Re: OT: Artificial?

Doug Weller wrote:
On 18 May 2006 12:35:36 -0700, in sci.archaeology, bogart.lloy@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:


p.a. wrote:

That is because an IQ of above 130 in almost
all cases is (far) less then 130.
There is nothing above 100.

I'm almost certain that half the population is
above average. ;-) The other half may *seem*
larger, but on a given day, you can collect a
healthy sample of stupidity from anywhere
along that curve.

Why couldn't most of the population be around average? There's no
mathematical reason to think that half are above and half below.

DOug
--

Actually, about 2/3 of the population is 'around'
average, by the usual definition of 'around. That's
1 SD above + below the mean, and includes most
of everybody.

But by definition, if you can legitimately calculate
an average (whatever), then half of *whatever* must
be mathematically above that, an d half below. That
was the reason for my 'smiley'. About half of everybody
has a 'below average' head size. Can't be helped. ;-)

Any individual 'score' that falls 2 standard deviations
above the mean (in any distribution that varies a lot,
such as Intelligence test scores) will generally be noted
as exceptional. In the same way, anything 2 SD's
below the mean will usually be worth noting. Students
with examination scores 2 SD's below the mean need
some attention. People with head sizes 2 SD's above
the mean will also be noticed.

However, 'above average IQ' does little to explain the
recalcitrance observed in association with the Linkoping
form of Archaeo-Dyslextical OCD. The archetypical
AD-OCD victim is almost certainly more than 2 SD's
above the mean in numbers of wacky, OT posts per
week. (Or month.) (Or year). Nastiness measures
(etc.) show a similar pattern.

That's a whole different class of psychological (erm...)
functioning.

Lloyd
*****

.