Originally posted by staxamillion
a composite is an amalgam not an average even in mathematics
Obviously. The average is being used as the basis to calculate the sum.
You know the # of terms (aka population: ~7 Billion).
Sum = Average * # Terms
Sum = Average * 7 Billion
So, I could either forget averages and pull a figure for the sum out of my ass, or you could far more easily estimate an average based on some measure of reason.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Not really, even if you lowered everyone to an iq of 1, that is still a character with a iq of over 7 billion.
That's...not how IQ works...
1. By definition, the average IQ is 100, so we don't need to guess at that.
2. IQ is based on a standard deviation from the norm, not by any quantitative analysis. Therefore, and also by definition, you also can't just stack it.
Example #1: Someone with an IQ of 50 would be considered very severely mentally retarded. Stack two people who can't add 2+2 and you don't get an average person.
Example #2: The likes of Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Isaac Newton are said to have IQs in the 160-200ish range**. You can't stack two average people and make a Newton, sorry. Nor can you stack three or four of the above mentioned "2+2"ers and invent calculus.
** based on estimates because two of them are long dead and one of them isn't running around taking IQ tests for internet trolls. Also there are a dozen+ IQ tests that vary to some degree
Originally posted by Silent Master
None of this is possible in real life. why don't you just ask the op how he intended the intelligence stack to work.
I'm not saying that you can't stack intelligence, I'm just saying you can't multiple IQ by the population, because that's now how the measure of IQ works.
IQ is just the wrong term to be using. What you want is some measure of simultaneous calculations, memory, creativity, etc. Then you can say "Person A can perform X calculations per second, person B can perform Y calculations per second, combine them and amalgam person can perform X+Y calculations per second". Only problem is we don't have a way to measure such a thing, so best you can do is think about the combined human intellect in abstract terms.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
☝. We arent that much more intelligent than we were a hundred uears ago. We just adapted to our surroundings. Id wager that we are infact dumber due to a lack of drive for invention and loss of hunter/gatherer skills
It's not by a huge amount, but we are (on average) smarter than we were 100 years ago. That's not a product of evolution, as there haven't been enough generations to affect that, but almost entirely due to better nutrition. Can't vouch for any changes in creativity or motivation, however.
Originally posted by Cogito
I'm not saying that you can't stack intelligence, I'm just saying you can't multiple IQ by the population, because that's now how the measure of IQ works.IQ is just the wrong term to be using. What you want is some measure of simultaneous calculations, memory, creativity, etc. Then you can say "Person A can perform X calculations per second, person B can perform Y calculations per second, combine them and amalgam person can perform X+Y calculations per second". Only problem is we don't have a way to measure such a thing, so best you can do is think about the combined human intellect in abstract terms.
Again, why don't you just ask the op how he wants the stack to work.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, why don't you just ask the op how he wants the stack to work.
It's not that you can't stack intelligence, it's that by definition you can't stack IQ.
Let's compare this for a second to strength. Let's pretend that the average person can bench 100 lbs. How many can bench twice that - 200 lbs? Probably a lot. Probably enough to count millions of them. How many can bench 300 lbs? Probably still millions, or hundreds of thousands at least.
The average person has an IQ of 100. That's defined. How many people have an IQ of 200? One in 76 billion. That's also defined, because an IQ of 200 is defined by being 6.66 standard deviations above the norm, which is a defined and calculable figure. An IQ of 100 is simply not defined by being double an IQ of 100.
Originally posted by Cogito
It's not that you can't stack intelligence, it's that by definition you can't stack IQ.Let's compare this for a second to strength. Let's pretend that the average person can bench 100 lbs. How many can bench twice that - 200 lbs? Probably a lot. Probably enough to count millions of them. How many can bench 300 lbs? Probably still millions, or hundreds of thousands at least.
The average person has an IQ of 100. That's defined. How many people have an IQ of 200? [b]One in 76 billion
. That's also defined, because an IQ of 200 is defined by being 6.66 standard deviations above the norm, which is a defined and calculable figure. An IQ of 100 is simply not defined by being double an IQ of 100. [/B]
Again, none of this is possible in real life, we have zero idea of what would actually happen, so if you care so much why don't you just ask the Op how he intended the intelligence stack to work.
If you don't want me to ask the Op if he wants to multiply IQ (which would be redefining the definition of IQ), then what clarification do you want?
I already acknowledged that you can stack intelligence, just that you can't do it in terms of IQ. There is no current measure that encompasses the entirety of intelligence in an additive way, so it can only be thought of abstractly.