this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
715 points (95.8% liked)

Political Memes

5348 readers
2648 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Your IQ is really only a test of your critical problem solving ability. Its not a good indicator of overall intellect.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I'm not smart. If 100 is average, how is 79 in the top 91.9%?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

if an IQ of 100 is average, and you had an IQ of 100, you could say that you're smarter than 50% of people, right? Let's call those people (the ones you're smarter than) group A. It also means that you're in a group "top 50% of smart people", which is just all the people smarter than those in group A. We'll call it group B. Now, let's say your IQ is 79. That means that now you're only smarter than 8.1% (based on the picture) of people. Group A is much smaller because there are far fewer people stupid enough to be stupider than you. On the other hand, you're in group B, which consists of the 91.9% of people who are smarter than group A; I.e. almost everyone.

Of course, it's important to remember that IQ tests are not considered by everyone to be fair assessments of real intelligence, but hopefully the example above helps explain what the statistics in the post actually mean.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

An IQ distribution is also an average based on people who could take such a test, right? The lowest meaningful score would be around 70, as going down further means more and more severe mental disabilities. At some point a person wouldn't even be able to fully take such a test.

Which means dropping lower than a typical average score is putting a person at the lowest level while still being able to normally function in society.

That's my take on it anyway, it's not as equal of a curve as it's usually made out to be, and it's not based on an overall population group.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

If you come in 91st place, you are still in the top 91.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which is better - being in the top 1% or the top 99%?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If being in the top 1% is so good then how come 99% of Americans choose to be in the 99%?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The “smarter than” measurement, while vague, suggests the person is not has smart as most everyone else. Say you have 100 people in a room, then this guy is smarter than only 8. So that leaves about 91 other people who are smarter than him.

So I’m not sure how this person could also be considered in the top 91.9% of anything. At least not without having more information.

Here is a discussion about percentages and percentiles that may be of help.

I could be wrong; I’m not the best of math. The above is my understanding (or lack thereof).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Assuming it's supposed to indicate the 91% of people are of his intelligence or higher, which is a pretty dumb (as a metric and level of intelligence).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

91.9% of people have an IQ of at least his level.

Being in the top 92% isn't saying anything good about you - it only means that you're guaranteed to have a score higher than at least 8% of the people

So in a group of 100 people, this guy would have a better score than 8 of them. Basically - he saw the 91.9% as "I'm in the top 8%" but really he had it backwards.

If 100 IQ is average, you could have 50 people with a 40 IQ and another 150 people with a 120 IQ. Those would average to 100. Adding one extra person with a 79 IQ would make that person smarter than 50 people, but still below the average of 100 within the group of 200 people, for example. That 79 IQ would be in the top 75% of the group, but still below the average. Just depends how the group is distributed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

They're in the top 91.9%, but they're in the 8.9th not in the 91.9th percentile. Having a high percentage is bad (you're stupider than that many people) but being in a high percentile is good (you're smarter than that many people).

I'm thinking a lot of people confuse those two concepts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

It makes more sense when they're giving results that would be under 50%, which is why it's phrased that way: "top 40%", etc. I think they expected to always be giving numbers under 50 since above average people might be more likely to take an IQ test.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Last one of those i took planted me at 129. Shows how accurate they are especially if they are skewed toward a known strength you possess

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've seen people take online IQ tests and assert they've got an IQ in the 200-300 range. shrug This never seems to correlate with anything material. Like, I don't see these people doing particularly well in school or at the office. They certainly aren't climbing the ranks of management or killing it in the stock market.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but when they took the Harry Potter sorting quiz, it told them they were a Ravenclaw, so you know, their IQ is easily 300+.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dystopian Harry Potter is an underdeveloped genre. The closest we've got is The Magicians, which admittedly has a great TV adaptation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I actually really loved that show, they did so well!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›