> Your statement might be true if intelligence was say, uniformly distributed.

> But intelligence (like a lot of natural phenomena) is closer to a normal distribution.

This is a baffling comment - uniform distributions and normal distributions do not differ in any way that is relevant to this topic. What were you trying to say? Why did you leave this comment?

You can split normally-distributed populations into 2 halves - "average" may also refer to median. Also, by definition, half the population has an IQ[1] less than 100 (which is the mean). Gp is correct - most people are not as "smart as you are" if you are above average (IQ).

Do you know the term 'histogram'? Think about three pillars superimposed on the image you can see in the Wikipedia link - people around the middle, people below the middle group, people above the middle group. Most people are in the middle group. Most people are about as smart as you. A smaller number people are less smart and a smaller number are more smart. Get it?

> Most people are about as smart as you.

You're introducing fuzzy language/approximations, which I was avoiding: one can say - in absolute terms - that any person above the median is smarter than most of the population.

An IQ band of 85 to 115 has 68% of the population, but are those at the lower end "as smart" as the upper end? The accuracy of your statement depends entirely on how wide your histogram bands are.

> You can split normally-distributed populations into 2 halves - "average" may also refer to median.

In a normal distribution, "average" must always also refer to median; they are always the same value.

> In a normal distribution, "average" must always also refer to median; they are always the same value.

...and mode too! I am well aware of the characteristics of a normal distribution (this is HN after all). I was contrasting parents insinuation that gp's assertion on halving only works with uniform distributions