> It is partly subjective, but all of the "old" IQ tests,
> produced before the introduction of the normal distribution,
> have IQs ranging well over 160, including estimates of more
> than 200. It was admitted that it was hard to measure at
> this level, but this does not mean that scores above 130
> should not be reported.
Important questions: what does an [adult] IQ of 200 mean?
Is there any reason to suppose that the scale is interval? And how
does somebody with an IQ of (say) 130 develop a test for it?
This sounds like Hannibal Lecter about to start reminiscing
about questionnaires, liver, and fava beans, but there is a very real
problem. One wonders how the _dan_ system in (say) karate was set up.
Presumably in the centuries since karate was invented there have been
masters greater than those who first codified the rankings; can this
be recognized, or do standards improve over the years to keep the
tenth _dan_ level at "as good as anybody's ever been?"
-Robert Dawson
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
