Mod post

[lyndz.livejournal.com]

So I guess having two absentee moderators is pretty much worthless. I'm taking nominations to add another couple to the list. I apologize for all but abandoning LJ.

Comments

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Nevermind your outrageous claims of being able to singlehandedly author econometric textbooks or build Obamacare.gov for 50k, lolz at the super genius math!
At the 95th percentile the IQ is ~125. At 99.5th, it is ~139. A difference of ~14 points. At the 99.7th (3/1000), the IQ is ~141 or a difference of 2 points.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

The point scale is not linear, genius. It describes the distribution of performance values, not the relative magnitude of the performance values.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

No shit, Sherlock. Now why don't you go reread what you wrote and figure out why what you said was so devastatingly stupid. A super genius should have no problem with that.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

You should take your own advice.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Lolz super genius keep it up

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Please calculate the slopes of a bell curve and explain how the right tail's slope is decreasing at a rate at all comparable to what you've described, super genius

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Wow. You really don't have the first clue what an IQ score is.

The bell curve is the distribution of scores. The performance level associated with those scores is not a bell curve; it's a power law curve. There's barely any difference in actual knowledge between a score of 70 and a score of 115, but there's a gigantic difference between a scores of 145 and a score of 150.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Prove it.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-idea-that-human-performance-fits-on-a-bell-curve-2012-5
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/19/the-myth-of-the-bell-curve-look-for-the-hyper-performers/

These articles actually misrepresent the implications of the research. The bell curve is real; it just doesn't represent what most people think it does, as you have so amply demonstrated.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

I composited the images from the second article to explain the research better.