Think of how stupid the median person is; half of them are stupider than that.

I usually try to avoid this thought to retain my faith in humanity.

Assuming a completely analog model of intelligence where no two people have identical intelligence, yes. Using the model we actually use, which allows two people to be considered equally intelligent, no.

The bell curve still means that the median is the top of the curve, which means more people have the median intelligence than have any other specified intelligence.

Which model of intelligence that we actually use are you referring to? Surely you aren't suggesting the IQ score is the model preferred by the majority of people. The model I use in my day to day life does, in fact, categorize many people as having the same intelligence, but that's only in the "Not worth my time" category.

Median values are unrelated to bell curves, except where data values form a perfect bell curve, so I'm a touch confused by your statement that median is necessarily the top of the curve.

There is no good way to measure intelligence. All decent methods involve giving a lot of people the same intelligence value. And that is going to be at the average point.

Most people who are average probably get your "not worth my time" rating, at least, that's true for me.

rachel, you seem to be confusing the median with the mean. and i don't think that all decent methods must involve giving many people the same value, and i dont think that a theoretical best method would do so.

I am most definitely not confusing median and mean. However, when the data is representable with a standard bell curve, the same value is median, mean, and mode.

Intelligence, as it is currently measured, does fall into a bell curve.

That really is a depressing statement. *sigh*

And then, of course, we have fundamental attribution error to worry about. The stupidities of others will always appear more likely to be due to their (perceived) "inferior" intellect, whereas our own stupidities — if we even notice them — we tend to attribute to mitigating circumstances.

This is a terrible claim. It doesn’t matter how ‘stupid’ someone is, as long as there's one thing they can do well, they’re a great part of the local community! Why dwell on what people aren't good at? There is almost always someone else whose good at the things other people aren’t.

I must say, I find the apparent assumption by other commentators that they are not in the sub median range rather irritating. It reminds me of the experiment where you ask a room full of people to put their hands up if they are above average intelligence. Of course a majority always raise their hands.

One thing I learned studying AI is that there is no agreed definition of intelligence. Moreover the brain is not a general computer but a "swiss army knife". Each of the brain's subsystems (social, mathematical, visual, muscular control, etc.) may perform well or badly in any individual, so intelligence is not a one dimensional measure, (even if it can be defined!)

Although I hold down a job in IT I consider myself below average intelligence, because I have very poor episodic memory, poor fine control in the hands and rather shoddy social skills, as a result I dont consider anyone "not worth my time" and I think making such a social mistake as to do so betrays stupidity :P

'I dont consider anyone "not worth my time" and I think making such a social mistake as to do so betrays stupidity'

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid.

D'A