| I am not as ignorant as I claimed to be. I still dispute whether any population is "normable" in any meaningful way. First, if one constructed a population that had no variations, or only two (say, 50% IQ of 100 and 50% IQ of 120), there is no curve. Thus, it has to be adequately random within the sample. Second, even assuming some randomness, there is a further question of performance deviation. That is, if there is a hundred point test and the norm is 95%, subnormal is 90%, and supernormal is 100%, is it meaningful to give the 95s a C, the 90s a D, and the 100 a B? Plus, there is no way to tell if some might have earned an A, because of the performance ceiling. And do we really want to say that 85% is failing? |
