other headlines from source Cremieux Recueil's substack:

luciom -- are you cremieux recueil?

I think he just means each bar is rescaled to 100% rather than absolute numbers.

I wish i was, but i certainly respect him a lot

Need a decent enough IQ to get that intuitively

Question for everyone who doesn't like IQ as a measure - what do you mean when you say Trump is a moron? I can tell you what I mean, and it involves IQ.

I understand what he means. It's a bog standard example of presenting data graphically in a misleading way.

it isn't at all, there is no misleading perception to get from that data. You don't look at it and start believing anything about reality that is false, do you?

That's the problem. I'm just too dumb. Thank God we have smart people like you around.

I have absolutely no idea why you’re saying that I think you agree with most people who vote Democratic. All I said was IF you have a preference for a certain candidate, which you already said you do, and you use “this is a safe state” as reasoning for not voting for that particular candidate, then if everyone thought the same way as you it would not be a safe state anymore. There is absolutely nothing controversial about that statement.

Now you can get around this by saying you don’t care that you’re acting in a way that if everyone acted that way outcomes you prefer won’t happen, because you think you’re one person and thus don’t matter, but if everyone thought that way that had your same preferences every election, your preferred candidate would always lose.

We’re equivocating here. If you vote purely based on foreign policy and don’t vote on anything else, you’re a single issue voter. So a) already takes care of that because you said you don’t do that. B) is just you speaking very fancy about why you’re anti-war, which is fine. I’m not going to get into why I think you’re completely wrong about not fighting or supporting any wars because this is the election thread.

I didn't because I suspected that the graph either was fabricated out of thin air, or more likely, was presenting data graphically in a misleading way. My skepticism isn't proof that the graph did a good job of depicting the data.

I was just complimenting d2

Yes you do, it makes it look like there are a bunch of 45 IQ black people that took the SATs… I feel like at that point it would be a matter of people just intentionally messing up and not them actually having 45 IQ lol or that the standardization only works for test scores that are closer to the median.

But yeah showing proportion without the context of raw numbers or standard distribution is a classic way of manipulating perception using stats.

In order to be misled, you need some actual truth the graph would move you away from toward something else that is actually false.

What would it be?

SAT Score <> IQ for starters

Exactly this.

Keep in mind the focus was on the 3 sigma on the right, that even if ultra rarified nationwide, aren't in elite schools.

The contest was Ivey league discriminating against asian, and the recent scotus decision on that.

He has to give you both sides of the curve no matter how minuscule the number of actual test taker at IQ 45 and IQ 155 (values btw that are similarly represented numerically in a population of median IQ of 100).

There is no mislead attempt. Idea is if 80% of the smartest in the country are asian, you cannot say "look I am accepting more than them than their proportion in the population so I am not discriminating against them".

If you admit based on IQ or IQ proxies, and you have a very low acceptance rate, your normal non discriminatory class should be almost all Asians, that's what the chart helps you understand

wish i could go back in time and intentionally answer every SAT question wrong to become the first person to register a zero on the IQ scale

IQ isn't a quantifiable statistic. Only midwits think about IQ. Posting IQ charting statistics is legitimately hilarious. Doubly so that they show Asians and Whites having significantly higher IQs than black and hispanic people

How is it different from height?

Denying that IQ exists because minorities score lower on IQ tests is pretty lol. It's one thing if you want to critique the questions asked in the test, but to say that a test result is "not a quantifiable statistic" when it's pretty much the definition of a quantifiable statistic is just nonsense.

IQ was used to discriminate so it doesn't exist, that's the leftist logic.

Btw they need to do that to justify many of their other claims so I see why they sent objective reality.

It's like the antivaxers who deny virus exist, it's unassailable

Person, man, woman, camera, TV. What did I win?

IQ exists, measuring IQ is beyond dubious. Intelligence is a spectrum. Intelligence tests have no way to quantify various spectrums in a meaningful manner.

there are dozens of tests used to test/quantify IQ, each of which tests for different things and can result in widely varying scores. which test are you referring to when you say IQ test?

no such confusion when referencing height

further problems when conflating quantifiable IQ score with ethereal/subjective notions of smartness, esp when everyone is working with different personalized definitions