Idiots of the world puzzle me
I don't understand just how some people can be so stupid.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:23, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

And you came here for an answer?

( Larry Vest One day at a time, sweet Jesus, FFS., Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:23, Reply)

In that case, here's one for you...
Think of how fucking stupid the average person is...

Then remember that half the people are even more stupid than that.
(Colonel Santiago Introduced surprised kitty to the world., Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:25, Reply)

Actually, that would be true if you were to find the median level of stupidity
Far more than half the people can be stupider than average.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:27, Reply)

Admirably demonstrated

( Larry Vest One day at a time, sweet Jesus, FFS., Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:29, Reply)

Can't 'average' refer to any of
the mean, mode or median though? So you are quite correct in saying that half the population are below the median intelligence, but not necessarily the mean intelligence.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:35, Reply)

The Mean is the average
The other 2 are different things, no?
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:37, Reply)

No, there's more than one way to find an average.
The three generally accepted ones are Mean, Median, and mode.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:41, Reply)

But if you had 1, 19 and 20
The median is 19, while the generally accepted 'average' would be 13.3. Even if yours is the technical definition, I'll stick with mine.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:44, Reply)

Mean is the most commonly used average
but it's no more or less correct than the others.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:46, Reply)

I dispute your point
It's correct, but I still dispute it.

I've started arguing ONLINE, so can't be seen to go back on what I initially said now.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:52, Reply)

An average is only correct if you take it in context.
saying a mean is a median is wrong but as long as you specify what you're talking about they're all valid.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:56, Reply)

Yes
but three samples hardly constitute a statistically significant amount!
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:47, Reply)

Still counts as an average though.

(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:51, Reply)

But you wouldn't try and present it as a robust dataset

(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:53, Reply)

I don't think I've ever tried to present something as a robust dataset
It's not how I roll.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:54, Reply)

Ach, you've never lived then!
Robust datasets are where it's at.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:00, Reply)

No

(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:42, Reply)

To the point
I like it.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:42, Reply)

I was thinking that more than half are likely to be below the mean
Since outliers easily distort a mean value and we have some genius' that will drag the mean up, but actually I reckon with all the downs and spastics the mean is likely to be skewed downwards more than upwards.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:44, Reply)

No, with any large sample and high range.
Like every person, and say IQ, there'll be a normal distribution.
The median, and mean will be pretty close.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:48, Reply)

But just because you have a large sample
doesn't automatically mean it will be normally distributed.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:50, Reply)

Have you been studying the samples he's been leaving on your mum?

(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:52, Reply)

They aren't very large anymore
he's running out of fluids
(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:54, Reply)

Not necessily, but it's more common than you'd think.
especially with a sample size in the billions.

Plus IQ is based and benchmarked on average intelligence so it's designed to show a normal distribution.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:55, Reply)

It's also a massive load of bollocks
and doesn't test someone's intelligence, merely their ability to undertake IQ tests.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:56, Reply)

I was amused by someone on that Facebook that used the 'IQ Test' application
It said they had an IQ of over 200. The fact that they seemed to believe it proves that they don't in my opinion.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:58, Reply)

In the same way
that exams merely test one's ability to pass exams.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:59, Reply)

I see what your trying to say there but I'm going to blow a raspberry at you anyway
*RAZZZZZZ*
(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:02, Reply)

*wipes face of spittle*
*remembers the Two Ronnies*
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:02, Reply)

But what I'm saying is
there are people who don't speak english, or who aren't literate, but are intelligent, but they couldn't do an IQ test.

Also there are people who can get very high scores in IQ tests, but you wouldn't let them out by themselves as they have no common sense or ability to deal with the world despite being "intelligent"
(Bazongaloid, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:03, Reply)

Case in point, last IQ test I took I scored 135. Clearly IQ tests are fixed

( fuck shit up the best you never had, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:10, Reply)

fixed as in:
your score = your actual score + 100?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:34, Reply)

Get fucked smugface

( fuck shit up the best you never had, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:39, Reply)

*blows kisses*

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:44, Reply)

I was actually agreeing with you
I wasn't being sarcastic!
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:32, Reply)

Yes, it's shit, but it's the best thing we've got.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:59, Reply)

Does that mean
it's weighted then? There's no reason that intelligence (if it's possible to actually define some sort of linear intelligence scale) should necessarily be a normal distribution.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:58, Reply)

Would it not be some sort of Bell Curve-based distribution?
With most people towards the middle, and bell-ends on the outsides.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:00, Reply)

Actually
that's the best reasoning ever!

*likes*
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:01, Reply)

*sniggers*
Bell Curve. Hu Huhuh Huhhhu.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:05, Reply)

I was going to say pretty much exactly that

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:09, Reply)

Yep, IQ tests are weighted every so often to keep the average at 100
As in general people are getting more literate and intelligent, that means an IQ test now is harder than it was 20 years ago.

There are a few reasons/explanations for intelligence being normaly distributed but they're all based in evolutionary psychology, which I dropped as soon as I could.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 13:02, Reply)

And speaking of stupid people
have you seen this today:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8551528.stm

Is that not bloody ridiculous?

Not sure why it's in the middle east news, as it's a story from New Jersey, but there you go.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 5 Mar 2010, 12:37, Reply)