I hate biologists

Depends if IQ is broken down on a normal distribution. For example if you have 3 IQ scores one is 10, one is 100 and the last is 101. Then two of the IQ scores of the three would be above average.

It's also only true for a perfect normal distribution. Clusters at either end and far outliers will shift the percentage of people above/below average. There could be 99 people with a score of 100 and 1 person with a score of 150 and 99% would be below average.
And while there exist numerous possibilities of acquiring brain damage and lowering scores, there are few options for raising it, so a real IQ distribution is probably inflated on the low side.

>only true for a perfect normal distribution
Actually it's true for any distribution which is symmetric about the mean.

sounds like you just can't wrap your head around it

basic biological sciences fags drive up the price of my major-PremedBio

It's a meme you dip.

Fluoride causes cancer

LOL.
Atheistic fuck thinks we're all Africans.
Nah son, that is just the descendants of Ham.

He means the median, right?

so does formaldehyde but I don't think you're gonna stop touching all sorts of plastics, furnishings, varnishes, finishes, resins, any sort of oil based compount at all.

I think he is assuming a normal distribution

which it is, by any metric commonly used.

Sort of. I think the evidence shows that there are multiple groups of roughly normally distributed groups. If you look at total population as a whole it is not one perfect normal distribution with 100 as the average and median.

I thought the average intelligence denoted a range, not a number. Something like [95,115]

kek, I'm actually okay with this meme becoming widespread for all natural sciences on Veeky Forums

I'm not sure, but I think that's the joke.

People who make bullshit a priori statements eventually die 100% of the time,

I stopped caring about Mathematics when I was introduced to the concept of Choice. What a crock of shit. If your theorems can only be proved by inventing absurdly powerful axioms that don't adhere to intuitionism, like some kind of mathematical deity, then you are fucking wrong and the system is flawed.

why do you think he is a sophist?

Not true. There are certain percentage [math]p[/math] that have IQ of 100.

Thus [math]50-p[/math] has IQ below average, [math]50-p[/math] has IQ above average.

ky

He's not talking about IQ but intelligence, which makes it even more retarded as there's no way to quantify that.

But 50% is below average regardless of being able to be quantified.

No, that's assuming a distribution where the means is the median.

>Be biologist
>"Oh No! people from [scientific field requiring more talent] have started tackling problems in our field and are making more contributions than we are!"
>"That's okay, we'll just add "biologist" onto the end of their existing title and then everybody will think they're with us!"

Yes?

>the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100

IQ is the scientific definition of intelligence.

That's not necessarily true though

Middle school Life science teacher here.

I hate teaching any life science because there's so little connection between the units I am required to teach. Let alone what you learn in College. Biology is such a fucking broad subject its stupid.

I feel like quitting after this year and going back for a math or chemistry degree. At least with those degrees, you build off each unit with more in-depth information to teach, making past units relevant as a teacher.

Teaching Biology is retarded as each unit is unrelated to each other.

"okay class we're talking about Photosynthesis and Respiration"

"Okay class, our next unit is body systems"

Fuck and the stupid questions I get in life science piss me off. I envy the lack of questions chemistry and physics teachers must get.

>Teaching Biology is retarded as each unit is unrelated to each other.

Do you understanding what you're teaching or are you just relying on memorisation?

spot the bioligist

This concludes our math prerequisites for biology, class

You can't teach what best for the students to understand, you teach what the state requires you to teach for the standardized tests or your ass gets fired.

Would I teach from smallest (cells) to largest (Ecosystems) if I could? Yes. But I am not being "asked" to.

Yea, my shitposting is outside of requirements, gotta do what you gotta do to some extent

>public understanding

chemistry undergad actually

Wow! Funny, atheist science man steels jokes too!

/x/ is over that way, friend

Based racial realist Dawkins.

> your species can only be explained by inventing lineages that can't exist
I know, right. Like, evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders is actually physically IMPOSSIBLE. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

While I agree with you I also understand that the degree of problems in natural science that can be solved with mathematics is at present a minute speck. With all the talk of how general math has gotten there sure isn't a whole bunch in Biology that can be modelled without making a ton of ramifications and restrictions on what you are looking at (the worst of which is assuming linearity)
I have hopes for the application of fractals but even with the buzz over the past 3 decades there really hasn't been entirely too much to show for it.

Nothing in that image mentions race.

Did you really just type all of that out ironically?

Assuming he is talking percentiles then 50th percentile means 50% of the population is less than or equal to you in intelligence so yes, you have to take away from 50% that subset having exactly average intelligence, but he can probably be forgiven for using a strict order since its punchier and it takes up less twitter characters. Thanks

Not just now ;)

Well, you know what they say about statistics

The N's justify the means.

Are you implying that the sample sizes of surveys of intelligence are too low? Because IQ test data is some of the most readily available data there is. The only conceivable bias would be from the fact that its taken at school so those who dont attend school are not taken into account, however that is generally due to economic rather than intellectual problems. Thanks

This, generally statements like these are intended to be sobering for those of us who lie above the average, especially for those who lie above it by a significant margin.

I wonder if the surveys of IQ could be biased by intelligence levels, as well as the person administering the test's educational background. Like, if you think nutrition plays a role, would you be more likely to pass a healthy person?

The administrative body comes nowhere near the students, there is a supervisor and thats it. The tests are graded by a computer automatically. Shouldn't be any human bias present.

Slow your autism. I was only making a math joke you sperg.

Right but the joke really doesn't make sense in this context because there was in fact a large N available. Thanks

I hate physicists.

It is true in any given population if you define the average within that population. Sure you can look at one population and define it in terms of some other population, but what's the point of that?

You could get a room of super geniuses together and still half of them would be dumber than the other half, unless they were all equally intelligent which doesn't really happen.

The only caveat is when you have large populations where a significant number of individuals that fall exactly on the mean. An example is if you have four dudes with a 90IQ then four dudes with a 110IQ and another four dudes with 100IQ. In that population only 33% of those individuals will be above the mean and only 33% will be below the mean. Though in most cases you can argue that the number of individuals who fall precisely on the mean is relativity insignificant.

That's a weird way to look at it, aren't over 50% of people within a few standard deviations of the mean?

But he mean it.
Since whites are roughly 15% of Earth's population and put also the East Asians and they make 50%.

>everything meets Muh pol narrative!
>le ebin western civilization statue
Fuck off back to the Sargon of Akkad fanclub

Assuming a normal distribution then 68% are within one standard deviation of the mean, however if you have a large variance that loses its significance as you can be within 1 stddev and be dozens of IQ points below someone within the same stddevs from the mean.

I know Veeky Forums is full of BS lefties, but lets be ralist here.
Blacks and Abbos lack IQ.
While the average White IQ is 100, the average Black is 85.

Our history also proves it.While whites and asians were creating civilizations before Christ, the blacks were still living in their mud huts, having only invented the spear.Not even the wheel.

>Sargon of Akkad
Alt-right faggot.

What about if you had three guys with 110IQ and one guy with 50IQ? Then wouldn't only the 50IQ guy be below average?

*realists

Interestingly this kind of 'fat tail' phenomenon is exactly what caused the financial crisis. People don't expect to see large variances because they all learned the perfectly non-skewed, fixed size bellcurve and expect nature to adhere to it. Under this assumption the extremes of the curve (ultra retards and super genii) should not be numerous.. however societal evidence suggests otherwise.

Actually yea, that would be another example that's probably more common in small populations.

Yes but the sample size is far greater than 3 so the 'middle part' becomes increasingly insignificant, as has been addressed already several times in this thread.

One cannot "lack" IQ, it is a single score, each of us only have one.

If you aren't alt right then what are you?

On the wrong board such as yourself.

Okay then.Lets say they dont have high IQ.

Low IQ=high levels of sexuality and aggression.
High IQ=low levels

I'm not saying whites are not aggressive, but in only some individual.
While in blacks, its like a "cultural trait"

The unchanged and traditionalist fascist.
Also atheist and I believe in evolution.

>haha go back to ur containtment board, other people are not allowed to come to our hivemind
>le epic pol boogeyman

Incorrect. Sexuality and aggression can be linked to activity of the amygdala, and it need not affect one's IQ. Also even if they were correlated it would not make them 'equal', as you have stated.

I've worked with literal retards before. They are no more or no less violent or aggressive than anyone else, they are simply not able to properly control their emotions.

I.E.
>Normal or smart person gets pissed
>Normally lets it go quickly
>Maybe yells at person
>Tard gets pissed
>Maybe decks you in the face
>Maybe breaks down and cries

If anything I find that tards and other stupid people tend to be more docile because it's harder to offend them, simply because they lack the capacity to be offended in many circumstances.

Again what may seem to be the same cause on the surface is not. In an actual retarded person they do not possess the extensive development of the Prefrontal Cortex with which to will themselves to not act on their urges. Incidentally in any person this does not reach full development until mid to late 20s, which is why teenagers and young people tend to act so rashly. Again, this is a common trait of young people and does not adversely affect their IQ. You simply cannot conflate these two aspects of the brain.

>violent outburst instead of verbal outburst
>they are no more or less violent
Not the guy you're replying to, but how is that not being more violent???

The n's justify the means (averages)

The ends justify the means

Most people have an above average number of legs.

Actually not true, in the natural world you see 4, 6, or 8 legs a lot, but bipedal animals are relatively scarce.

you forgot bacteria has 0

Bacteria are not part of the Animal Kingdom.

Lmao

Birbs are quite ubiquitous.

Drop in the bucket compared to insects (I'm assuming you meant birds)

>Teaching Biology is retarded as each unit is unrelated to each other.

Maybe you have a shit syllabus to teach from?
Otherwise the problem might be you not being able to relate the units to each other.

How can you find it difficult to relate Respiration to body systems?!

And who the fuck restricted it to animals? Nobody but you. Certainly not the original poster.

Most people have an above average number of *human legs.

Ok?

>he doesn't know what birbs are

Taking the set of 'things with legs' as the sample space is a must more rational choice than 'all living things'.

That's fair.

My assertion was simply that they lack impulse control and that the normal person would like to deck you in the face or cry, but would normally choose not to because they realize that would be stupid.

>kek
I stopped caring about memes once I was introduced to Harambe (pbuh). What a crock of shit. If you can save an ape by getting your dick out, like some kind of phallic deity, then you are fucking wrong and modern memery is flawed.

Are you sure? You may have forgotten to factor in graveyard owners.

Most people have an above average number of *limbs extending from their lower torso which would be called legs

I have a third leg, does that count?

Only if you use it as a primary means of forward locomotion