Message from @n-
Discord ID: 443897579147624448
if you however take a sample of 1000 people, and take the average of their IQ scores, you get an average to work with, and can then set categories
also how do you separate IQ from simply not knowing something, being bored, etc.
you do it by taking larger samples, so you try to eliminate most outlying variables
for example, if I remember right, one of the important qualities of an IQ test is how fast you complete it
depends on the test
could be
there are people who test, who are good at taking tests or who just have that knowledge, like for example if you don't know something just skip it immediately go to the next thing, don't spend 5 years on it
Speed, Answers correct, and the age of the person
myself for example, I'll finish it until I have an answer and I might even check over it if I was unsure
but doing that would make for a lower score, ie. it's more intelligent to just skip it, come back later, then give your best guess rather than trying to figure it out then and there
if you're just there taking a test though, are you really thinking about how to absolutely crush this test into the dirt?
that's just that one aspect. there's other elements, too (which I think have their own ways of being handled). ex. those people who freeze when it comes to taking tests
the data shows that the more intelligent you are the more likely it is you will crush a test
pretty much every competence related task is "g loaded"
which means higher in general intelligence people complete it better/faster
general intelligence is measured with an IQ test
thats why its an intelligence quoefficient
also I wonder things like the level of their general intelligence vs being motivated, or working with things they're intimately familiar with
yes, but this is why you have to take large samples
if 1/10 people are affected by it, then you can still say with 90% confidence the rest aren't
well, I didn't mean that in terms of how it affects general IQ, but rather.. if you accounted for those elements as if they were a separate IQ, what would the differences between those two scores be
per individual, massive
for a sample size, it becomes less significant
the larger your average, the less influence a single outlier has
i mean its the "outlying statistic" argument
If 1 person earns 1,000,000 dollar per month
and 1,000,000 people earn 1 dollar per month,
The average of the 1,000,001 sample you took will be just above 1
this is why sample sizes absolutely matter
cuz if you have a sample of 2 people
1 person earns 1,000,000
1 person earns 0
The "average" person earns 500,000
im off to bed gn
not getting enough sleep decreases IQ!
unless my math is wrong, in your first example the answer would be pretty much 2
well yeah, 1.999998 or something
that double what most people would have
its 0:21 at night here i cba to go specific, i was making a broad example of how sample sizes affect the "average"
you be better off with a modal average in that situation
ah, only 23:23 here 😛
but my original point way in the start was that i dont see the sense in "race iq" being so touchy, but thats because i don't have a motive behind it.
If there is no difference in race IQ, then great, its proven and nothing more to talk about
If there IS a difference, then meh who cares anyway because they're still human, and the average doesn't apply to the individual
My problem is that the people who claim there is no correlation are vermently opposed to proving their claim
so a few days ago they spot the ISIS leader baghdadi ... and now they capture 5 ISIS commanders
gud
also, trump is related to Everquest now?
srsly, am i going insane? 😛