Anon is a centrist
(midwest.social)
RmDebArc_5
Lefty MemesI 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.
It is how someone with severe Dunning-Kruger thinks a Bell curve works, though.
I have a BA in performing arts and a MA in film, I have no idea what a Bell curve does.
Hey, they are in the top 99% of IQ scores.
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.
While the meme is funny, IQ is a bullshit statistic.
A somewhat useful statistic.
Not really, as we can dramatically increase iq with wealth.
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.
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.
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.
People who agree with me; SMART
Disagree?: DUM DUMS!
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.
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.
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
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.
I would swap the most left two. It is smart to challenge also the communist concepts instead of blind regurgitation as their could be better alternatives.
> hey fuck off
> looks around
> centrally planned economy
> looks away
What about the far-center?
The graph gains a z axis, in both directions you get an equally-incoherent far-center
thats just jregism
Sad thing is that this is how most people view politics. This makes sprouts jump to the center when first engaging.
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.
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
You know he got a point
Being high iq is dumb
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
I mean, take away the wojaks and it's accurate
My thoughts exactly.
No no, anon's got a point
I mean they’re calling someone on the internet an imbecile. Easy win.
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'.
Everyone is moderate… in their own mind.
I'm not.
You're all individuals, you have minds of your own!
Eeverything in moderation... Except for me
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful" - Mae West
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!
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.
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.
The right side of the graph is showing my imposter syndrome. The more I read the more I feel like I know nothing. Liberal me and SocDem me were a lot happier and definitely felt like they understood everything more.
I applaud you for honest. I share in your sentiment.
I wake up
🔄
There is another long book referencing long books
Opium and the dunning-kruger effect will do that.
Do you currently feel like they understood everything more?
Oh, no, I wrote that poorly. I think past me definitely felt like I understood things more at the time compared to now. A blissful ignorance.
So now you can see the damage. What to do about it? Engage, or find better drugs?
All policies and political structures should be tested to see their influence on HDI, GDPPP, and environmental impact. Whatever improves people's lives should be kept and whatever doesn't should be ignored. Why have beliefs when we can have knowledge.
There's a country that appoints leaders for 3-5 years, and then measures stuff like human health, gdp, poverty, and uses this information to determine where to assign them next, if at all.
That's cool, who is it? The idea is this would be applied to everything, that is we don't need to believe socialism or capitalism or communism is a good or bad idea, we can test it and get measurable proof.
Because humans are storytellers, not scientist by nature. Better (and not necessary for plebeians) story, bigger impact. For example religions or money have diminished our freedom-loving characteristics to almost none-existence, but they sure are good concepts to knit us together to form a society.
why have beliefs when we can have knowledge
Do you know how hard people are to manipulate once they have knowledge? We can't go around informing people, it would be anarchy!
Anon failed successfully
Most people are centrist, most people are average iq. It checks out
If most people were centrist, the DNC strategy of courting the center above all else would have worked and they'd have an unbreakable supermajority.
Most people are decidedly not centrist, at least not in modern developed countries with their famously polarised politics.
I mean there definitely could be a chart that looks like this. But I doubt it does in this case. I'm almost curious to see what it would look like but I don't have that much respect for IQ as a measure of anything meaningful anyway. But my guess is there's probably not much difference between IQ across the political spectrum. Perhaps slightly increasing as you move left due to more educated people leaning left, and I would expect there would be some association between IQ and education.
For an example of something that looks like a normal distribution but really isn't:
Both axis's are not labelled so the graph could work, it is just bad design!
IQ is a racist bullshit measure invented to exclude black people from the military and education. It's meaningless in all cases.
Yeah that's kind of what I was referring to.
Centrist is maga without red hat.
That's not a bell curve, just a super accurate graph.
Yeah super accurate, centrists are famous for supporting intelligent policies such as giving tax breaks to the rich, oppressing minorities, fighting expensive wars abroad and destroying the environment.
Bell curve produced by the standardization of paper testing... Congrats on measuring for "good test takers". Operating well for office authorities and score approval.
...but that's not the same as intelligence. So it's already bullshit before you overlay the ideological stuff on top.
