Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is talking about an average IQ when scored in a global population, not a national population. The average of 'any population' is not 100 as you so ignorantly put. By that definition, if you took a population of three people with IQ's of 130, 140, and 150 on traditional scales, the 140 IQ person would only have a 100 IQ by your 'system'.
The definition of Intelligent Quotient is not and cannot be defined for a global population. Language and cultural differences preclude such a measurement. You and I would both probably fare quite poorly on an IQ test designed for the population of mainland China.
The average Intelligent Quotient of a statistically significant population is by definition 100. That's not my opinion but rather the methodology used when designing IQ tests. If you actually want to know more about it, there's a Wikipedia article that explains it far better than I could (Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
It is an indisputable fact that the average Intelligent Quotient of a given statistically relevant population is 100. Well, I suppose one could dispute it, but then one would be factually incorrect.
The definition of Intelligent Quotient is not and cannot be defined for a global population. Language and cultural differences preclude such a measurement. You and I would both probably fare quite poorly on an IQ test designed for the population of mainland China.
The average Intelligent Quotient of a statistically significant population is by definition 100. That's not my opinion but rather the methodology used when designing IQ tests. If you actually want to know more about it, there's a Wikipedia article that explains it far better than I could (Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
It is an indisputable fact that the average Intelligent Quotient of a given statistically relevant population is 100. Well, I suppose one could dispute it, but then one would be factually incorrect.
...no...but you take the individual tests and aggregate it over a global population. Obviously you don't give the same test to people in different countries. Here is some reading for you.
...no...but you take the individual tests and aggregate it over a global population. Obviously you don't give the same test to people in different countries. Here is some reading for you.
OK, I've looked at all of the links that you provided. Except for the Wiki article, each link simply shows a table of supposed national IQ averages without any substantiation (but lot's and lot's of web advertisements - might that have been the actual reason for those web pages).
I did read the Wiki article that you linked. I suggest that you should also read the article yourself.
If you do read the article then you would see that theory advanced by Dr Richard Lynn and Dr Tatu Vanhanen is greatly disputed:
Quote:
Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that "we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified." They also wrote that cross country comparisons are "virtually meaningless."
It would seem that Karl Rove's republican math extends to statistical measurements of Intelligent Quotients.
I have often called Ron Paul a nut. I have taunted the Pauliacs on this forum. but this paragraph states in perfect clairity the simple truth:
The truth is that there is no excuse for government spending being as high as it is, nor for taxes being as high as they are. Even the God of the Old Testament only asked for ten percent as a tithe and offering, and Americans revolted against the King of England for taxes that amounted to less than five percent. Yet so many people today complain about "loopholes" for the rich that lower their actual tax rate to "only" 13 percent in some instances. Even that is a criminal amount to pay for a wasteful, abusive, unconstitutional government.
He is talking about an average IQ when scored in a global population, not a national population. The average of 'any population' is not 100 as you so ignorantly put. By that definition, if you took a population of three people with IQ's of 130, 140, and 150 on traditional scales, the 140 IQ person would only have a 100 IQ by your 'system'.
thanks for clarifying that..I think you understand, I do, and certainly Hawkeye does, but some just look at what they were taught years ago in their psych 101 class, if they even went to college and take it as the gospel truth..
1. Roll back spending to the last fully passed budget.
2. All new taxes should be used to retire debt.
3. Cancel all federal spending that is not related to the military or congressional salaries.
So let me get this straight...you're a "doctor" who knows more about statistics than Nate Silver...and you don't know that by definition the average IQ of any population is 100.
I can only ask: why should anyone believe anything that you have to say?
Wow-
For the GLOBAL population, the average IQ is 100. The is measured-
1. from the inception of IQ tests
2. for the world population, not one nation
Therefore, the "average" IQ of Americans can be, and is, below 100. Let us say that the world was infected with a virus which caused a debiliating, universal encephalitis with dementia. Let us suppose that everyone had a markedly diminished intellect in the world. That does not mean that the new "average" intelligence is 100, as one would certainly understand, as that average is based on the inception of the exam. Further, nations, counties, or cities can have below average intellligence, as it is a global measure.
Gee- thanks for "correcting" me!
Sometimes it is best to remain silent, as then there is the possibility that one is not ignorant. Speaking can sometimes eliminate that possibility.
With a falling IQ of the American public, we will see more and more liberal voters. The 2012 election confirmed this quite well.
For the GLOBAL population, the average IQ is 100. The is measured-
1. from the inception of IQ tests
2. for the world population, not one nation
Therefore, the "average" IQ of Americans can be, and is, below 100. Let us say that the world was infected with a virus which caused a debiliating, universal encephalitis with dementia. Let us suppose that everyone had a markedly diminished intellect in the world. That does not mean that the new "average" intelligence is 100, as one would certainly understand, as that average is based on the inception of the exam. Further, nations, counties, or cities can have below average intellligence, as it is a global measure.
Gee- thanks for "correcting" me!
Sometimes it is best to remain silent, as then there is the possibility that one is not ignorant. Speaking can sometimes eliminate that possibility.
With a falling IQ of the American public, we will see more and more liberal voters. The 2012 election confirmed this quite well.
Okay, what makes measure of IQ of American population different from that of global population? Perhaps, by that measure, we can compare IQ of the Chinese and Indians to that of Americans? Isn't that something you're doing (against a global measure, which I don't believe excludes Americans) ?
Okay, what makes measure of IQ of American population different from that of global population? Perhaps, by that measure, we can compare IQ of the Chinese and Indians to that of Americans? Isn't that something you're doing (against a global measure, which I don't believe excludes Americans) ?
Ummmmmm....................... lower intelligence. I doubt Obama would have been re-elected, had he been a candidate in Singapore or Hong Kong.
The IQ test is specific for language and culture, which allows global comparisons.
We have a lower birth rate among more intelligent individuals, and a higher birth rate among less intelligent individuals, thus the falling IQ. We have turned Darwin upside down, as "fitness" is a term which simply means ability to reproduce. The welfare state fosters and promotes more children among the least intelligent componant of the population. Abortion, of course, has helped to a certain degree, but cannot reverse the trend.
Why do you think that Singapore has an average IQ of 107?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
