[osigurdson]

I think the mistake you are making is transforming the distribution to another one and drawing conclusions from that. For instance, the win rate in the shelf reaching game becomes a Dirac delta function at the right tail of the normal distribution.

[aydyn]

I think either you are not reading my post or I'm not explaining myself well.

What Ive been trying to do is make the argument why an exponential-like distribution is a more natural representation of intelligence and therefore what the "underlying distribution" looks like.

Clearly, a delta function against a shelf game is not a natural or useful representation of height so I think that counterpoint to your argument is obvious.

According to you, what is the underlying distribution of intelligence and why?

[osigurdson]

>> According to you, what is the underlying distribution of intelligence and why

I think intelligence is normally distributed, like all other human characteristics. When transformed to win rates based on intelligence that becomes a different distribution. Your argument is centered on the 2nd distribution.

[aydyn]

> I think intelligence is normally distributed, like all other human characteristics.

My question was why do you say it is normally distributed? where is your evidence?

> When transformed to win rates based on intelligence that becomes a different distribution.

You dont have to look at just competition, but other mental skills too. Most any application of intelligence is not normally dostributed. Why is this fact not a natural reflection of the underlying distribution?

I am struggling to see any support for your position. Help me out.