• Rayspekt@kbin.social
        331·
        1 year ago

        Imagine communicating who ranked first last anually on a national level lmao.

        Edit: I meant “last” not “first”. What a crucial mistake lol.

    • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
      168·
      1 year ago

      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%.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        29·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        131·
        1 year ago

        People who don’t know that average can be mean, median or mode depending on the context crack me up.

        • DrDr@lemmy.world
          22·
          1 year ago

          Average is the mean, not median or mode. This doesn’t change on context. Average is always mean.

          • candybrie@lemmy.world
            31·
            1 year ago

            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

            Source

            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.

            Source

    • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
      83·
      1 year ago

      “think of the average person. Now remember that half of everyone is dumber than them”

        • imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
          361·
          1 year ago

          Statistically, IQ follows a standard distribution, so the median and mean should be relatively close.

          • triclops6@lemmy.ca
            30·
            1 year ago

            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

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              7·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • m0darn@lemmy.ca
                7·
                1 year ago

                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)

  • rahmad@lemmy.ml
    851·
    1 year ago

    Err… im not sure everyone in this thread is getting the joke?

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
      2810·
      1 year ago

      That the bottom 25% of scorers in standardized tests are in the bottom quartile of the distribution, which is literally defined as the bottom 25%, but the Twitter user seems to be using that fact to justify something yet he’s literally just stating a fact?

      The bottom 25% will always exist and there will always be 25% of the results contained within it.

      Not sure how anyone doesn’t get it, but this Twitter screenshot exists, so there’s that.

      Oh, sorry, this “x” exists. Dumb fucking name.

  • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    71·
    1 year ago

    Small head: He’s proving his point really well.
    Big head: He’s proving his point really well.

  • moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    693·
    1 year ago

    100% 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?

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      26·
      1 year ago

      It’s toxic and can lead to DEATH if inhaled! Big if true!

      • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    481·
    1 year ago

    But 25% of all American students also scored in the top quartile on standardized tests, so it cancels out!

      • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been told I have deadpan delivery sometimes. I guess it translates to my comments too.

        I’m not sure if this is a good thing. But yes, I’m keeping with the tone set by the comment above me.

  • lugal@sopuli.xyz
    40·
    1 year ago

    But at least the healthcare system is quite good: most people have more legs than average

  • Wilibus@lemmy.world
    273·
    1 year ago

    This is officially the second dumbest take on the value of a quarter.

    I knew a person who thought quarter to six meant 5:35 because “how many cents in a quarter dumbass.”

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        121·
        1 year ago

        Quarter=25 cents. 25 minutes before six=5:35. And also OP is making it up, because no one that stupid is also doing extra math.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              I mean you’re not far of. If I clock out 7 minutes late, I get 0 extra hours, if I clock out 8 minutes late, I get paid for 15 minutes and a stern taking to about clocking out on time.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 year ago

              Smart enough to put two and two together, not smart enough to realize that may not apply to every situation.

    • Eq0@literature.cafe
      14·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Spendrill@lemm.ee
    226·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • DrMango@lemmy.world
      295·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • aesopjah@lemm.ee
        142·
        1 year ago

        While that’s true, the actual empirical curve does not have to be smooth. Or gaussian.

      • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
        52·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • steakmeout@aussie.zone
          31·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            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. Those lines might not be at 25-50-75. They might not even be the same distance apart from each other. But you CAN draw them somewhere to split the scores. Just because a graph “has quartiles” does not mean it will always look like the OP.

    • MBM@lemmings.world
      11·
      1 year ago

      At the end of the day, reducing intelligence down to one single number is already kind of questionable. What does it mean for someone to be 1 point more intelligent than another person?

      • Spendrill@lemm.ee
        4·
        1 year ago

        It’s also, there are several different axes that you could measure intelligence along, spatial intelligence and awareness, emotional intelligence and so on. Also intelligence is a sliding scale, there are definitely times of the day, week month and year when I am less able to solve problems and more likely to cause them and then you’re into the social aspects, it’s been demonstrated that people’s ability to think straight is affected by how precarious their existence is and so on.

      • spikespaz@programming.dev
        4·
        1 year ago

        If you took a test as a child, it was probably WISC-V.

        This assessment provides the following scores:

        • A Composite Score that represents a child’s overall intellectual ability (FSIQ)
        • Primary Index Scores that measure the following areas of cognitive functioning: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial Index (VSI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and the Processing Speed Index (PSI).
        • Ancillary Index Scores are also provided: The Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI) ; Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI); Nonverbal Index (NVI); General Ability Index (GAI); and the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI).

        Which seems very reasonable to me. This was originally intended to be an aptitude test, not strictly to measure your intelligence.

        • _g_be@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 year ago

          This is supposed to quantify intelligence but how are these criteria quantified? Seems like the same fundamental issue

          • spikespaz@programming.dev
            11·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know, when I got tested it seemed like they were testing the right stuff.

            I’m pretty sure it’s a well-made test that provides fairly accurate results. Even if what they claim to be measuring in each category isn’t reflected in the test, it is, at the very least measuring the abilities required to take the test and that exactly.

            It seems pretty straightforward to see how good a kid is at solving a puzzle, right?

        • Ultraviolet@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          It’s the composite score, and especially the heavy emphasis on it as some innate unchangeable thing, that’s the questionable part.

          • spikespaz@programming.dev
            1·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely, but it’s still useful. Allegedly Alfred Binet did not approve of the eventual applications of the test he designed.

      • Spendrill@lemm.ee
        109·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • LegionEris [she/her]@feddit.nl
          7·
          1 year ago

          You could have communicated much more clearly. It was not at all clear that you understood the post and wanted to have a specific side discussion. It read like you were taking the post at face value to discuss the failure of IQ testing. It especially even more like a misunderstanding because the post wasn’t even about IQ tests, but standardized tests. In fact, your top level post and this one I’m responding to both felt snide to me. First snide about the graph and IQ tests, then snide about the fact that people didn’t understand your unclear communication. You came off as one of those snide reddit users zooming past the post to make a point, especially with your aggressive defenses. Slow down. Consider your messaging more carefully. We are here to have conversation. Make sure you are too.

          • Spendrill@lemm.ee
            31·
            1 year ago

            I was definitely critical of the graph and of IQ. It’s a flawed concept created by people who were at best blind to cultural differences and at worst outright racist. [I’m sorry if you found my messaging unclear]<— I’m being absolutely genuine here, I was trying to make a serious point and if you misunderstood it then perhaps I could have been clearer. In future with these kinds of posts I’ll label it as off topic at the beginning.

        • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
          44·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Spendrill@lemm.ee
            21·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Confuzzeled@lemmy.world
              41·
              1 year ago

              The worst thing about social networks is the people. Maybe we could just use ai to generate every response, fine tuned to the kind of conversation you specifically want. Yeah that’ll fix it.

              • Spendrill@lemm.ee
                31·
                1 year ago

                The worst thing about social networks is some of the people. Generally, they’re fine. Same in real life.

    • DrDr@lemmy.world
      7·
      1 year ago

      It would almost certainly follow an approximate normal distribution just like the above graph. Why would it look different?