Jay Warner wrote:
>
> If you define a standard for figure skating performance, has that not
> changed in the last 100 years?
Yes, a hundred years ago if you fell on your bum you were out of the
medals.
>
> I have run across references to 'adjustments' in IQ tests, so that the
> mean and stdev remain at 100, 16, respectively. If this is so, then the
> research reports involving such tests should reference which IQ test was
> used, and perhaps a comparison of the mean difference in scores expected
> between them.
>
> the details of calibration for even a tape measure to mark the length of
> a discus throw can get quite complex. Why should a less clear
> measurement, such as IQ, be any different?
The particular difficulty of the IQ measurement is that there seems to
be a real difficulty in determining what would be a genuinely
challenging problem for somebody more intelligent than oneself. One can
certainly make up a problem that one cannot solve, but it may be hard to
tell whether it is (on the one hand) impossible or (on the other hand)
obvious to somebody with a certain level of ability.
Similarly, sports such as karate in which the standards are based on
combat with somebody of a "known" level of skill present interesting
problems if somebody comes along better than the current top dog.
-Robert
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
