so i screwed up. i said the number for the top 40 was some ridiculously high number. thanks go to rick for pointing out that is incorrect. in fact, the correct number for the top 40 is 178. when i did the calculations, it was part of a larger worksheet and i copied across the cells from something else. apparently, it didn't take for the last cell. i think i screwed up the dollar sign, so it incorrectly referenced other cells. what i can't figure out is why it actually worked for two of the cells. whether or not that vaults chris into the top 40, i dunno. however, the overall point remains - the measurement precision in the tails is not that accurate. the standard error is more than a few IQ points, which, as we've seen, changes someone from being in the top 1000 or top 2000, etc. as another example, both males IQ scores and females IQ scores tend to follow normal distributions both with means around 100. the males have a larger variance than the females. the consequence of this are great. among them is that the IQ distribution is really a mixture of normals, which is not necessarily normal. again, the point is that all of this is based on a model that is not built for every particular purpose.
in response to the replies, fatboy's comment is one of the better remarks on the subject i've read in a long time. and chris, belief in multiple intelligences, or multiple facets of intelligence, or multiple manifestations of intelligence (all three of which are different from one another) does not invalidate IQ scores. what it strikes against is the common misperceptions of IQ scores (e.g., you're born with it and it never changes, that everyone with high IQs aces the SATs and finishes college in 2 years, that people with low IQs cannot succeed in anything that requires mental energy, etc.) but of course, it's not the original or current test developers that spout that. it's uninformed media sources and uninformed test consumers (students, teachers, test administrators, principals, guy at cvs, etc) that spout that. and d, i agree with you on the misuse of IQ scores in the diagnosing of special ed students. it happens at the other end in haverford township with the misuse of IQ scores in selecting students into seminar programs.
ok, i'm off to florida
Posted by Roy at August 3, 2004 11:37 PMI gotta remember to type with more specificity when I'm talking to Roy. I didn't mean (even though I said it) the IQs were completely useless, just that on their own they have little to say. Without qualification of the "style" of intelligence they supposedly represent, the number cannot tell the whole story. This paralells our athlete argument: just as Lance Armstrong, Dave Winfield, etc. cannot be called the "greatest" athlete because there are so many factors in making that assessment, I feel IQ could mean so many different things that putting it all into a number doesn't do much.
Of course, if that number is 50, then yeah, it's nice to have tests to determine things like that. But for anyone scoring in the "above-average intelligence" section, which I imagine (with no facts to fall back on, I'm sure I will be corrected) starts around 125, there is more to it than the result. That's all I meant - I don't think they are necessarily invalidated, despite what I typed. Statements like that are a result of writing English papers - if you state with certainty that a writer was saying something your paper is strong, because you are making your interpretation into a concrete idea - if only for the purpose of the paper. With real debates like this one, about subjects that are by nature quantified, analyzed, determined through a scientific process, etc., that style of mine is useless. You're right.
And, just to play the game, remember I said I have been given two different IQ results, ten points apart, both from doctors. Because you're dying to know, one put me in Roy's top 40, one did not. I am sticking with the former for the purposes of picking up nerdy chicks.
If you're wondering why I am such an idiot all the time, it's because a long time ago - around 10th grade, when the grades started slipping from 4.0 to 3.5 and the hair started growing - I developed my idea that you only live once, when you die you're dead, and I wasn't gonna bust my ass trying to be the valedictorian or something...there was just too much else to see and do. That's why I took all that time off school; it's why I have about a million hobbies and will never excel at any of them - there just isn't the time, or even my desire to spend the time. Too much to do. I am conscious of my brain's ability, and it's the one thing about my life I am most thankful for: it's why I win every game of chess, why I feel I have at least functional knowledge of damn near everything, and why I can party and sleep away a semester and make the Dean's List every time. I do try to exercise my brain regularly, but those of you that have seen me shirtless know how much time I put into exercise of any sort. So that's my position: I do feel like I could do a lot more with myself, but the sacrifices aren't ones I'm willing to make. As much as I might like to have been a doctor by now or something, I also need to burn weekends in the woods, burn nights playing guitar, waste a Monday playing poker and drinking, etc.
Thanks again for the math.
Posted by: Chris at August 4, 2004 01:13 AM