D
Deleted member 22063
Zephir
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2022
- Posts
- 2,687
- Reputation
- 4,309
i keep seeing this around and idk enough about statistics to articulate this properly but i knew immediately it was misleading in how it's often brought up
it's like viewing it at the macro level and assuming people's genetics incline them to be population average, so under that reasoning a 6'10 outlier procreating with a 6'5 woman, if they had enough children, these kids would average out to being like 5'10 (US avg)
in reality a person who is 6'10 isn't some massive outlier except on the macro level, it's relative to their individual genetics, the average height for someone with their genes is more likely to be like 6'6 rather than 5'10 so their kids if they had enough would be on average 6'6 assuming their partner had similar genes
it's the same in regard to IQ. a person with 150 IQ is only a massive outlier at the population level but relative to their genes their siblings would average out to like 130 and not 100 assuming they had enough of them and their kids would regress to 130 and not 100 assuming their partner was comparable.
if regression to the mean was a thing in the way people use it then animal husbandry would not exist.
it's like viewing it at the macro level and assuming people's genetics incline them to be population average, so under that reasoning a 6'10 outlier procreating with a 6'5 woman, if they had enough children, these kids would average out to being like 5'10 (US avg)
in reality a person who is 6'10 isn't some massive outlier except on the macro level, it's relative to their individual genetics, the average height for someone with their genes is more likely to be like 6'6 rather than 5'10 so their kids if they had enough would be on average 6'6 assuming their partner had similar genes
it's the same in regard to IQ. a person with 150 IQ is only a massive outlier at the population level but relative to their genes their siblings would average out to like 130 and not 100 assuming they had enough of them and their kids would regress to 130 and not 100 assuming their partner was comparable.
if regression to the mean was a thing in the way people use it then animal husbandry would not exist.
Last edited: