Slashdot Mirror

I mean, one in three people has an IQ in or below the low 90s, and over one in three people believes in ghosts. Given humans' inbuilt gravitation towards lying demagogues, I'm frankly heartened that only one in three Californians fell for Trump's con artistry. I think they'd do just fine as a country, and would probably be so kind as to provide their population of erstwhile Trump supporters free mental health services.

You equate top 10% of intelligence with genius; so there are 32 million geniuses already in USA? Gosh, I must have 2 certified geniuses in my department of 20 people?!? Get real. But even if correct...

He isn't, and there aren't -- with a few notable exceptions (Feynman), geniuses are generally 97.725th percentile or better (~130+ IQ). Approximately 1 in 44 people pass this threshold, which means there are ~162 million people in the world and ~7.2 million in the USA who could be geniuses. If we imported all of them and deported an equivalent number of dumber people, at best we could make the USA ~50% genius-level. Additionally, if your IQ is 195 you are literally irreplaceable because you're one in ~8 billion.

You equate top 10% of intelligence with genius; so there are 32 million geniuses already in USA? Gosh, I must have 2 certified geniuses in my department of 20 people?!? Get real. But even if correct...

He isn't, and there aren't -- with a few notable exceptions (Feynman), geniuses are generally 97.725th percentile or better (~130+ IQ). Approximately 1 in 44 people pass this threshold, which means there are ~162 million people in the world and ~7.2 million in the USA who could be geniuses. If we imported all of them and deported an equivalent number of dumber people, at best we could make the USA ~50% genius-level. Additionally, if your IQ is 195 you are literally irreplaceable because you're one in ~8 billion.

Men are smarter than women. It's a fact.

For example:

1. "You're an idiot." Not hate speech, just an insult.

Which is odd, because the pejoratives idiot, moron, imbecile refer specifically to people of a range of intelligences.

IQ

50-69 Moron

20-49 Imbecile

below 20 Idiot

source: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co... If calling someone a faggot is hate speech, then calling someone an idiot is likewise hate speech against people with an IQ of less than 20.

Just a matter of time before that becomes a banned word.

note: I'm merely noting it isn't easy to make simple statements of what is or isn't hate speech. I have a gay friend who often refers to himself as a faggot, or even "worse. If I do something stupid, I'll sometimes call myself a "dumb fucking hunky". And neither of us hate ourselves.

I tend to apply it to when threats of violence are made, along with whatever group the perp is encouraging violence against.

Only an idiot could answer the way you just did.

try looking up the etymology of the word idiot, hint it's roman and predates IQ anything by about 2000 years.

common usage has held onto that meaning for nearly 2000 years in all of western culture, even if most don't realize it.

now heres more homework for you, look up the word "moron", hint it comes from the birthplace of democracy

does the shoe fit?

For example:

1. "You're an idiot." Not hate speech, just an insult.

Which is odd, because the pejoratives idiot, moron, imbecile refer specifically to people of a range of intelligences.

IQ

50-69 Moron

20-49 Imbecile

below 20 Idiot

source: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co... If calling someone a faggot is hate speech, then calling someone an idiot is likewise hate speech against people with an IQ of less than 20.

Just a matter of time before that becomes a banned word.

note: I'm merely noting it isn't easy to make simple statements of what is or isn't hate speech. I have a gay friend who often refers to himself as a faggot, or even "worse. If I do something stupid, I'll sometimes call myself a "dumb fucking hunky". And neither of us hate ourselves.

I tend to apply it to when threats of violence are made, along with whatever group the perp is encouraging violence against.

Using a 15 SD scale, with Einsten-level IQ person coming up every 31560 cases, we are at the moment at about 228136 Einsteins.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co...

But screw Einsteins.
We are currently at about 27.6 MILLION people with an IQ of 140.
That's like something between a Nepal and Peru of 140 IQ people.
And that's not counting those with the IQ above that.

I suppose I meant "self-reported IQ." I was making fun of how common it is for people on the internet to claim to have an extraordinarily high IQ, when an IQ of 163 would put you in the top .0013%.

There's a greater correlation with certain professions involving ranges into ~140. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co... As for dating, having an IQ over 110 negatively correlates with attraction to women regardless of her IQ, which has lovely implications. Below 110, the guy only being 10 points higher or less than the girls helps.
Entertainment_value_to_women!=intelligence despite the propaganda/shaming tactic.
Of course, the fecundity of the IQ=<100 range is just fun to think about. *twitch*
Idiots preferentially breeding's a strangely sacrosanct topic, which couldn't possibly be linked to majoritarianism or sheeplefarming...

You may very well be on to something here, especially when you look at IQ vs rarity. 15% roughly equates to the number of people with an IQ over 117 http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx.

I really do believe that religion is a symptom of the unwillingness or inability of some people to understand the answers that science has provided. They take the easy way out and go for the answers that are simple and easy to understand. I'm the kind of person who loves to explain how things work, and it's frustrating when people just don't WANT to know, like they are afraid their brain will get full or something (and when asked about it, they get hostile)

The percentage of fools depends on the IQ threshold that you set. And that depends on the IQ of people that you'd like to decide your fate. If you insist on IQ of 200 then probably 95% of population are fools.

To reach the 95% fool level, you only need to set your IQ cutoff at about 125. That's not even high enough to get into Mensa.

At a cutoff of 200, using modern tests, odds are good that no adult on earth is not a fool. (Kids scores are a little different.)

The USA hasn't seen a President of Common Sense for how long? Probably for the entire last century. Herman Cain threatened to be such a president, so they neatly took him out.

ROFLMAO.

Yes and no. There's no more low-hanging fruit, sure, but let's examine the case of Ruth Lawrence. There's nothing that I can find which gives her IQ, other than that child psychologists have seen plenty of people of equal calibre. I'm guessing, from the lack of diversity in her skills and the fact that there are many comparable people in a country as small as Britain, that it's probably in the mid 160s. The IQ rarity table tells us that there's 100,000 people as bright as that.

To put it another way, there should be High Schools in the US - maybe 2 in each State - that are teaching Harvard- or MIT-grade material, going by potential and the US' population.

Yes, Ruth Lawrence was pressured far too hard and was lucky not to burn out the way Sufiah Yusof so spectacularly did. (She dropped out of Oxford and became a high-class hooker.) However, she nonetheless demonstrates that the human brain has vastly greater potential than is being utilized. No, not the mythical 10% bullshit. I'm talking about the much more real capacity of the brain to store and process data efficiently and effectively. Poor educational practices are leaving people dumber than necessary.

But if you had 100,000 people doing BS/BA-grade work by the time they're 12, if they were going to make radical discoveries then you're damn right I'd expect them to do so by age 30. The failing isn't in Einstein's expectations, the failing is in the completely negligent teaching practices in use. Teaching today has barely evolved from Einstein's day, maybe even regressed in places, but science and technology have moved on. If the gap increases by too much, no human will have enough time to slug through at the crawl we currently demand of them to ever discover anything.

Education is a race - not student against student, but method against requirement. And education is losing.

You mean he's as smart as one in 44? http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

you are missing the point of art.

to note: the average person doesnt go see anything, only enthusiasts.

also the average person is of average intelligence (IQ of 90-110), has an average salary (~32KUSD [US numbers only]), has an average looking girlfriend (no figures on this one, but IMNSHO is not to my standard),

this list goes on and on and on. but the point is - average not only sucks but cant afford to see a stage show & cant appreciate a stage show.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

please leave now, and come back when you are no longer putting other people down just to make yourself feel good. thx

btw - i am in no way affiliated with this production

How is this, in practice, any different from having qualifications that are strongly correlated to IQ? The average median IQ of an MD is above 120.

The only benefit that I can see is that someone with such qualifications would cost more. It's cheaper to just give an IQ test to a large pool of people, and hope you find a few candidates who have the measured intelligence that you want yet cannot demand the salaries that are typically correlated with a higher IQ.

If you read statements she has made (in The Seattle Times, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Stranger, Crosscut, etc.), Sen. Prentice comes across as a moron (IQ below 69).

(remember, the average IQ of college students in Education-related degree programs is lower even than Communications or Physical Education programs).

Citation?

The only thing I could find on this was here, which estimates IQ based on SAT scores -- inherently bogus. And it puts education majors ahead of "Parks, recreation, leisure and fitness", into which Physical Education would fall. Education is behind "Communication and journalism" in this list -- but so are "Legal professions", Psychology, and Business.

This chart shows the median IQ of high school teachers to be comparable to that of other professions, and just a hair under that for engineers and computer-related occupations. Kindergarten and elementary school teachers show up a littler lower, but I'd say they have more need for "social intelligence" than for a high IQ.

Scouting has been under attack for decades, a true shame since it encourages young men and women to go out and be active in their community and grow into thoughtful citizens

Meh. The Boy Scouts is an organization designed to mold young men into soldiers and subjects. We can do without its nationalist, homophobic, anti-freethinking training. (The Girl Scouts, though, seem more open-minded.)

Once we diagnose 51 percent of them with something, doesn't that just make it "normal"?

Good point, if the distribution is proper, even 30% will do (like 'normal' intelligence).

On a side note, the administered MMPI was already characterised 'crap' when I was a student (~1970++), though I well understand comparability issues in a longitudinal study.

CC.

Sure, but are we talking about dumb people? Most presidents are smarter than average.

See:

http://www.csbsju.edu/USPP/Bush/Bush-IQ-Myth.html

As for Bush himself, see his SAT scores: http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm
And for a rough pre-1974 SAT to IQ conversion see: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx

I daresay most politicians are smarter than average. You may be smarter than them, but they just have to be smart enough to win elections, e.g. winning the hearts and minds of the average voter.

Average IQ by definition is 100 [1].

They're smart enough to figure out the average person is stupider than they are, and how to get what they want. Even if it means pretending to be dumber than they are.

In the USA, "dumb blonde" sells more than "smart brunette", so some people go "fake dumb" and "fake blonde". e.g. Paris Hilton might be smarter than she behaves, probably even smarter than average.

[1] If the education system gets worse and worse, your IQ scores could go up even if you decline mentally - since 100 by definition is the average score and if the next generation end up really stupid, go figure ;).

The truth is doctors aren't geniuses. They sat next to you in high school. Some of them copied your answers on the math test. They are average everyday people that have been trained (hopefully well) to do a specific job.

MDs have a median IQ significantly higher than all other measured professions. That is to say, the average, everyday median MD IQ at ~125 is already halfway to official "genius" level.

The notion that "Doctors Hate Science" is absurd.

IT people are usually of higher than average IQ...

And you base this assumption on?

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_questions_and_answers/aceviper_interesting_intelligence_related_questions_and_answers.html#question3

75 percent of MIT students have at least a combined math/verbal SAT score of 1430. If you don't have that, chances are poor that you will get in unless you are "more equal than others", i.e. you are anything other than a White male.

Here's a homework assignment for you:

SAT score is a good enough proxy for IQ that most high IQ societies will accept it in lieu of an official IQ test. You can find out the mapping between SAT (and other tests) here:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

1. Find out the 25th percentile SAT score of the top 5-10 schools. (They are very similar.)
2. Find out the freshman population of all these schools in total, times that by .75 to get the number above the 25th percentile. (You might want to subtract international students, or just estimate.)
3. Using US population pyramids and the IQ distribution (bell shaped curve), estimate the total number of US students who these schools can actually draw from to get such a student population.
4. From there, estimate the probability that they will accept you based on SAT score alone.

(Hint, it's pretty damn high).

As to your case, colleges stay pretty constant in their 25th or 75th SAT percentiles. I think the SAT may have been renormed recently, but it was still the same test around the early 2000 era.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N40/40usnews.40n.html
http://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/c_9900.html

MIT was 1410 versus 1270 for CMU (25th percentile). That means if you take a random sample of the population who would just make it into the 25th percentile of CMU, there would only be 1/6 of them who would just make it into the 25th percentile of MIT.