@St_Rev @sarahdoingthing thanks. really interesting. if you could wild-ass speculate, what rate would you think the rate would be?
@Meaningness @sarahdoingthing Though if the tail were really that fat, we'd expect to see more than a small handful of people at 190+ IQ.
-
-
@St_Rev@sarahdoingthing Any reason to think numbers are meaningful above ~150? -
@Meaningness@sarahdoingthing There is the problem of 150s trying to design a test for 200s, yes. -
@St_Rev Don’t know if measure is stable on test retake, much less on alternate measures, much less correlation with real world performance. -
@Meaningness IIRC they usually have about a 5-10 point wobble between sittings. -
@St_Rev Yeah but you’d expect more at the extremes, for multiple reasons that don’t fit in 140 chars -
@Meaningness True true. I'm actually trying to compare my actual g to Gilles' via comparison to respective population means.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.