You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)2 children
This assumes the IQ distribution is a bell-curve centered around some value in the US. Given the "diversity" of the country, there is a significant portion on the left (<100 IQ) that is higher. The left and right side are not mirrored, the left side is rather like a mountain range, and the right side is roughly what the right side of a bell-curve should be.
If you have 1000 specimen with 100 avg IQ and 1000 specimen with 50 avg IQ, you don't get a normal distribution. You get 2 bell-curves, and if you sum it up, the resulting graph will have a valley in the middle.
So mathematically it is well plausible.
I recently created a [post](https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1994fUigZq/iq-distribution-in-the-us-based-/c) about this topic, and 2 comments elaborating on it. One of those comments has the graphs in details.
It appears similar to a bell-curve, but aside from the total average being lower, the right side is steeper than the left side. There is no horizontal mirroring.
Also the normalization can work in various ways. Assume Whites have an average of 100, it means the actual average in the US must be around 95, whereas in Japan it's ~105, Norway ~102, for blacks in Africa ~70.
This would also explain why blacks in the US have 80... if the average is already moved down to what would be 95, and they score 80 whereas 100 is their average, it means it's actual score (with Whites as 100 average) is somewhere around 70-75. In Africa it's 70, so that would fit better.
again, definitionally, 100 is the arithmetic mean and they rebase it regularly to match, so unless they're violating their own definitions, 100 is always going to be the mean. so your graph is just wrong. the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
virtually everything in humans is a normal distribution. the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race, such that when you take any "diverse" country, it'd be multi-modal based on the demographic makeup.
> the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
It's the sum of 3 bell-curves each having their own mean. Naturally it implies that the resulting graph is not a bell-curve. It's close in this case though.
> the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race
Which they are. See the graph in my comment on the post I linked.
what's the evidence it's not a normal distribution?
So mathematically it is well plausible.
I recently created a [post](https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1994fUigZq/iq-distribution-in-the-us-based-/c) about this topic, and 2 comments elaborating on it. One of those comments has the graphs in details.
It appears similar to a bell-curve, but aside from the total average being lower, the right side is steeper than the left side. There is no horizontal mirroring.
Also the normalization can work in various ways. Assume Whites have an average of 100, it means the actual average in the US must be around 95, whereas in Japan it's ~105, Norway ~102, for blacks in Africa ~70.
This would also explain why blacks in the US have 80... if the average is already moved down to what would be 95, and they score 80 whereas 100 is their average, it means it's actual score (with Whites as 100 average) is somewhere around 70-75. In Africa it's 70, so that would fit better.
again, definitionally, 100 is the arithmetic mean and they rebase it regularly to match, so unless they're violating their own definitions, 100 is always going to be the mean. so your graph is just wrong. the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
virtually everything in humans is a normal distribution. the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race, such that when you take any "diverse" country, it'd be multi-modal based on the demographic makeup.
Sure, but the asymmetry is inevitable.
> the peak cannot be left of 100 without the right tail being much wider.
It's the sum of 3 bell-curves each having their own mean. Naturally it implies that the resulting graph is not a bell-curve. It's close in this case though.
> the only way your position is realistic is if it's multiple normal distributions by race
Which they are. See the graph in my comment on the post I linked.
Not sure why.