Y'see, TJ, there's such a thing as the
normal distribution. The bell curve. Ol' Gaussie.
This forum has roundabout 3,750 users. That's big enough to assume the normal distribution applies.
So, pick a measure of intelligence. IQ is rubbish, don't pick that one.
In fact, forget real measures of intelligence and let's just go with a nebulous concept of intelligence. There's going to be a midpoint, a mean - the average intelligence of the forums. This will hold true whatever measure of intelligence you pick; be it IQ, reverse digit span, basic oral hygeine...
Now, central limit theorem tells us that 95% of the forum's users will be within 1.96 standard deviations from the mean. Doesn't matter how big the standard deviation is. Also, wash your mind out - there's nothing dirty about a standard deviation.
It's generally agreed by people with jobs and awards and things that 1.96 standard deviations is the distance you got to be from the mean to be classed as "significantly different" therefrom.
It therefore follows that 2.5% of users are significantly stupider than average, and 2.5% are significantly smarter.
In other words, a randomly-selected user has a 1 in 40 chance of being smarter than the average kiwi.
Maybe Null will tell us how many users have posted in this thread, maybe he won't. Anyway, the empirical odds are that maybe 1 or 2 are likely to be smarter than average. Obviously the more unique users have posted here, the more likely it is we'll catch a brainbox.
Of course there are then possible confounding factors. Maybe this thread somehow attracts more intelligent posters than the average forum user. Or slower-witted ones.
Anyway, we come to the conclusion:
Straight off the bat, TJ,
there's 40-1 odds against you being smarter-than-average. That's just bald statistics, grinning at you. The onus is therefore on you to prove how smart you are.
I'm still waiting on that evidence.