5 ms·

it's all about the edges of distribution though. If equality of the means mattered, countries across the world would be very similar economically, which unfortu

it's all about the edges of distribution though. If equality of the means mattered, countries across the world would be very similar economically, which unfortunately is not the case.

Arnt 8y ago
It's ALL about the edges? What does that mean? What are the edges, and why does nothing else matter?
- imron 8y ago
  The entire greater male variability theory (which is what is under discussion here) It claims that while averages for men and women are the same, you get more men at the high IQ end of the spectrum and also more men at the lower end of the IQ spectrum (which balance out the average). The whole argument is predicated on what happens at the edges of the normal distribution, not what happens at the center.
- Knuffer123 8y ago
  I believe he refers to the fact that all "important" positions are selected from the bottom/top tier. We don't imprison random people from the population, we imprison the most aggressive (in case of violent crime at least). We hire people with top IQ for engineering and science related endevours. We promote people who work the hardest ("industriousness") The most ambitious people get the top jobs. It doesn't matter if on average two groups are the same for those qualifiers, if only the top 1% are selected, then you would expect which ever group has the flattest bell-curve distribution (and thus more "on the edge") to be over-represented (whether it is gender, "race", age). If it isn't, then racism/sexism/whateverism is at work. Caveat: with top IQ in engineering, an important factor that only people who "like things more than people" apply, other way around for loads of other fields.
- buboard 8y ago
  because everyone is looking for the BEST e.g. engineers, not for the slightly-above-average.
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    Do they only hire from Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average"? /apologies to Garrison Keillor edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_... (and yes Keillor's "Lake Wobegon" stories [ibid.] are hilarious)
    - buboard 8y ago
      i don't follow, but sounds like something funny
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Because that is where people specialize. If we ranked all humans by their programming skill and see which ones choose to become programmers, you'll find it is all around the tip. The average programming skill of the average programmer is far greater than the average programming skill of the average person. This applies to innate talents as well. People go into careers based on what they are good enough at. If you are literally average or below average at your field (compared to all people, not just all people interested in your field), your chance of success is extremely low. Therefore, if on some metric, you have two groups who are average but one with greater deviation, and then you select among the top 5% of the combined group, you will select more of the group with greater deviation even though the groups are average. You can test this with simulations if you want. This isn't much of a problem until you apply it to everyday demographics, at which point it can result in uncomfortable conclusions.

it's all about the edges of distribution though. If equality of the means mattered, countries across the world would be very similar economically, which unfortunately is not the case.

Arnt 8y ago

It's ALL about the edges? What does that mean? What are the edges, and why does nothing else matter?

imron 8y ago
The entire greater male variability theory (which is what is under discussion here) It claims that while averages for men and women are the same, you get more men at the high IQ end of the spectrum and also more men at the lower end of the IQ spectrum (which balance out the average). The whole argument is predicated on what happens at the edges of the normal distribution, not what happens at the center.
Knuffer123 8y ago
I believe he refers to the fact that all "important" positions are selected from the bottom/top tier. We don't imprison random people from the population, we imprison the most aggressive (in case of violent crime at least). We hire people with top IQ for engineering and science related endevours. We promote people who work the hardest ("industriousness") The most ambitious people get the top jobs. It doesn't matter if on average two groups are the same for those qualifiers, if only the top 1% are selected, then you would expect which ever group has the flattest bell-curve distribution (and thus more "on the edge") to be over-represented (whether it is gender, "race", age). If it isn't, then racism/sexism/whateverism is at work. Caveat: with top IQ in engineering, an important factor that only people who "like things more than people" apply, other way around for loads of other fields.
buboard 8y ago
because everyone is looking for the BEST e.g. engineers, not for the slightly-above-average.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  Do they only hire from Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average"? /apologies to Garrison Keillor edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_... (and yes Keillor's "Lake Wobegon" stories [ibid.] are hilarious)
  - buboard 8y ago
    i don't follow, but sounds like something funny
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Because that is where people specialize. If we ranked all humans by their programming skill and see which ones choose to become programmers, you'll find it is all around the tip. The average programming skill of the average programmer is far greater than the average programming skill of the average person. This applies to innate talents as well. People go into careers based on what they are good enough at. If you are literally average or below average at your field (compared to all people, not just all people interested in your field), your chance of success is extremely low. Therefore, if on some metric, you have two groups who are average but one with greater deviation, and then you select among the top 5% of the combined group, you will select more of the group with greater deviation even though the groups are average. You can test this with simulations if you want. This isn't much of a problem until you apply it to everyday demographics, at which point it can result in uncomfortable conclusions.