Intelligence is not distributed perfectly normally. Extreme low psychometric performance is often caused by brain dysfunction, organic or otherwise. Since brain dysfunction probably occurs more commonly than a random draw on the low end of a perfectly normal intelligence bell curve, you end up with a differently shaped tail on the left side of the curve than you do on the right side.
In other words, the likelihood of you being born with a learning disability that puts you, say, three standard deviations from the mean is greater than you being born intellectually dysfunctional by random chance without any actual issues with your brain. The left hand tail is almost certainly fatter than the right, so intelligence is not normally distributed.
That’s only because of the high numerical sensitivity of the IQ test’s metric. While Joe Sixpack with an IQ of 122 may be technically dumber than George Sevenpack with an IQ of 124, most people would say that they are about equal in intellectual capacity. That’s why it’s misleading to say that half of the population is below average in intelligence: if we actually got a chance to look at the numbers, we would probably tend to lump the middle 20-50% into one category without much deviation.
Half of american citizens have salaries that are below average. Half of americans live in housing of below average value. Half of americans are below average drivers.
If average=median then the statements are trivially true, by definition. If average=mean, then it’s possible for the statements to be not quite true since there are possible statistical distributions where the mean != the median. But as has been said, in a normal distribution the mean=the median.
Interesting point. I wonder how many Obama voters believe the only way McCain will win is if he somehow “steals” the election. Is that any more credulous than conservatives believing Obama is a socialist?
My point is that the middle, say, 30% is probably of roughly equivalent intelligence.
I wonder how you got “only” from “or”, which clearly means that I believe that there are multiple possibilities. Anyway, it’s not like the Republicans stealing the election is without precedent.
The fact that you might not be able to observe a difference casually does not mean that there is no difference and that it cannot be measured. This idea is nonsensical.
Really? So, the lack of a Florida recount being intentional is as hard to believe as that Obama is simultaneously a secret Muslim and a lifelong member of a racist Christian church? Really?
The fact that Bush won both elections partially by fraud is not as controversial or credulous as you think it is. Now, GWB also employed legitimate tactics well, like a massively effective GOTV drive. And he was immensely popular for a good five or six years. You gotta give him credit for that, and I do. But he also stole the first election and used fraud to win the second.
Hostile’s remarks make a lot of sense; they take into account the error in the measurement systems.
If the error is +/- 1 unit, you will get a nice bell; if the error is +/- 10 units, you will get a flat top, that could extend over 20 - 50 % of the population.