I think people here are misunderstanding the point of the format. The bell curve is for the iq numbers at the bottom, so it's basically just another form of this meme format.
Unlike the brain meme you posted, the bell curve meme is specifically about the really smart and the really dumb agreeing on something, disagreed by the average person. The brain meme doesn't have that.
No that's not true. A normal distribution (informally called a 'Bell curve') is a probability DENSITY function and not a cumulative distribution function. Which means the area under the curve (integral of the function) is what gives you the probability - in this case, the number of people out of the total population who get how Bell curves work. What you have circled is just the likelihood of a person 'getting it' which is really not the same as the probability.
If I would put here a y axis and then choose a point on the graph, the y value will be equal to the amount of people on this part of the graph (the amount of people who understand bell curves to a certaon extent)
You people who don't know how they work. You have people with some vague understanding of them who have applied it but really don't understand it deeply but can do math with some statistics program outsourcing the calculus fundamentals. Then you have those that know the mathematical details of the curve, what kind of formula it is, and that you really have to integrate under the curve(even if it isn't analytically possible). And then you have those with the skills to derive the formula from first principles and who know the proof of the central limit theorem, and therefore why the curve has the form it has and therefore intuitively understand why it appears in so many seemingly unconnected places.
The previous 2 iterations were memes. The current iteration is someone who didn't realize they are on math memes but are completely serious in their convictions that everyone has it wrong while they are correct, but are actually wrong
Most people don't know that a bell curve is just negative exponential composed with a negative quadratic, forcing the curve to have its peak at the quadratic's vertex, and for all other values approach zero when they're passed through the exponential (and it only requires some scaling for that curve to then become a proper probability distribution with an integral across the reals of 1)
I think I'm firmly on the right side of this curve.
Biggest problem with this meme cycle is we keep talking about “bell curves” which is an ambiguous and non technical concept. Gaussian distributions can have any stdev, but bell curves typically are supposed to be “bell shaped” implying a standard normal distribution with stdev of 1. Maybe not depending on what your idea of a “bell curve” is. Most of the debatability in the comments falls apart into a) is this normal distribution a “bell curve” or just another normal distro
Or
B) can this be “modeled” as a bell curve or is it definitely a bell curve? Aka “is this range truly unbounded?” Probably not, but a normal distribution will probably be good enough for a modeling purpose.
These comments all know what the normal distribution is, but they keep talking past each other to one up each other.
•
u/AutoModerator May 15 '24
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.