By definition, the general public is of below-average IQ, whether they shop at Wal-Mart or not.
This is because very high IQ scores are significantly less common than very low IQ scores, so the low scores drag the average down faster than the high scores can drag it up.[/quote]
This isn’t exactly correct.
Generally, IQ tests are standardized such that a score of 100 is “average”. By scoring above 100, you are scoring as better than average, and by scoring less than 100, you are scoring less than average.
They utilize a bell curve to normalize the scoring, and use standard deviations to break it down into simpler categories (genius, mentally retarded, etc).
Typically, I think bell curves are worthless as often as not, but from what I’ve read, IQ ratings do generally follow the curve fairly closely.
By definition, approximately one half of the population will be above average, and one half of the population will be below average.
Of course, there are a number of different supposedly “official” IQ tests out there, and many of them are entirely worthless. And even if you wish to place stock in them, IQ tests can only measure a very limited range of “intelligence”, and often bears very little association with people’s performance in life.
Oh, yeah, and the way IQ test scores are counted has changed, too. So if you took the test 20 years ago, and took it again today, you could answer the exact same questions the exact same way, and get a different score. Makes sense, eh?