|
|
|
|
|
by smallnamespace
3049 days ago
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean—why would you assume there is a fat tail expect in the first place, and not something approximating a normal distribution? And even if you presume something like a Pareto distribution, the likelihood ratio between two distributions grow through the tails if their variance is not identical. edit: I see you bring up longevity, but I don't see why this is relevant to a discussion about variance in mathematical ability or intelligence? See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690... |
|
Granted, we can't measure very high ability very well due to sampling bias. I am simply saying even if there is a modest bias that's not enough it would have to be huge to account for these numbers.
So, I am bringing up something else with the kind of distribution we are talking about which has more accurate data. Women live ~ 5% longer both looking at the average lifespans and oldest examples which is a very significant difference. Yet, the oldest population has more men in it than you would think.
Edit: Math: 6 year longer lifespan + 50% risk of death per year = you would expect ~1% of top 100 oldest people to be men.