That’s not necessarily how averages work.
80, 80, 80, 80, 100, 180.
The average is 100, but there is no “counterpart” to the 180 at the end.
EDIT: note that my sample size is way to small to perfectly describe the human population, and variance distribution is also impossible to represent with a sample size of 6. Obviously there ARE people way below 80 IQ; I’m just saying you can’t say for sure that there must be a person around 20IQ just because one with 180 exists.
technically, IQ is by definition normally distributed with 100 as the center. But by the definition there would only be about 500 people in the world with an IQ of 20 or lower, so it breaks down because of the amount of people in an unrecoverable coma and such
I question how you can even design a test such that the result has a normal distribution around a specific score without testing everyone and applying some kind of bell curve to the overall results. Especially when you want to boil intelligence down to a single dimension. Even if that one number is based on a composite of others, that complicates the turning it into a bell curve, which makes designing a test to target a specific average even harder.
And add to that average intelligence itself being a moving target. Someone of above average intelligence in the middle ages might be considered below average today.
as far as I know, yep fitting the “raw score” of a test to a bell curve is exactly how it’s done. And often the score is sort of “localized”, for example only other scores from the same country and done in the same year are compared.
IQ is in reality a very rough metric, I think the only widely accepted practical use is to detect developmental or mental issues (often associated with an IQ below 70), and even then you need to consider that eg. someone who never received adequate education may score lower than what they “should”
That’s not necessarily how averages work. 80, 80, 80, 80, 100, 180.
The average is 100, but there is no “counterpart” to the 180 at the end.
EDIT: note that my sample size is way to small to perfectly describe the human population, and
variancedistribution is also impossible to represent with a sample size of 6. Obviously there ARE people way below 80 IQ; I’m just saying you can’t say for sure that there must be a person around 20IQ just because one with 180 exists.technically, IQ is by definition normally distributed with 100 as the center. But by the definition there would only be about 500 people in the world with an IQ of 20 or lower, so it breaks down because of the amount of people in an unrecoverable coma and such
Also I’m pretty sure an IQ of at little as 20 would probably be impossible to measure.
“Can they in any way hold the paper or make marks to it (despite a functioning motor system)? No? Mark as anything below 50, nobody’s gonna know”
I question how you can even design a test such that the result has a normal distribution around a specific score without testing everyone and applying some kind of bell curve to the overall results. Especially when you want to boil intelligence down to a single dimension. Even if that one number is based on a composite of others, that complicates the turning it into a bell curve, which makes designing a test to target a specific average even harder.
And add to that average intelligence itself being a moving target. Someone of above average intelligence in the middle ages might be considered below average today.
as far as I know, yep fitting the “raw score” of a test to a bell curve is exactly how it’s done. And often the score is sort of “localized”, for example only other scores from the same country and done in the same year are compared.
(one related example is the flynn effect)
IQ is in reality a very rough metric, I think the only widely accepted practical use is to detect developmental or mental issues (often associated with an IQ below 70), and even then you need to consider that eg. someone who never received adequate education may score lower than what they “should”