Quote Originally Posted by Lord Orwell View Post
you are suggesting that MORE than half the population is below average in intelligence?

There are a couple of things to consider here:
One: Do you believe this to make your ego bigger? LOL
Two: Who is quantifying the intelligence? As you are no doubt aware, anyone of civilized society would fail any kind of test written by a plainsman or aborigine, and especially one checking for common knowledge.
Actually, I've been pondering this since I made that post (not doing any research, mind you, just pondering it). Initially, it seemed obvious that the majority had to be below average because the scale appears to have a finite lower boundary without a finite upper boundary. This would lead to a non-normal distribution, so the average would be unlikely to be centered at the midpoint of the scale, and would probably be below the midpoint.

However, that assumes that just be cause the scale is 0->infinity, the range of values is similar to the scale, which it clearly isn't on the upper end. The question is what happens on the lower end of the scale. I believe that the only people with an IQ of 0 are those who are dead, and they don't count.

Leaving aside the absurdity of such a measurement as IQ, what is the actual distribution on the scale? If it is normally distributed, then the mean and the median will probably be almost identical. If the distribution is not normal, then the mean and the median will probably differ. I would guess that the mean would be above the median (and thus the majority would be below the mean), simply because the tail out appears to be more extended in the upper end (an IQ of 180 is rare while an IQ of 20 may not be measurable). Is that a valid assumption? I have no idea.