2 ms·

I think either you are not reading my post or I'm not explaining myself well. What Ive been trying to do is make the argument why an exponential-like distribut

by aydyn 2y ago

I think either you are not reading my post or I'm not explaining myself well. What Ive been trying to do is make the argument why an exponential-like distribution is a more natural representation of intelligence and therefore what the "underlying distribution" looks like. Clearly, a delta function against a shelf game is not a natural or useful representation of height so I think that counterpoint to your argument is obvious. According to you, what is the underlying distribution of intelligence and why?

osigurdson 2y ago
>> According to you, what is the underlying distribution of intelligence and why I think intelligence is normally distributed, like all other human characteristics. When transformed to win rates based on intelligence that becomes a different distribution. Your argument is centered on the 2nd distribution.
- aydyn 2y ago
  > I think intelligence is normally distributed, like all other human characteristics. My question was why do you say it is normally distributed? where is your evidence? > When transformed to win rates based on intelligence that becomes a different distribution. You dont have to look at just competition, but other mental skills too. Most any application of intelligence is not normally dostributed. Why is this fact not a natural reflection of the underlying distribution? I am struggling to see any support for your position. Help me out.