If we exclude the 10 known fake votes in the poll of self-reported PATMA scores, 145 people have thus far obtained the following scores:

10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,5,5,5,4,4,3

If you copy and paste this data into this wonderful standard deviation calculator, you get a mean of 7.9 and an SD of 1.4

This distribution forms a gorgeous bell curve though it’s truncated because the test is too easy for about the top tenth of my readership:

On a scale where Nothern American whites average 100 with an standard deviation of 15, my readers are known to average about 126 with an SD around 16. Given this info, there are two ways to convert PATMA scores to IQ.

Method 1: Assign each PATMA score its normalized Z score based on its percentile rank among blog readers and multiply said Z score by 16 and add 126.

Method 2: Calculate the actual Z score of each PATMA score (among blog readers) using the observed mean and SD of PATMA scores (7.9 and 1.4 respectively) and multiply said Z score by 16 and add 126.

 PATMA score frequency among PP readers percentile rank among PP readers IQ (method 1) IQ (method 2) 10 19 93.45 150 150 9 34 75.17 137 139 8 37 50.69 126 127 7 33 26.6 116 116 6 16 9.66 105 104 5 3 3.08 96 93 4 2 1.38 91 81 3 1 0.69 87 70 2 0 59 1 0 47 0 0 36

Method 1 is clearly better. Are any of my readers intelligent enough to understand why?