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'.
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.
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.
The bell curve is accurate with the way it is drawn but that is probably not what the author intended because the author is on the left side with the right-wing extremists that don't understand how a bell curve works.
In the United States at least I suspect that there won't be many of the centralists because the way US politics works there isn't really a place for them. It's a two-party system so you kind of have to be one thing or the other.
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.
Think of the woke tone policing thing, 10 years ago "leftists" got upset if you used the wrong words while ignoring the actual bad things that were happening.
If you said "Trump is a fucking retard" the left goes "ok" the stupid-left goes "you can't say that word! You're as bad as Trump because you said that word!"
lmao, I think it is even more delusional to presume that there's people younger than 20 on Lemmy. I've taught people who don't even remember Obama's presidency.
The problem is -- and maybe you are too young to remember this -- people have always just made shit up on the internet. I don't even know where the fuck you're going to find people who don't take issue with actual slurs besides chud and lib sites, Lemmy included, which are hardly universally"leftist" spaces (and it seems like you don't know the difference between a "leftist" or "liberal"). Who knows what fucking bots you're running into or what algos have pushed into your engagement based on your activity, I can certainly say I haven't seen any of the shit you're describing, even on actual leftist communities. You think "scumbag left" is what, new? You seriously think white, cishet men haven't used slurs this whole goddamn while even if they did claim to be socialists?
So, do you have a source? A link? Any actual evidence that what you're saying is in any way emblematic of some sort of popular discourse or cultural trend? Or did you make it the fuck up?
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.
Well for the purposes of understanding this, you don't need to. This post is stupid for so many other reasons. Like any graph your axis have to make sense. You're plotting two pieces of data against each other so you need to know what those two pieces of data are and what their scales are.
But here they're measuring IQ against political leanings. But that doesn't work because political affiliation isn't a scale any more then favourite colour is a scale. IQ is a scale, but the bottom axis is just nothing.
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.
The bell curve part is fine. It's the correlation between IQ and political orientation that is not. One of the biggest fallacies in life is that being smart automatically makes you a good person. It does not, and it also does not determine your political affiliation.
Most of intelligence is simply having less morals than the regular person.
We got this gal for possession of two joints, we're now forcing her to go undercover in a crack den where she could, and did, get murdered.
We need to know how America built nukes. What if we just paid someone to give us the information?
We need to know America's military innovations. What if we gave an incel a submissive asian GF?
We need a brain dead yes man for China. What if we gave him a submissive asian wife?
We need a mole in the CIA. What if we gave a guy a bunch of money?
Are you willing to force a random woman to spy for you, whore herself for her country? Are you willing to bribe randos for intel? There are creative ways but sex and money dominate that field.
Oh and I almost forgot. What if, for absolutely no reason, we paid hookers to sneak LSD and other drugs into their Johns and filmed it using taxpayer money?
What if we knew about an international pedophile ring, a comically compromised individual who will sell anyone out for a buck. What if we had a heart-attack gun and did nothing with it, you know like just let a comically evil person just live their life. Oh, the rich murder pedo is running for president? Nah, we have no obligation to do good or protect America.
For the most part, intelligence agencies are anything but. They are however, comically corrupt and ineffective.
Yes and no. My first thought of intelligence agencies was in the direction of the NSA and its brothers and sisters. For the CIA part i am fully with you. Just a bunch of amoral leg breakers. But the NSA attacks on cryptography algorithms and the predictability of random generators do indeed need some great minds.
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.
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.
Yeah, it is a single one dimensional number that attempts to represent a multidimensional system. But also you can pretty well predict whether someone is capable of, like, standing trial or something if that single number is particularly low. It does correlate with a real phenomenon, if not perfectly.
If true, then it would provide a way to redistribute wealth and measure the collective impact on IQ in a quantitative way, which would indeed make it a useful statistic
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.
You can't even tell what is wrong with the presumption that you can universalize childhood development, can you? "Target areas of lack...?" You mean like, any other fucking assessment that isn't rooted in racist, sexist, and ableist notions of universal standards of knowledge or intelligence?
If you speak english poorly, you'll probably score low on an IQ test. If the test uses cultural motifs that you're unfamiliar with, you're more likely to score low on an IQ test. There's many ways that IQ tests can give terrible results, so it's not really that great at gathering reliable data about someone's intelligince.
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.
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.
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.
That centrists have middling intelligence, but are the most populous, and far left are impossibly the smartest above others but very rare? I don't think most people view politics that way.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
119 Comments
FancyPantsFIRE@lemmy.world · 106 pts · 56d
Checks out, there is clearly more IQ under the middle of the graph.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 16 pts · 56d
Ah, this is the plot of the integral of IQ.
Edit: + c
bampop@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 56d
The centrists took a detour around the part where the IQ is
therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 59 pts · 56d
MAGA is moderate?
SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works · 47 pts · 56d
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'.
therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 27 pts · 56d
I'm not.
SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 56d
I was using hyperbole to make a point. You're not sensible?
I'm not a moderate either.
kingofras@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 56d
If you both don’t moderate yourself, and I mean fast, I’ll have to call the moderator in here!
therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 56d
Good. I hate those.
tdawg@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 56d
Eeverything in moderation... Except for me
therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 56d
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful" - Mae West
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 56d
You're all individuals, you have minds of your own!
alekwithak@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 56d
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.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -2 pts · 56d
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.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 55d
Being the most left wing in the US doesn't make you even remotely extremist.
The US is very right-wing.
Being very left from a US PoV is actually moderate from other places' PoV.
nightofmichelinstars@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 56d
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.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 8 pts · 56d
To a """"centrist"""? Yes.
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 47 pts · 56d
I'm far more bothered by the left being in the right and the right being on the left.
nuko147@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 56d
You think the fascists are ahead of the curve?
wuphysics87@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 56d
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?
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 56d
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
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 56d
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.
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 55d
Ah maybe, it’s a shit graph that isn’t logical in any sense anywho
nuko147@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 56d
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.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -1 pts · 56d
Hillarious
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 37 pts · 56d
No no, anon's got a point
kingofras@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 56d
I mean they’re calling someone on the internet an imbecile. Easy win.
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 56d
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.
WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 55d
The bell curve is accurate with the way it is drawn but that is probably not what the author intended because the author is on the left side with the right-wing extremists that don't understand how a bell curve works.
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 54d
Oh yeah, totally agree.
starman2112@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 56d
echodot@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 55d
In the United States at least I suspect that there won't be many of the centralists because the way US politics works there isn't really a place for them. It's a two-party system so you kind of have to be one thing or the other.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -4 pts · 56d
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.
orioler25@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 56d
Could you cite something? I haven't seen any of this, and I'm very curious to see where it's coming from.
WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 54d
Think of the woke tone policing thing, 10 years ago "leftists" got upset if you used the wrong words while ignoring the actual bad things that were happening.
If you said "Trump is a fucking retard" the left goes "ok" the stupid-left goes "you can't say that word! You're as bad as Trump because you said that word!"
orioler25@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 54d
"My source is I made it the fuck up."
WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 54d
I suppose people younger than 20 didn't experience it.
orioler25@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 54d
lmao, I think it is even more delusional to presume that there's people younger than 20 on Lemmy. I've taught people who don't even remember Obama's presidency.
The problem is -- and maybe you are too young to remember this -- people have always just made shit up on the internet. I don't even know where the fuck you're going to find people who don't take issue with actual slurs besides chud and lib sites, Lemmy included, which are hardly universally"leftist" spaces (and it seems like you don't know the difference between a "leftist" or "liberal"). Who knows what fucking bots you're running into or what algos have pushed into your engagement based on your activity, I can certainly say I haven't seen any of the shit you're describing, even on actual leftist communities. You think "scumbag left" is what, new? You seriously think white, cishet men haven't used slurs this whole goddamn while even if they did claim to be socialists?
So, do you have a source? A link? Any actual evidence that what you're saying is in any way emblematic of some sort of popular discourse or cultural trend? Or did you make it the fuck up?
dreamkeeper@literature.cafe · 0 pts · 56d
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.
orioler25@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 55d
"My source is I made it the fuck up."
jnod4@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 56d
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
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 56d
It is how someone with severe Dunning-Kruger thinks a Bell curve works, though.
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 56d
Hey, they are in the top 99% of IQ scores.
musubibreakfast@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 56d
I have a BA in performing arts and a MA in film, I have no idea what a Bell curve does.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 55d
Acknowledging that limitation means my previous statement doesn't apply to you.
echodot@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 55d
Well for the purposes of understanding this, you don't need to. This post is stupid for so many other reasons. Like any graph your axis have to make sense. You're plotting two pieces of data against each other so you need to know what those two pieces of data are and what their scales are.
But here they're measuring IQ against political leanings. But that doesn't work because political affiliation isn't a scale any more then favourite colour is a scale. IQ is a scale, but the bottom axis is just nothing.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 56d
That's a comment from someone who thinks the Dunning-Kruger effect is real and not the result of applying statistics wrongly
Saledovil@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 56d
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.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 55d
Ah yes, as if regression to the mean is not a statistical phenomenon
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 23 pts · 55d
The bell curve part is fine. It's the correlation between IQ and political orientation that is not. One of the biggest fallacies in life is that being smart automatically makes you a good person. It does not, and it also does not determine your political affiliation.
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 55d
h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 55d
This! If intelligence were to make you make good choices, intelligence agencies would have no employees.
Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 55d
Most of intelligence is simply having less morals than the regular person.
We got this gal for possession of two joints, we're now forcing her to go undercover in a crack den where she could, and did, get murdered.
We need to know how America built nukes. What if we just paid someone to give us the information?
We need to know America's military innovations. What if we gave an incel a submissive asian GF?
We need a brain dead yes man for China. What if we gave him a submissive asian wife?
We need a mole in the CIA. What if we gave a guy a bunch of money?
Are you willing to force a random woman to spy for you, whore herself for her country? Are you willing to bribe randos for intel? There are creative ways but sex and money dominate that field.
Oh and I almost forgot. What if, for absolutely no reason, we paid hookers to sneak LSD and other drugs into their Johns and filmed it using taxpayer money?
What if we knew about an international pedophile ring, a comically compromised individual who will sell anyone out for a buck. What if we had a heart-attack gun and did nothing with it, you know like just let a comically evil person just live their life. Oh, the rich murder pedo is running for president? Nah, we have no obligation to do good or protect America.
For the most part, intelligence agencies are anything but. They are however, comically corrupt and ineffective.
h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 55d
Yes and no. My first thought of intelligence agencies was in the direction of the NSA and its brothers and sisters. For the CIA part i am fully with you. Just a bunch of amoral leg breakers. But the NSA attacks on cryptography algorithms and the predictability of random generators do indeed need some great minds.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 23 pts · 56d
While the meme is funny, IQ is a bullshit statistic.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -7 pts · 56d
A somewhat useful statistic.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 56d
Not really, it's highly misleading and is used to justify bigotry.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · 1 pts · 56d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 56d
People can have less or greater cognitive ability and understanding. Trying to quantify it as IQ does, however, results in extremely misleading outcomes.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · 0 pts · 56d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 56d
The problem is with how it's used in general, which results in ableism and bigotry.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -3 pts · 56d
By a few. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the bunch.
starman2112@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 56d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 56d
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.
starman2112@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 55d
Yeah, it is a single one dimensional number that attempts to represent a multidimensional system. But also you can pretty well predict whether someone is capable of, like, standing trial or something if that single number is particularly low. It does correlate with a real phenomenon, if not perfectly.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 55d
When it comes to extreme outliers, it can maybe be useful for identifying that something is going on. It's horrible as an actual metric though.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 56d
Not really, as we can dramatically increase iq with wealth.
chortle_tortle@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 55d
These are not mutually exclusive statements.
For example I exfoliate with nickles because money reduces dumb dumb.
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 55d
If true, then it would provide a way to redistribute wealth and measure the collective impact on IQ in a quantitative way, which would indeed make it a useful statistic
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 55d
Let me know when we do wealth redistribution, lol.
orioler25@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 56d
Sure, so what're its uses?
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -3 pts · 56d
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.
draco_aeneus@mander.xyz · 7 pts · 56d
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.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 56d
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.
orioler25@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 55d
You can't even tell what is wrong with the presumption that you can universalize childhood development, can you? "Target areas of lack...?" You mean like, any other fucking assessment that isn't rooted in racist, sexist, and ableist notions of universal standards of knowledge or intelligence?
What a circular argument.
JayDee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 55d
If you speak english poorly, you'll probably score low on an IQ test. If the test uses cultural motifs that you're unfamiliar with, you're more likely to score low on an IQ test. There's many ways that IQ tests can give terrible results, so it's not really that great at gathering reliable data about someone's intelligince.
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 56d
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 56d
I mean, take away the wojaks and it's accurate
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 56d
My thoughts exactly.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 56d
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.
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 56d
Do you know how hard people are to manipulate once they have knowledge? We can't go around informing people, it would be anarchy!
Kitchel@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 56d
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.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 56d
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.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 56d
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.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 56d
What about the far-center?
protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 56d
thats just jregism
WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 54d
We call them libertarians
Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 56d
The graph gains a z axis, in both directions you get an equally-incoherent far-center
Avicenna@programming.dev · 15 pts · 56d
I 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.
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 55d
Avicenna@programming.dev · 1 pts · 55d
yeah in this case it is I was just writing anon's general perspective of such plots
vegafjord@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 56d
Sad thing is that this is how most people view politics. This makes sprouts jump to the center when first engaging.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 56d
That centrists have middling intelligence, but are the most populous, and far left are impossibly the smartest above others but very rare? I don't think most people view politics that way.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 56d
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.
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 56d
Opium and the dunning-kruger effect will do that.
Do you currently feel like they understood everything more?
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 56d
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.
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 56d
So now you can see the damage. What to do about it? Engage, or find better drugs?
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · 0 pts · 56d
I applaud you for honest. I share in your sentiment.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 56d
Being high iq is dumb
Godric@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 56d
People who agree with me; SMART
Disagree?: DUM DUMS!
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 55d
NONE_dc@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 56d
Anon failed successfully
mo_lave@reddthat.com · 9 pts · 55d
What Anon felt like after posting that:
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 56d
Most people are centrist, most people are average iq. It checks out
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 2 pts · 56d
Most people are decidedly not centrist, at least not in modern developed countries with their famously polarised politics.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 56d
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.
GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 55d
In whose fucking universe is MAGA considered a 'moderate right' position????
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 54d
In a Nazi's mind.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 56d
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:
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 56d
IQ is a racist bullshit measure invented to exclude black people from the military and education. It's meaningless in all cases.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 56d
Yeah that's kind of what I was referring to.
Wobble@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 56d
Both axis's are not labelled so the graph could work, it is just bad design!
diffaldo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 56d
Centrist is maga without red hat.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 56d
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.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 55d
It's not even the good midwit format lol
Mangoholic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 56d
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.
ddplf@szmer.info · 2 pts · 56d
> hey fuck off
> looks around
> centrally planned economy
> looks away
Hiro8811@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 56d
You know he got a point
abc@suppo.fi · -3 pts · 56d
That's not a bell curve, just a super accurate graph.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 2 pts · 56d
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.
MoonRaven@feddit.nl · -5 pts · 55d
JayDee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 55d
The corner of the chart, on the left-hand side, is the origin, where zero is. Are you trying to say that leftists are low IQ or something else?