SjmarfAstonishing
Double_AI guess the education system is really struggling …
chemical_cutthroatYes, he is the Congressman for California’s 54th district (it only has 52, but was probably still 53 when he started the satire account).
HausWow, at least 13 years. I remember coming across him when reddit was young: https://www.prwatch.org/spin/2010/09/9423/washington-post-duped-fake-congressman
Washington Post Duped by Fake Congressman
A Washington Post writer took bait thrown out by a fake Congressional candidate with a Twitter account. Jonathan Capehart, who writes a political opinion column in the Post, responded to a Tweet by Republican Representative Jack Kimble of California's 54th Congressional District. Kimble wrote, "Check the budget, Bush fought 2 wars w/o costing taxpayers a dime." Capehart responded by describing Kimble's statement as a "stunning bit of fiscal ignorance" and analyzing the country's budget and fiscal problems.
tryagainoh thank christ
About 50% of people are below average
tetraodonThe bright side is that only one person is the worst
Imagine communicating who ranked first anually on a national level lmao.
Scooter411They do! It’s all part of the Hollywood liberal elite plot to tear down our country. Seriously, watch the credits on any movie - they always name the “best boy.”
LMAO I intendet to write last but somehow typed the opposite. But your point is very concerning, indeed.
🏳️⚧️ 新星 [she/they]The problem is that “first” and “last” have no meaning unless the conditions are established — first in intelligence or first in stupidity?
Lem Jukes“think of the average person. Now reme.ber that half of everyone is dumber than them”
The median person*
Don’t be mean.
youtu.be/AKN1Q5SjbeI?si=fmN7IuH6qLG6WMVC tell it to Carlin
George Carlin - Stupid people
This cracks me up because it is often said with such confidence, but it is just wrong.
If you have 10 people, 8 have an intelligence score of 1, 1 has a score of 5 and 1 has a score of 10. The average is 2.3 which means that 80% of the people are below average.
The median is the only thing that is going to guarantee 50%.
On a bell curve the average and mean are the same. Your example isn’t a bell curve. Many things will be a bell curve.
People who don’t know that average can be mean, median or mode depending on the context crack me up more.
Average is the mean, not median or mode. This doesn’t change on context. Average is always mean.
SnipingNinjaAverage is always mean.
Just like the average person
No. It’s not.
a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
Depending on the context, the most representative statistic to be taken as the average might be another measure of central tendency, such as the mid-range, median, or mode.
Yes, that statement is made under the assumption of large sample sizes (where the central limit theorem applies)
Big if true, bruh.
RozaŭtunoI’m going to do my own research (browsing Facebook while I take a shit)
Refusing to invest in education makes it worse!? shocked Pikachu
SotuandusoRead it again.
Hey, don’t be too hard on them, they proved their own point with that take
Small head: He’s proving his point really well.
Big head: He’s proving his point really well.
Big head: He’s proving his point really well.
Technically, if everyone gets the full mark, no one will be in the bottom quartile.
I’m overthinking this.
If everyone gets the full mark, it’s not a random variable anymore, you would have a collapse of the probability distribution, that would tend to a Dirac delta function. In this case, the very definition of “quartiles” would fail. So, yeah, there would be no one there because it wouldn’t exist.
ElderWendigoAlso, everyone would be in the bottom quartile. The definitions fall apart when you collapse the probability function.
FoxNormal if true
Dang there’s layers to this one
What a gauss!
moosetwin100% of people who have committed a murder have drunk DiHydrogen Monoxide within the last two weeks, do you feel safe giving this to your children?
It’s toxic and can lead to DEATH if inhaled! Big if true!
So can dioxide, in fact oxide is responsible for so many processes which lead to “break down” of many molecules that it’s got a specific term oxidation, methinks dihydrogen monooxide is also bad because of that oxide thing.
solidsnake2085Are memes just straight screenshots of Twitter now?
GrayoxI mean I’ll be the first to admit agenda posting, but at least I be posting memes…
Agenda posting? What is this, PCM?
Think about how dumb the average person is. And then remember that half of them are dumber than that!
Carlin was a prophet
But he was shit at statistics. He mixes up median and mean.
imaqtpieStatistically, IQ follows a standard distribution, so the median and mean should be relatively close.
And you lose most of the audience when discussing median, I’m guessing there was a conscious choice to sacrifice some accuracy for comedic value
And there’s a certain brilliance to that choice in that everyone, even if they don’t fully understand the statement and it’s implications, everyone always laughs.
He tricked the stupid half into laughing at their own stupidity.
I think a lot of the time people see stupidity in differences of values and limited visibility of the context the decision was made. I think this is why so many people think so many people are stupid. ‘Stupid people’ make choices that the observer sees as having ‘poor results’.
Like when a lane ends on the highway:
– People are stupid (and selfish) for not letting cars in when their lane ends (dangerous)
–People are stupid (and selfish) for waiting until the last minute to move over (dangerous)
– People are stupid for moving over well before their lane ends (missed opportunity to get ahead)
– people are stupid for being in either of those lanes that merge when there is a third lane that doesn’t merge… (short sighted and dangerous) (no I won’t let them in! They should have thought ahead)
–People are stupid (and selfish) for driving cars (dangerous, climate change)
–People are stupid for thinking it’s reasonable to live without a car (missed opportunity to get ahead)
Not me though, I consider everything from all sides all the time no matter what. Anyone that doesn’t invest their time like this to make decisions is… stupid. (/s)
Yes but I don’t know who the average person is, maybe I know a lot of dumber than average people!
If ever a reliable method for measuring actual intelligence rather than IQ is invented I imagine we’ll be seeing a somewhat lumpier graph than that smooth mean distribution curve.
No, this is how a graph showing quartiles will always look because quartiles, by definition, always include a fixed percentage of the studied population under them.
In this case the lower quartile will always have 25% of the population under it, 50% under the second quartile, and 75% under the third quartile.
Quartiles break a population into 4 equal portions.
While that’s true, the actual empirical curve does not have to be smooth. Or gaussian.
I know what this graph is, I was talking about a graph that actually showed something useful. If you’ve got a couple of hours to learn something useful then you could do worse than to look at this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo
The Bell Curve
I would like to never hear about The Bell Curve ever again.Contact:https://twitter.com/shaun_vidshttps://www.patreon.com/shaunfromyoutube Section time codes:...
Spendrill is not misunderstanding the OP. He’s just saying that if intelligence could be measured by a better metric, then distribution of that metric among the population would not look as smooth as the one in the OP.
Not if you’re breaking the data into quartiles. Holy shit, do you really think the curve will be any different? Really? All that will happen is that some people will move around in the distribution. And the smoothing does not at all relate to how intelligence is measured but rather how it’s reported - in this graph.
I think you’re talking past each other — you’re talking about the box plot and they’re talking about the histogram
Yes I think it’s very possible that if you were to graph a population’s Intelligence using a some empirical score, then it has a high probability to NOT look exactly like a normal distribution.
For example, let’s say that there was some score called “intelligence score” that scores people’s intelligence from 0-100. Do you think that if you were to graph a given population’s “intelligence score” that it would be EXACTLY centered around 50 in a Normal distribution? I think that’s unlikely. It’s more likely that there would be local maximums or minimums, or various skews in the graph. There could be a small peak at score 75, or a trough at 85. There could be all sorts of distributions. And guess what? Given this hypothetical distribution, you could STILL draw lines somewhere on the graph showing quartiles.
In fact, all kinds of distributions can be broken into quartiles, not just normal distributions.
Is there a c/woosh
Is there a c/IGotTheJokeJustWantedToMakeAGeneralPointAboutTheArtificialityOfIntelligenceQuotients
I swear if all the snide little pricks come over from reddit too I am going to have to abandon Lemmy also.
Lol. People read your comment and think you didn’t understand the original post. When in reality they are the ones who didn’t understand your comment.
I’m sure Lemmy wasn’t like this a month ago. What I was enjoying is that someone would make a post and then you could start a conversation that wasn’t strictly on topic just have an interesting talk about the general subject.