Red wrote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

You are correct that I should have included the distribution with in the range in my haste to reply. You must assume there is an actual Gaussian/normal distribution in intelligence as measured by the IQ tests, which we know is not the case even though that is the desired effect.

No, there's no such thing as a normal distribution in

intelligence. There is in the

scoring of IQ tests. Two fundamentally distinct things.

The scoring does not measure anything in your opinion? Odd, it does nothing and is followed so closely ....

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

Thus, you have exhibited the flaw in your position for if it must be an equal number both above and below by definition the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale.

uh - it is known in advance. That's exactly how it

is done.

No, the outcome is not known in advance or the range would be within the desired range. There is an estimated outcome that works for the largest part of the curve.

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

Also by definition the current scale of IQ would be limited to an upper range of 150 to maintain the curve.

Why?

What part of "to maintain the curve" is confusing? There is a minimal level of measurement on the lower end to offset those scores higher than the theoretical max.

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

However, my first IQ test was several percentage points above that level.

percentage points? percentage of what?

Percentage points of 150, the point I was mentioning. You know 153 IQ points would be 2% over the 150 point.

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution.

Now didn't you just say this couldn't be the case because "the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale."?

Because to construct an accurate scale the outcome would have to be known and the scale adjusted accordingly.

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution.

All statistical measures

approximate. It's not a dirty word.

It depends on how far off the approximation is from the actual. It also in interesting that the "definition" you referenced earlier is now an approximate definition ....

Now, if we were to look at what was said concerning the lower IQ levels this tangent is significantly disconnected.