6,353
edits
Talk:IQ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Norming
m (→Too technical?) |
m (→Norming) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::: > I think the lede should be more clear about raw scores [...] | ::: > I think the lede should be more clear about raw scores [...] | ||
Ok, first you complain that the lede is 'too technical' and make one of your typical nitpicks about percentiles, which I agreed with and then incorporated into the article. Now you want to add a portion of text referring to z-scores, scaled scores, and percentiles, which is already stated in the lede in plain English: "An IQ score is computed such that the population mean is 100 points, and one's score is then calculated by converting the overall 'raw scores' (based on how well you do on the tasks) to a standardized score, measuring how you compare to the rest of the population", and in the bell curve graph to the right of the lede. | Ok, first you complain that the lede is 'too technical' and make one of your typical nitpicks about percentiles, which I agreed with (as it was a valid point) and then incorporated into the article. Now you want to add a portion of text referring to z-scores, scaled scores, and percentiles, which is already stated in the lede in plain English: "An IQ score is computed such that the population mean is 100 points, and one's score is then calculated by converting the overall 'raw scores' (based on how well you do on the tasks) to a standardized score, measuring how you compare to the rest of the population", and in the bell curve graph to the right of the lede. | ||
There is no need to get into the weeds here; the core point is that the IQ score is relative. It's an ordinal scale with no absolute zero, and the score is only meaningful insofar as it compares you to a peer group. This is made blatantly apparent by the existence of things such as the Flynn Effect and the fact that raw scores on certain kinds of IQ tests and some subtests decline with age and so on. That's all that needs to be communicated here. | There is no need to get into the weeds here; the core point is that the IQ score is relative. It's an ordinal scale with no absolute zero, and the score is only meaningful insofar as it compares you to a peer group. This is made blatantly apparent by the existence of things such as the Flynn Effect and the fact that raw scores on certain kinds of IQ tests and some subtests decline with age and so on. That's all that needs to be communicated here. | ||