2 ms·
I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists. Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
I believe that is only evidence of bias towards high score holders, which we already know exists.
Minor issue: why does that figures' caption lead with a quip about the top 1%, but only present data for quartiles?
- hyperpape 10y agoI'm not sure what those Q1-Q4 numbers are, but I don't think they are quartiles. I went to a TIP ceremony for kids who'd scored well on the SATs in 7th grade. There were a few hundred kids there (I think something like 1000 got you there?), a few dozen with 1200 something, and one kid up on stage with a 1400.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThe bottom right of the figure says, "[s]tudents were split into quartiles". I don't get why there is a reference to the top 1% in the caption though.
- MagnumOpus 10y agoStep 1: Take highly able kids who score in the top 1% in entrance exams or can get SAT scores of 700 at age 13. Step 2: Sort these highly able kids into quartiles by their test scores. Result: Even within the top 1% of IQ, the relative ability still matters. I.e. there is no "cutoff" for becoming a great scientist or inventor; smarter is always better.
- trendia 10y agoIQ measured while young predicts income later as an entrepreneur. http://imgur.com/a/huYKk http://imgur.com/a/huYKk http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp3648.pdf