= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Is love a good idea? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (84)
I'm guessing that's from a base of 100? If so, you're off by almost a standard deviation there: the mean world IQ is very far from Western normed 100s. IIRC, the population weighted estimate from the Lynn national IQ estimates puts the global mean at maybe 90. That's going to affect the tails like 145+ a lot.
Of course... I thought 100 was meant to be the global mean. Lynn set Great Britian's mean, nothing like a flexible definition!
The (not very good) data doesn't bear out a 90ish global mean though, the sub-90 IQ countries are much lower population than over 90. To be pessimistic I'd take another half sigma. (92.5)
Actually useful numbers may be able to be obtained by using more locale specific filters.
Who exactly cares about intelligent people half-way across the globe anyway, when personal relationships (and the possibility of finding people with whom those are possible) are the issue?
You can meet them online, or move to other countries. Personally, for such an estimate I'd be looking only at Anglophones: learning a language just to increase one's dating pool seems pretty far to go for love.
Hence the actually useful numbers bit! Yet I do care to some extent, if for some reason I end up there in future, just less then everyone here and now. Maybe one could weight populations by inverse distance?
OTOH, a linear combination of Gaussians with a standard deviation of 15 and different means will not be a Gaussian and will have a standard deviation larger than 15. So a naive calculation as in trist's comment below will be an underestimate.