Timeline for Why does IQ have a truncated normal distribution?

10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 5 '20 at 17:36 history bounty ended
Mar 30 '20 at 18:02 comment I'd also say that it isn't that it must be this way. If there was some single dominant factor in IQ, the distribution might not be normal at all: it could be bimodal, for example. But we do observe that it is approximately normal, and we should not be surprised to find this.
Mar 30 '20 at 18:00 comment @J.Mini Not the raw test score, the underlying thing that is being measured. But yes, IQ distributions get fiddled with: that's the normalization procedure. When you design an IQ test, you don't yet know how the scores on the test will map to IQ scores. You design the test, give it to lots of people, and use the distribution you observe to decide what score is "100" (the median or mean score) and what score is "85" (one standard deviation below the mean, or an equivalent percentile).
Mar 30 '20 at 17:51 comment So we assume that the raw test score is a sum of independent random variables that we do not know the distributions of. But as it's a sum of independent random variables, it must have some normal distribution with unknown parameters. We then fiddle around with that a bit to get the nice IQ graphs that we all know and love. Is that right?
Mar 30 '20 at 17:37 comment @J.Mini The factors being summed/averaged are not the things on the test, it's the underlying construct that IQ is meant to measure. It's the sum of all the genes with a role in cognition, all the books read to you as a child, the diet you eat, the amount of lead you absorb, etc etc.
Mar 30 '20 at 17:27 comment I'm unconvinced. If the raw test score were the average of some independent factors, then we might have a shot at using the CLT, but sums don't behave as nicely. You could normalise, but I doubt that we know the population parameters.
Mar 30 '20 at 17:17 history edited