3 ms·

I guess the problem is that the term "intelligent" is ambiguous and overloaded. So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less

by steve1977 3y ago

I guess the problem is that the term "intelligent" is ambiguous and overloaded. So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others. In another usage, we use the term to describe someone of above average intelligence (which is technically not really correct and actually not very intelligent).

oblio 3y ago
> So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others. 100 IQ = 50% of the population is smarter than this. 80 IQ = not sure what the percentage is, but >50% of the population is smarter than this. If any of the tables here are to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_IQ_classification_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_I... then 80 IQ could mean 80% of the population is smarter. I'll rephrase my "kinda dumb" to "dumb as rocks".
- billyjmc 3y ago
  From the main Wiki entry on IQ tests: “The raw score of the norming sample is usually (rank order) transformed to a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.” So, you’re not too far off numerically. 80 IQ is only a -1.33 Z-score. So, 9th percentile. 91% of people score higher than 80 IQ.