3 ms·

> The labor force is approximately 164 million people which sounds like a lot but half of the people in the labor force have IQs below 100. I wish people would

> The labor force is approximately 164 million people which sounds like a lot but half of the people in the labor force have IQs below 100. I wish people would stop making claims that mathematically cannot be true in normal distributions.

torben-friis 4y ago
What is wrong about the statement? (Besides being useless trivia I mean). Isn’t 100 defined as the center of the bell curve? Honest question.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I believe OP is saying “at or below” would be more accurate - the current wording completely misses those at the median (which in a normal distribution is the largest single group within the set with a shared result).
TechBro8615 4y ago
Maybe my IQ is too low to understand this, but isn't IQ derived from a presumed normal distribution, which is symmetric about the mean, and therefore contains a set of 50% the population that is below the mean? Or by "making claims" do you mean the claims of the premise of an IQ test? That is, it's ludicrous to assume that "actual intelligence" (whatever is being approximated by IQ tests) would fit perfectly into a normal distribution, and it's therefore ludicrous to claim IQ can measure intelligence?
- torstenvl 4y ago
  For the statement to be true, there would have to be zero people with a median IQ, i.e., not a normal distribution but a sharply bimodal distribution. Analogy: The median U.S. male height is 5'9". Approximately 15% of the male population is 5'9". How can you have 50% of the population <= 5'8", 50% of the population >= 5'10", and 15% of the population == 5'9"? (This isn't a mathematical constraint on the truth of the statement, but... its truth would also depend on there being zero correlation between being low-IQ and lack of labor force participation, which I find implausible.)
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    Interesting (I'm really bad at math). It seems dependent on measurement precision, effectively the bucketing resolution of the histogram. If you measure both 69.00 and 69.99 inches as 5'9" then the number of people in the "median height bucket" would be more than if you broke it into 100 buckets from 69.00 to 69.99. Since presumably nobody can be exactly 5'9" (or 5'9.00", or 5'9.000"...), then the number of people in the "median" bucket must represent the inaccuracy of the measurement. So the greater precision you can measure, the less people are "inaccurately" at the exact median score - since buckets of .01 inches will contain fewer people than buckets of 1 inch. (I've noticed a lot of problems end at this boundary of continuity and discreteness. I find it existentially disturbing. As a bewildered non-mathematician, I've gone down quite a few rabbit holes reading about the axiom of choice and intuitionism – My favorite was when I discovered the Hairy Ball Theorem, but I also enjoyed this idea from "Does time really flow?" that describes time as an increase in precision of measurement of uniquely numbered particles [0].) [0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clu...
pdntspa 4y ago
The author is a professor of "monetary theory, financial economics, and welfare economics" yet posits the IQ requirements of chipmaking with logic that appears to have been pulled out of his ass. "A single speck of dust can ruin a production run." As if that is the only thing requiring such delicate hands. Even if we accept his assertion that we need rocket scientist-level folks to build chips, he seems to forget that demand is shared by all the other things that need rocket scientists, including but not limited to actual rocket science. To say nothing of the wonderful irony of an american professor using such faulty logic to write a post about how stupid americans are. And can we talk about his unspoken faith in IQ testing?

torben-friis 4y ago

What is wrong about the statement? (Besides being useless trivia I mean). Isn’t 100 defined as the center of the bell curve? Honest question.

atdrummond 4y ago
I believe OP is saying “at or below” would be more accurate - the current wording completely misses those at the median (which in a normal distribution is the largest single group within the set with a shared result).

TechBro8615 4y ago

Maybe my IQ is too low to understand this, but isn't IQ derived from a presumed normal distribution, which is symmetric about the mean, and therefore contains a set of 50% the population that is below the mean? Or by "making claims" do you mean the claims of the premise of an IQ test? That is, it's ludicrous to assume that "actual intelligence" (whatever is being approximated by IQ tests) would fit perfectly into a normal distribution, and it's therefore ludicrous to claim IQ can measure intelligence?

torstenvl 4y ago
For the statement to be true, there would have to be zero people with a median IQ, i.e., not a normal distribution but a sharply bimodal distribution. Analogy: The median U.S. male height is 5'9". Approximately 15% of the male population is 5'9". How can you have 50% of the population <= 5'8", 50% of the population >= 5'10", and 15% of the population == 5'9"? (This isn't a mathematical constraint on the truth of the statement, but... its truth would also depend on there being zero correlation between being low-IQ and lack of labor force participation, which I find implausible.)
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  Interesting (I'm really bad at math). It seems dependent on measurement precision, effectively the bucketing resolution of the histogram. If you measure both 69.00 and 69.99 inches as 5'9" then the number of people in the "median height bucket" would be more than if you broke it into 100 buckets from 69.00 to 69.99. Since presumably nobody can be exactly 5'9" (or 5'9.00", or 5'9.000"...), then the number of people in the "median" bucket must represent the inaccuracy of the measurement. So the greater precision you can measure, the less people are "inaccurately" at the exact median score - since buckets of .01 inches will contain fewer people than buckets of 1 inch. (I've noticed a lot of problems end at this boundary of continuity and discreteness. I find it existentially disturbing. As a bewildered non-mathematician, I've gone down quite a few rabbit holes reading about the axiom of choice and intuitionism – My favorite was when I discovered the Hairy Ball Theorem, but I also enjoyed this idea from "Does time really flow?" that describes time as an increase in precision of measurement of uniquely numbered particles [0].) [0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clu...

pdntspa 4y ago

The author is a professor of "monetary theory, financial economics, and welfare economics" yet posits the IQ requirements of chipmaking with logic that appears to have been pulled out of his ass. "A single speck of dust can ruin a production run." As if that is the only thing requiring such delicate hands. Even if we accept his assertion that we need rocket scientist-level folks to build chips, he seems to forget that demand is shared by all the other things that need rocket scientists, including but not limited to actual rocket science. To say nothing of the wonderful irony of an american professor using such faulty logic to write a post about how stupid americans are. And can we talk about his unspoken faith in IQ testing?