It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)The very very drunk giveavay(38 posts)(38 posts)
(38 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 05, 2012
avatar
GoJays2025: I'm not sure I follow. The average IQ is 100. So if for example... in a population of 7000, 1000 people have an IQ of 70, 5000 with IQ of 100, and another 1000 with an IQ of 130, then 6000 out of the 7000 would have an average IQ or below average IQ, right?

Not like IQ means anything...
avatar
Dzsono: That's true, but it's highly unlikely you'll get a population that spreads itself so conveniently. Mathematically, 101 is above average, but I read about the ranges used in determining IQ categories and they are quite broad. So yes, you are completely correct, and I need to take one of these tests for myself to make sure I'm not a danger to myself or the public ;)
Actually, I can see at least four ways to approach the question "Is it possible that the majority of people have an IQ that's below average?":

Mathematically: Yes. Data can be distributed in a way that the majority of the values falls below the arithmetic mean. The values greater than the mean just nead to be farther away from the mean than those below it.

Theoretically: No. IQ is defined as symmetric probability distribution. By definition, there are 50% of people below the mean, and 50% above it. (You could also try to define the "average" in a non-mathematic way and say that it encompasses IQs between 85 and 115, i.e. the range of the defined mean of 100 plus or minus the standard deviation of 15. In that case, you'd end up with 1/3 of people below the average, 1/3 of people above it, and 1/3 constituting the average.)

Demographically: Yes. If we measured the IQ of every person, then the result would be that there are more people below the average (of 100) than above it. This happens because in reality, IQ isn't as symmetrically distributed as proposed - there is a substantial number of handicapped people, i.e. people with intellectual deficits. The mathematical definition of IQ excludes these people, but in reality they do exist. This means that there is a small "hill" at the left side of the distribution, which isn't present at the right side.

Practically: No. Most people are of average intelligence, and the rest is just number magic with little practical relevance.


avatar
Psyringe: I've never actually had a proper hangover in my entire life
avatar
ISC: You will. I remember when I could say the same... (sobs quietly)
I didn't really write the post you quoted, but it's actually correct, I never had a hangover either. That's probably due to the fact that I barely ever drink. Alcohol does not only taste awful (to me), it also has the effect of making me immediately tired and passive. So, on the handful of occasions where I indeed did drink, I quickly lost the drive to drink more of it.
Post edited August 05, 2012 by Psyringe
Posted August 05, 2012
avatar
grape1829: You, sir, don't drink enough of the cheap stuff!

Which reminds me, do you (or anyone else reading this) drink vinegar diluted in water to prevent/cure hangovers?
True. I don't drink anything that tastes bad, and most of the cheap stuff tends to taste vile.

And I've never tried that method. In my experience, most house cures tends to mainly be placebo.
Posted August 05, 2012
avatar
Psyringe: Actually, I can see at least four ways to approach the question "Is it possible that the majority of people have an IQ that's below average?":

Mathematically: Yes. Data can be distributed in a way that the majority of the values falls below the arithmetic mean. The values greater than the mean just nead to be farther away from the mean than those below it.

Theoretically: No. IQ is defined as symmetric probability distribution. By definition, there are 50% of people below the mean, and 50% above it. (You could also try to define the "average" in a non-mathematic way and say that it encompasses IQs between 85 and 115, i.e. the range of the defined mean of 100 plus or minus the standard deviation of 15. In that case, you'd end up with 1/3 of people below the average, 1/3 of people above it, and 1/3 constituting the average.)

Demographically: Yes. If we measured the IQ of every person, then the result would be that there are more people below the average (of 100) than above it. This happens because in reality, IQ isn't as symmetrically distributed as proposed - there is a substantial number of handicapped people, i.e. people with intellectual deficits. The mathematical definition of IQ excludes these people, but in reality they do exist. This means that there is a small "hill" at the left side of the distribution, which isn't present at the right side.

Practically: No. Most people are of average intelligence, and the rest is just number magic with little practical relevance.
Thanks for clearing that up. Maths and stats are not my strong point, but very interesting. Cheers
Posted August 06, 2012
avatar
JudasIscariot: AFNord:

I take it you heard the line "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have a frontal lobotomy" :D
Hah, I know this one. Existential Blues!

Or at least that's where I know it from. :) (Line at 5:14)
Post edited August 06, 2012 by adambiser
Posted August 06, 2012
avatar
Dzsono: That's true, but it's highly unlikely you'll get a population that spreads itself so conveniently. Mathematically, 101 is above average, but I read about the ranges used in determining IQ categories and they are quite broad. So yes, you are completely correct, and I need to take one of these tests for myself to make sure I'm not a danger to myself or the public ;)
avatar
Psyringe: Actually, I can see at least four ways to approach the question "Is it possible that the majority of people have an IQ that's below average?":

Mathematically: Yes. Data can be distributed in a way that the majority of the values falls below the arithmetic mean. The values greater than the mean just nead to be farther away from the mean than those below it.

Theoretically: No. IQ is defined as symmetric probability distribution. By definition, there are 50% of people below the mean, and 50% above it. (You could also try to define the "average" in a non-mathematic way and say that it encompasses IQs between 85 and 115, i.e. the range of the defined mean of 100 plus or minus the standard deviation of 15. In that case, you'd end up with 1/3 of people below the average, 1/3 of people above it, and 1/3 constituting the average.)

Demographically: Yes. If we measured the IQ of every person, then the result would be that there are more people below the average (of 100) than above it. This happens because in reality, IQ isn't as symmetrically distributed as proposed - there is a substantial number of handicapped people, i.e. people with intellectual deficits. The mathematical definition of IQ excludes these people, but in reality they do exist. This means that there is a small "hill" at the left side of the distribution, which isn't present at the right side.

Practically: No. Most people are of average intelligence, and the rest is just number magic with little practical relevance.


avatar
ISC: You will. I remember when I could say the same... (sobs quietly)
avatar
Psyringe: I didn't really write the post you quoted, but it's actually correct, I never had a hangover either. That's probably due to the fact that I barely ever drink. Alcohol does not only taste awful (to me), it also has the effect of making me immediately tired and passive. So, on the handful of occasions where I indeed did drink, I quickly lost the drive to drink more of it.
I swear to God I don't understand the code behind quotes...
And the non-existance of preview doesn't help. Hear me, GOG? Preview!

Edit: WTF!!!
Why is my text inside the quote??? It's outside the QUOTE tags!!!
Post edited August 06, 2012 by ISC
Posted August 06, 2012
avatar
ISC: Edit: WTF!!!
Why is my text inside the quote??? It's outside the QUOTE tags!!!
Forum bug, that I and about 5 other people are about to ninja inform you of. You can't count on nesting more than 1 level of quote. Especially if you split them up.
Posted August 06, 2012
I'm drunk now, and I don't know what going on in here, but the first post, was mildly entertaining.

PS: I can clearly type too well. BRB, need to drink more.

EDIT: some entertainment:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-worst-toy-80s-explained21-5Bman-comics5D/
Post edited August 06, 2012 by Malleus
Posted August 06, 2012
avatar
AFnord: I've never actually had a proper hangover in my entire life
avatar
grape1829: You, sir, don't drink enough of the cheap stuff!

Which reminds me, do you (or anyone else reading this) drink vinegar diluted in water to prevent/cure hangovers? Most people think it's fscking gross, but I swear I've saved myself from plenty hangovers with it, I've even cured myself of the pre-hangover nausea many times so I could drink almost nonstop. The ancient oriental medicine book I got the idea from, I think I was in junior high, said something about kickstarting the liver into working instead of slowing down when there's too much alcohol to clean up. Just wondering...
My family uses vinaigre to ward off the stomach flu when we've been exposed, as long as you get to it early enough (before your own nausea starts) it seems to work. It is nasty though:(
Post edited August 06, 2012 by orcishgamer
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)The very very drunk giveavay(38 posts)(38 posts)
(38 posts)