the data.
    But then again, why do we want to force the data into a normal distribution, except for convenience? Remember that IQ is only scientifically useful on the population level, not the individual level.
    Reference points are important, otherwise its bananas trying to gauge anything. Sic: This string is umpteen 6's long!

    The model they chose to use is their problem, they just have to be explicit. It's silly to claim you have worked out a normal distributed test and then find its actually log-normal. If it's bimodal then be honest that it is bimodal etc.

  9. #149
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    I did not understand that, as far as I know there is only one causality.

    I said that the last refuge for a reasonable guy is to try to find out a logical flaw in the statistical claim, so obvious that its even visible to the blind guy. there are people who believe in statistics like that and then start to look for a doctor to get them a really smart man, I tell you statistics are the devils work !
    there's no logical flaw. "Doctors tend to be more intelligent than people of almost any other profession". That doesn't mean there won't be dumb doctors, it just means that if you pick any random doctor, there's a better than 50% chance that they're smarter than someone of any other profession.

    You're the one who's projecting these meanings into the statistics and then shooting them down. You're arguing with yourself basically :p
    Quote Originally Posted by chana View Post
    shouldn't that be easy enough to figure out when you're talking to someone and getting to know them though? putting an actual iq number limit on people you're going to be in a relationship with just seems ridiculous to me. it's giving one culturally biased test way too much importance.

    that being said, i love me some dumb guys.
    well, yes, I doubt most people who state that they have IQ limits actually end up testing their potential SOs. It's just a guideline, so everyone else can get a glimpse.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  10. #150
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    This "hypersensitivity" that you are describing, then, cannot be associated with ADHD. The former is a heightened sensitivity to stimuli, whereas the latter is an inability to concentrate attention.

    I would describe the truly intelligent individuals whose research I follow and the very few whom I have met (all professors or other academics) as introverted rationals. I do not dispute that neurological sensitivity may contribute to their intelligence, but that this sensitivity results in behavior that is unlike that exhibited by individuals diagnosed with ADHD. There may be an underlying connection between the two, but there is also quite clearly a disconnect.

    In any case, I have read articles which asserted that gifted individuals often express traits associated with ADHD, but that one does not imply the other.
    Hm, well, it seems that the environmental conditions which are related to ADHD are actually similar in some ways to the ways 'giftedness' is handled in society. For example: whether the child is underperforming or overachieving, parental approval still depends on their performance, which perpetuates insecure attachment. Parents of 'gifted' children tend to be under a lot of stress, as well.

    In any case, the behaviours exhibited by people with ADHD do have some interesting links to certain developmental stages which, obviously, someone who gets past them won't have trouble with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    I find this to be entirely credible, but nothing new. Defining "excitability" in this manner is basically positing that individuals with higher intelligence possess more vigorous brains than those with lower intelligence. Nevertheless, this study targets introverts versus extroverts; it does not consider IQ. It is, in my mind, likely that the introverted group possessed a greater average intelligence, but I do not care to follow this conjectural train of thought.

    This neurological hypersensitivity is something that would be affirmed by my own experience. I have always been "sensitive" to external stimuli—especially so as a child. Loud noises, bright lights, sharp odors, etc., have always seemed to impress upon me more than most others.

    I disagree, but I do not care to argue this point at the moment.

    Personality is clearly a component of intellectual performance. If this were not so, then we could expect to find that IQ is distributed randomly amongst type, but we know this not to be the case.
    I don't know. Most studies find that personality (on the whole) predicts at most 10-15% of variance in IQ score, and openness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness all play a larger role than introversion. It'd be interesting if the variability was higher in introverts, or something, though.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

Similar Threads

  1. To which level of hell are you going?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 07-09-2017, 10:13 AM
  2. Is having a tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt associated with F?
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-04-2015, 10:23 PM
  3. Do you need to sympathize with characters to enjoy them?
    By Ivy in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:28 AM
  4. [ENFJ] NT with Announcement to Share about ENFJ Friend :)
    By Usehername in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 03:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO