Average IQ by Blue vs Red State, Religious vs Atheist
tags:
Stumble ThisJust what the title says. Mildly NSFW.
Just to make it perfectly clear up front - the "data" that the IQ stuff is based on has been thoroughly discredited as far as I can tell.
Just to make it perfectly clear up front - the "data" that the IQ stuff is based on has been thoroughly discredited as far as I can tell.
Sources next time pls mr videomakerman.
One important thing to understand about modern IQ tests is that they are normalized, that means that 100 is, by definition, the mean score. Another things to understand is that as with just about anything involving humans, the scores fall along a normal distribution, in this case, the standard deviation is 15 points.
So when you are talking about a 65 point IQ, that is about 3.5 SD from the mean. Means that less than 1% of people fall in that category.
Also an IQ in the 65 range is rather severely mentally handicapped, someone who would likely have trouble taking care of themselves. A hypothetical country with that as an average IQ would almost certainly have a non-functional populace.
This is just sloppy and/or deliberately biased production.
It's also making the point that poor countries are very religious..
i dunno.. *shrug*
Am I really to believe that half the countries on that chart consists of literal retards??
You do know one stdev is like 25 to 28. So an average of all people in a country is REALLY going to be very much closer to the middle.
Do people who think they are so smart ever think about anything? Any common sense? I guess the lesson is the self-rightous, better-than-thou are not too bright.
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
The source for the "IQ chart" is a study written by two semi-retarded professors..
Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland,
and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
It is either from the 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
or the non-science followup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
Interesting to sample
Trying to administer tests to illiterate people complicates the matter, and familiarity with the motifs of the test helps. It's really measuring actualized analytical skills rather than potential. The cultural biases (i.e. learnable motifs) of intelligence tests lend plausible deniability against any comparison, whether or not there is a significant underlying effect.
Std deviation on IQ tests is around 15, so for example a bell curve with a mean of 100 would have 2.3% of its population below 70, and a bell curve with a mean of 65 would have 1.02% of its population above 100. http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content
/zdistribution.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
It's biologically inevitable that significantly different varieties of homo sapiens will develop if homo sapiens survives long enough. Like height, intelligence is influenced by a variety of genetic and environmental factors that vary naturally. Tests are not necessarily a good measure of it though. Lyn and Vanhanen rely on such small samples that you don't even need to discredit the IQ test to doubt the result.
I really preferred ^theaceofclubz's method of simple posting the Snopes article without further comment, but somehow that wasn't effective enough:
THIS IS COMPLETELY 100% FAKE!
Red states are not stupid. Half of the world's population is not legally retarded.
Sorry for the caps, but I think this video should be downvoted out of existence... or quietly discarded by Obsidianstorm, if he has any sense of social responsibility. At the very least, it should be clearly labeled as fake, and left here merely as an spark for discussion.
This video is insidious bigotry, intended to spread prejudice against certain social, geographic, and religious groups. It is the worst kind of Internet meme. Yet, some here feel the Videosift should help spread the hate.
I am one vote in the community, but dammit, I vote "No!"
*discuss
He may have fudged a few numbers, but the gist of it is obvious to me.
I defy anyone to go from a place where people are very religous, to a place where people are not as religous, and tell me that the latter is dumber than the fore.
In almost every case, the less religous place is filled with people who are obviously smarter.
Of course, that doesn't mean in any way that you or anyone else has to like it, only that I am not trying to pass it off as true.
IQ = bullshit.
This statement is true only if you make an assumption: the correlation between high IQ and academic success is a LAW, and not a "best fit line"