You must log in or register to comment.
The bell curve part is fine. It’s the correlation between IQ and political orientation that is not. One of the biggest fallacies in life is that being smart automatically makes you a good person. It does not, and it also does not determine your political affiliation.
This! If intelligence were to make you make good choices, intelligence agencies would have no employees.
Most of intelligence is simply having less morals than the regular person.
We got this gal for possession of two joints, we’re now forcing her to go undercover in a crack den where she could, and did, get murdered.
We need to know how America built nukes. What if we just paid someone to give us the information?
We need to know America’s military innovations. What if we gave an incel a submissive asian GF?
We need a brain dead yes man for China. What if we gave him a submissive asian wife?
We need a mole in the CIA. What if we gave a guy a bunch of money?
Are you willing to force a random woman to spy for you, whore herself for her country? Are you willing to bribe randos for intel? There are creative ways but sex and money dominate that field.
Oh and I almost forgot. What if, for absolutely no reason, we paid hookers to sneak LSD and other drugs into their Johns and filmed it using taxpayer money?
What if we knew about an international pedophile ring, a comically compromised individual who will sell anyone out for a buck. What if we had a heart-attack gun and did nothing with it, you know like just let a comically evil person just live their life. Oh, the rich murder pedo is running for president? Nah, we have no obligation to do good or protect America.
For the most part, intelligence agencies are anything but. They are however, comically corrupt and ineffective.
I guess the curve here is iq is the vertical axis and political orientation is the horizontal axis.
It’s not even the good midwit format lol
What Anon felt like after posting that:
I am gonna take a guess and say that he thinks y-axis is the IQ and x-axis is some other random variable like it is a scatter plot except it isn’t.
isn’t the x axis just political orienration? Probably represented 0-1 or 0-100 0 being right and 1 left of course.
yeah in this case it is I was just writing anon’s general perspective of such plots
It is how someone with severe Dunning-Kruger thinks a Bell curve works, though.
Hey, they are in the top 99% of IQ scores.
I have a BA in performing arts and a MA in film, I have no idea what a Bell curve does.
Acknowledging that limitation means my previous statement doesn’t apply to you.
Well for the purposes of understanding this, you don’t need to. This post is stupid for so many other reasons. Like any graph your axis have to make sense. You’re plotting two pieces of data against each other so you need to know what those two pieces of data are and what their scales are.
But here they’re measuring IQ against political leanings. But that doesn’t work because political affiliation isn’t a scale any more then favourite colour is a scale. IQ is a scale, but the bottom axis is just nothing.
That’s a comment from someone who thinks the Dunning-Kruger effect is real and not the result of applying statistics wrongly
Fun fact, the findings were actually that the students thought they scored closer to the average than they actually did. As in, below average students did think they scored higher, but they still thought they scored below average.
Ah yes, as if regression to the mean is not a statistical phenomenon
While the meme is funny, IQ is a bullshit statistic.
A somewhat useful statistic.
If you speak english poorly, you’ll probably score low on an IQ test. If the test uses cultural motifs that you’re unfamiliar with, you’re more likely to score low on an IQ test. There’s many ways that IQ tests can give terrible results, so it’s not really that great at gathering reliable data about someone’s intelligince.
Not really, as we can dramatically increase iq with wealth.
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
For example I exfoliate with nickles because money reduces dumb dumb.
If true, then it would provide a way to redistribute wealth and measure the collective impact on IQ in a quantitative way, which would indeed make it a useful statistic
Let me know when we do wealth redistribution, lol.
Not really, it’s highly misleading and is used to justify bigotry.
Lots of things are used to justify bigotry. If you assume that subjectively negative attributes are a result of heritage rather than upbringing, you can use anything to justify bigotry.
For native English speakers, IQ largely correlates with general intellectual ability. People with higher IQs are generally more capable of understanding more complicated topics. It’s not a moral failing to have a low IQ, and there’s no reason to assume it’s genetically heritable or innate and immutable.
The problem is that IQ is very poor at actually identifying “general intellectual ability,” as “general intellectual ability” is not a linear spectrum but a highly complex and multi-faceted phenomena.
Yeah, it is a single one dimensional number that attempts to represent a multidimensional system. But also you can pretty well predict whether someone is capable of, like, standing trial or something if that single number is particularly low. It does correlate with a real phenomenon, if not perfectly.
When it comes to extreme outliers, it can maybe be useful for identifying that something is going on. It’s horrible as an actual metric though.
I’ve seen enough court cases where people did not have the reasoning capability to understand the situations they were in. Not bigotry, I do believe IQ can be increased and has a lot to do with upbringing, access to info, and opportunity.
But there are people who are unfortunately dumb. Not to mock them, but understand we need to come along the simple to assist them. Because it makes for a better society.
People can have less or greater cognitive ability and understanding. Trying to quantify it as IQ does, however, results in extremely misleading outcomes.
Yup. But it is not a horrid starting point. There is always a better everything.
Just because one finds fault does not mean that one can not also find use.
The problem is with how it’s used in general, which results in ableism and bigotry.
By a few. Don’t let a few bad apples ruin the bunch.
Sure, so what’re its uses?
If a younger kid has a lower IQ then figuring out what skills they are lacking in to help them improve. For an adult if their low IQ score comes from lack of reading comprehension then you can assist that. The tests can help target the areas of lack.
It is not a static part of you like your height or wingspan. It can increase and decrease because of a variety of factors.
Yes, absolutely. But how does an IQ test help with that? If someone has a low score, you then need to figure out what skill is lacking. That requires another test, no? How is assigning a point score helpful?
I don’t know of any education system that relies on IQ scores, yet they are usually set up to address shortcoming in skill or education. They do this via targeted tests and education programs. I don’t personally see what adding IQ would add.
Agreed, indicating deficiency requires more nuance than a single score. The only thing IQ by itself has been used to is to either “give up” on a person because low IQ or to falsely elevate a person for being “super smart” and breed obnoxious elitism. Mensa itching to tell folks with a high score on a single test that they are better than everyone else.
You can’t even tell what is wrong with the presumption that you can universalize childhood development, can you? “Target areas of lack…?” You mean like, any other fucking assessment that isn’t rooted in racist, sexist, and ableist notions of universal standards of knowledge or intelligence?
What a circular argument.
deleted by creator
Average right wing extremist I’ve met:
Has never read a book, much less the Bible, despite being a fervent Christian.
Average left wing extremist I’ve met:
Has actually read books about leftist theory, is willing to debate and have their mind changed. The march I joined a few months ago was basically full of Political Science students from the local university.
Tl;dr: the bell curve up top is accurate, minus the Wojacks.
In the United States at least I suspect that there won’t be many of the centralists because the way US politics works there isn’t really a place for them. It’s a two-party system so you kind of have to be one thing or the other.
deleted by creator
There is now a bigger shift where there are some very inept leftists whose dogma harms them (as the conservatives of the 70s/80s/90s).
As well many more well spoken conservatives in the last 10 years. However that benefit is starting to wane and they now have a brigade of social media rhetorist as intolerable as the left.
Could you cite something? I haven’t seen any of this, and I’m very curious to see where it’s coming from.
I see it on Reddit all the time. Leftists hurting their own arguments because they’re repeating things that are just flat out wrong. Most people barely pay attention to the news, have no idea how our government works, and don’t read books.
“My source is I made it the fuck up.”
Leftist dogma hurts business. Nobody ever died from having a 2 day weekend or from being forced to work less than 40 hours a week
People who agree with me; SMART
Disagree?: DUM DUMS!
i disagree, but I’m dumb, so it must be true.
What about the far-center?
The graph gains a z axis, in both directions you get an equally-incoherent far-center
thats just jregism
I’m far more bothered by the left being in the right and the right being on the left.
You think the fascists are ahead of the curve?
No one said your coordinate system needs to start on the left and point to the right. Whar if it started on the right and pointed to the left?
Gotta second this one, can start on any direction. But no one said this was a directional graph in the first place. Just a graph
There aren’t any labels on the axes, it could be plotting time spent gardening against number of bricks in their house for all we know.
Ah maybe, it’s a shit graph that isn’t logical in any sense anywho
Unless you are an Arab then it makes no sense to go from right to left. Especially for a graph without any axes.
Ofc I have seen it in graphs that want to manipulate people, putting timelines backward to appear that things going good.
Hillarious
Checks out, there is clearly more IQ under the middle of the graph.
The centrists took a detour around the part where the IQ is
Ah, this is the plot of the integral of IQ.
Edit: + c
Sad thing is that this is how most people view politics. This makes sprouts jump to the center when first engaging.
That centrists have middling intelligence, but are the most populous, and far left are impossibly the smartest above others but very rare? I don’t think most people view politics that way.
MAGA is moderate?
Everyone is moderate… in their own mind.
If you poll Democratic Party voters they will tell you they are moderate. If you poll them issue by issue most of them agree with Bernie Sanders, the most radical elected left-wing senator.
I think it stems from a profound lack of political education and decades of political propaganda. People think moderate means ‘sensible’ and radical means ‘unreasonable’.
Of course most people think of themselves as ‘sensible’ or ‘moderate’.
Being the most left wing in the US doesn’t make you even remotely extremist.
The US is very right-wing.
Being very left from a US PoV is actually moderate from other places’ PoV.
Everyone is moderate… in their own mind.
I’m not.
You’re all individuals, you have minds of your own!
I was using hyperbole to make a point. You’re not sensible?
I’m not a moderate either.
I’m not a moderate either.
Good. I hate those.
If you both don’t moderate yourself, and I mean fast, I’ll have to call the moderator in here!
Eeverything in moderation… Except for me
“Too much of a good thing can be wonderful” - Mae West
If you poll
Democratic Partyvoters they will tell you they are moderate. If you poll them issue by issue most of them agree with Bernie Sanders, the most radical elected left-wing senator.Let’s be real here. Back before MAGA was a thing every Republican I knew, and I lived in the deep south so I knew a lot, liked Bernie. If the elite hadn’t done everything in their power to kneecap him he would have swept in 2016 and we’d be living in a completely different world today.
Bernie would have won and Libertarians would receive gov money for their party and campaigns on the level of Rep/Dems.
My fav conspiracy is that Gary Johnson actually got enough of the votes to meet the criteria for the party to be solidified. But the powers that be couldn’t let that happen and scrubbed his % just below what was needed. THEN they changed the rules again that a 3rd party would have to get more and prolonged support.
My pet theory is that idiots subliminally think “centrist” means “central” as in “center of the universe” and it resonates for them. IME the stupidest people are also very self-centered.
To a “”““centrist””"? Yes.
No no, anon’s got a point
I mean they’re calling someone on the internet an imbecile. Easy win.
I mean, take away the wojaks and it’s accurate
My thoughts exactly.
