"A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap."
I admit I'm not an expert, but wouldn't that depend on where the difference occured on the scale? The diference between a 70 and 80 IQ would be very clear I think. But would that be the case for a 100 and 110?
But yeah, I guess the wider point is that definitive…
"A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap."
I admit I'm not an expert, but wouldn't that depend on where the difference occured on the scale? The diference between a 70 and 80 IQ would be very clear I think. But would that be the case for a 100 and 110?
But yeah, I guess the wider point is that definitive proof of an average racial IQ gap wouldn't change much about how society ran.
Ten points is a LOT no matter where it is, except maybe for the difference between 170 and 180. A 110 IQ person is qualitatively different from a 100; more intellectually engaged, more curious, more likely to be a reader.
Even between 70 and 80 you have the difference between someone who can care for himself and hold a menial job and someone who likely can't.
I was imagining something like 0.2 points. The bigots would take that and say all black people are retarded. Real people would call it statistically insignificant.
If I'm not mistaken +/- one standard deviation from nominal is IQ 85-115 which is the middle of low and high average (68% of humanity). IQ 70-130 is two +/- standard deviations (95% of humanity). Since we don't wear a red badge of IQ we don't really know the IQ of people we work with beyond levels of perceived competence. I doubt that I could guess anyone's IQ with accuracy, but then I've never cared to try.
You're not mistaken, those figures are right. And ± 3SDs is 99.7%.
I would swear that in the past it was 10 points that comprised a standard deviation.
I wouldn't try to guess numbers either but there is an unmistakable indication when you're talking to smart people: they grasp what you're saying before you finish the sentence.
"A ten point difference would be unmistakable and not masked well by overlap."
I admit I'm not an expert, but wouldn't that depend on where the difference occured on the scale? The diference between a 70 and 80 IQ would be very clear I think. But would that be the case for a 100 and 110?
But yeah, I guess the wider point is that definitive proof of an average racial IQ gap wouldn't change much about how society ran.
Ten points is a LOT no matter where it is, except maybe for the difference between 170 and 180. A 110 IQ person is qualitatively different from a 100; more intellectually engaged, more curious, more likely to be a reader.
Even between 70 and 80 you have the difference between someone who can care for himself and hold a menial job and someone who likely can't.
Ah, okay, fair enough, in that case, pretend I wrote "two or three" instead of "ten."
I was imagining something like 0.2 points. The bigots would take that and say all black people are retarded. Real people would call it statistically insignificant.
If I'm not mistaken +/- one standard deviation from nominal is IQ 85-115 which is the middle of low and high average (68% of humanity). IQ 70-130 is two +/- standard deviations (95% of humanity). Since we don't wear a red badge of IQ we don't really know the IQ of people we work with beyond levels of perceived competence. I doubt that I could guess anyone's IQ with accuracy, but then I've never cared to try.
You're not mistaken, those figures are right. And ± 3SDs is 99.7%.
I would swear that in the past it was 10 points that comprised a standard deviation.
I wouldn't try to guess numbers either but there is an unmistakable indication when you're talking to smart people: they grasp what you're saying before you finish the sentence.