Hatrack River Forum: A statistical question...

This is topic A statistical question... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=050557

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :

First, allow me to explain the context. Someone I know who instructs in media studies (for A-levels, I think) posted a link to this story on her blog. Not just the link, but a certain tone that is becoming all too familiar to me-- the popular idea that Americans are stupid (or equating an American with all the actions of his or her government). *sigh*

It got me thinking (which I do quite a lot, despite the geographic location of my birth *sigh* ) about the popularity of America-bashing and my own astonishment at how our culture seems to glorify stupidity.

A few days agom I hurt my back and was instructed to stay in bed for a day. I finished the book I was reading and was bored, so looked to see what was on TV. America's Most Smartest Model *shudder* and that glut of shows in which a house full of girls or guys (or girls AND guys) are competing to be someone's lover.

O_O

I had NO IDEA pop culture had gotten that bad. I know that part of it is that we like to see skinny, attractive people act like idiots because it makes the rest of us feel superior. The above story was also reported in American news, with similar humor.

I'm not sure if it counts as willfull ignorance, low intelligence or some mix of the two. (I believe that even the smartest people do and say stupid things on occasion.)

My question is this: Do I. Q. scores actually follow the bell curve? Statistically, what percentage of any given population should be below average intelligence? Above average intelligence?

If there are approximately 300 million people in America, how many of them are likely to be out-smarted by, say, a sheep dog? How many of them would have high intelligence?

My Google-fu is weak. I'm still looking, but I figured someone here would know where i could find actual data instead of a bell curve chart with "This graph does not represent information from any study" written below it.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
Descriptive Classifications of Intelligence Quotients

IQ Description % of Population
130+ Very superior 2.2%
120-129 Superior 6.7%
110-119 High average 16.1%
90-109 Average 50%
80-89 Low average 16.1%
70-79 Borderline 6.7%
Below 70 Extremely low 2.2%

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :

And they vote.

Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
And they vote.

And they vote?

Are you saying that you feel that people with below average intelligences should not vote? Because I have to disagree with you on that.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

I think she's saying that it's unfortunate that they vote, not that they shouldn't do it.

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :

She saying that it is unthinkable that some smart could have voted for Bush. Haven't you noticed that general implication over the last several years?

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :

130+ is superior? I think they need a few more divisions.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

The reason for that, JT, is that the test gets increasingly inaccurate at the far ends of the curve. The further you get above 130, the less meaningful the numbers are.

Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :

quote:
Statistically, what percentage of any given population should be below average intelligence? Above average intelligence?

About half above and half below.

Sorry, couldn't resist. [Smile]

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :

I was thinking the exact same thing...

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :

Hallow: That's not what I was saying.

I also wasn't saying that the below average shouldn't be allowed to vote.

But it is sort of a fundamental flaw of democracy.

But then, if you had more of a meritocracy you'd have the same flaw because even smart people are stupid a frighteningly high percentage of the time.

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

quote:
Do I. Q. scores actually follow the bell curve? Statistically, what percentage of any given population should be below average intelligence? Above average intelligence?

IQ tests are designed to generate a bell curve or Gaussian distribution when given to a large enough sample or subset of a population. So IQ scores actually do follow the bell curve, approximately. The tests are also renormalized every few years so 100 remains the average IQ.

As to the stupidity of pop culture, maybe it's because we peaked in the 90s--it's all downhill from here. [Confused]

This thread reminds me of post I saw on Sadly, NO the other day mocking a book blurb.
The blurb was "“God didn’t create you to be average. You were created to excel!”

Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :

I don't really see how the quality or integrity of our television reflects our intelligence level...

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :

No, but one might see how the ratings might say something about us.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

It may be worth pointing out that while IQ does correlate (not perfectly, by any means) with success in academia and in business, it does not correlate with good taste in entertainment. So you may be asking the wrong question.

Actually, thinking about it, I wonder if high-IQ people might not watch less television than the average. I, for one, absolutely cannot abide television because the rate of information transfer is so low. It's like reading over someone's shoulder, and by the time you're done with the page, they're still on the first sentence. Which is why I don't often read over people's shoulders, either. The actual quality of the information is quite irrelevant to this.

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

I don't watch television anymore, but I don't think it's because of my intelligence. It's because I realized how much it beats me up emotionally. Why do people watch it, then? Because it distracts them. I wouldn't say this is always a bad thing. It's just not a luxury I can afford.

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tara:
I don't really see how the quality or integrity of our television reflects our intelligence level...

But it does effect how people in other countries think about us when we export it, which we do.

I think my point was that our pop culture glorifies stupidity. I mean, we DO give awards for excellence in many different fields, but the only ones televised are sports and entertainment related (I include beauty pageants in 'entertainment').

This really stems from a conversation at a cocktail party. I asked a fellow where he hailed from, knowing he was English. He said "Northampton," and I nodded. He immediately mocked me, "Don't act like you know where that is."

Actually, one of the ladies who minded me when I was child was from Northampton, so I'd heard of it. I just laughed and smiled and didn't tell him that, because he struck me as rather a low class thug, and it was never my job to enlighten him. (A study my husband read recently said that Brits are more likely to be scornful and dismissive to your face, while Americans are more likely to be polite in public and pretend to like you even if they don't. I don't know if it's generally true, but I know I was brought up to be polite whenever possible.)

As to the "average" thing, the bell curves I saw always labeled a section of the middle portion as "average" so I was referring to the range of average, not the dead-center point. I think you understood that ( [Wink]

) but just to be clear.

I'm actually making props for a comic monologue that will deliberately play with the numbers for a laugh. I just wanted to start with middling accurate figures. I have a very low opinion of that sort of testing, truth be told. *shrug* Which is why I intend to make fun of it. [Big Grin]

Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :

quote:
This really stems from a conversation at a cocktail party. I asked a fellow where he hailed from, knowing he was English. He said "Northampton," and I nodded. He immediately mocked me, "Don't act like you know where that is."

I was treated like that occassionally in Canada... One time, a ten-year-old boy said to me, "Just because Bush is your president doesn't mean you can rule the world."
I replied with something along the lines of, "Um... okay."

There was a general sense of snobbery towards America, although most people were sensible about it. My response to the snobbery was to simply act like myself -- a smart, informed, friendly, quiet person -- and to trust that any person worth talking to would treat me like a decent person even though I was American.

To me, America is so huge that it seems impossible to put all Americans into any one category -- I don't even consider being American part of my identity. It's not important to me at all.

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tara:
[QUOTE] One time, a ten-year-old boy said to me, "Just because Bush is your president doesn't mean you can rule the world."

He's right. After Bush leaves office in 2009 we'll still rule the world.

Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :

Didn't England come up with 'The Villa'?

I don't know of many foreign shows, but from the ones I've seen (Like 'The Villa'), it seems to me that other countries' pop-culture glorifies stupidity as much as ours does.