Funny

6827 readers

359 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

1439

Yeah, about that… (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago by hydroptic@sopuli.xyz to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.

Assuming that intelligence (and I don't mean IQ or any other psychometric "proxy" for intelligence, but intelligence as an abstract trait) is normally distributed like most other traits, 50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The "general population" is not smart by any definition.

And anyone trying to claim that intelligence as a concept is completely socially constructed and that there is no difference in intelligence between people, or tries to conflate IQ etc psychometric measures and intelligence, can shove it up their ass.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't even commenting on IQ, just the general population's interest in even trying to understand new things.

A lot of otherwise smart people I know just can't get past the indoctrination of bigotry from their youth that is reinforced by conservative media.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh I know you weren't, it was just a disclaimer because a lot of people seem to think that any references to intelligence specifically mean IQ and go into frankly incredibly tedious tirades on IQ's faults

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The "general population" is not smart by any definition.

What if "smart" begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th? What if "gifted" is anything above the 50th percentile?

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th?

I didn't mean that the 50th is where "smart" begins, just that 50% are going to be below average in intelligence.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

intelligence as an abstract trait

I read something about this two days ago, it's called "g factor" or something. And yes, it follows a normal distribution.

Apparently, it's very similar in animals than it is in humans.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago

The g factor is actually a psychometric construct to an extent, and its distribution isn't known but it's generally thought that it's probably normally distributed. Basically the g factor just summarizes how results on a bunch of different cognitive tasks tend to correlate.