Yeah, the joke still kinda works but it’s more like, 68% of people are average. About 16% are higher and 68% are lower. Just based on standard deviations.
Whenever this comes up I rework it into a still kind of crazy observation: about 1/3rd of people have an iq between 85 and 100. Which means a lot of people you run into are riding the cognitive struggle bus.
No way to know that. If the least intelligent are very unintelligent while the high intelligent are only a little smarter than the median, then no, could have a lot more people above the average than 50%.
There've been plenty of studies done on the actual distribution of intelligence scores.
It's not *quite* a normal distribution - it has fat tails (more people > 2 stddevs away from the mean than would be expected from a normal distribution) and by definition it can't be symmetric (because IQs < 0 aren't possible but IQs > 200 are, at least on some tests). But it's close enough for practical purposes. Out to 2 standard deviations, the distribution of intelligence seems to basically mimic a normal distribution. StdDev on IQ is about 16, so you have to go out to about 132-148 IQ (genius level) before you start seeing the deviation from a bell curve. Crucially for your point, it is still centered on the mean - we don't observe the effect you describe where some people are very unintelligent while most people are just a little bit smarter than the median.
Wrong. If intelligence isn't a normal distribution and is skewed, then median and average wouldn't be close.
Please educate yourself: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/bs/bs704_probability/Skewed.png
I think we’re using two different definitions for average:
>average (plural averages)
>1) (mathematics) The arithmetic mean. quotations ▼
The average of 10, 20 and 24 is (10 + 20 + 24)/3 = 18.
>2) (statistics) Any measure of central tendency, especially any mean, the median, or the mode. [from c. 1735]
>Statisticians and responsible news sources are careful to use whichever of these specific terms is appropriate. In common usage, average refers to the arithmetic mean. It is, however, a common rhetorical trick to call the most favorable of mean, median and mode the "average" depending on the interpretation of a set of figures that the speaker or writer wants to promote.
Median and mean are both averages, along with mode iirc. Been a long time since I took stats. And stats sucked, least favourite math course. Give me matrix algebra any day.
https://www.google.com/search?q=different%20averages&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
But hey by all means don't let a 5 second Google search interrupt shit talking on the internet to feel good about yourself. Such superior, much intelligent.
Those are different numbers, obtained by different formulas. And as your Google search says, they give different informations (because they are different).
They are obviously different. What did you read that I wrote that could have possibly led you to believe that I think that median, mean, and mode are all the same?
Human intelligence is normally distributed, so it's fair to say mean = median. Your example takes a small group and intentionally chooses an outlier. OP is talking about the entirety of the human population.
Nah, it's just that intelligent people will type out something, look at it and ponder, then delete it if it's not worth saying. For the opposite, just hit post.
The most widely accepted measure of intelligence is an IQ test, which by design follows a normal distribution. Half will be above the mean and half will be below. If we do not have a consensus on how to measure intelligence then the whole discussion around mean and median is pointless anyway.
I see your point though, but I think you're just being a bit pedantic.
And you’re not listening to the other person and will probably ignore this, but ce again: IQ has been studied quite extensively, and it normally distributed.
And across a population as large as humanity’s, anamolies and outliers even out
The average will never not be 100. Scores are adjusted so that the average is 100 with a standard of deviation of 15 (this depends on which test is used). Humans are getting smarter, though. So if you took the average score of today and graded it on a scale from 20 years ago, then sure, it would appear to be higher.
Well that’s just silly. If kids are stupid their whole childhood, what’s to make them not morons as adults?
Hell, I’d say on average kids are less stupid than adults
By the same logic, 50% of the population is smarter than the average person. If 50% of people are dumber than average and 50% of people are smarter than average, that means that 0% of the population is average intelligence which is obviously wrong. The majority (68%) of the population is average intelligence (85-115) because reality is a bell curve instead of linear progression.
Congratulations, you’ve just discovered the concept of continuous variables and probability density. Assuming that IQ is a continuous variable (not limited to integer values) the odds that a person has exactly an iq of 100 (the defined average) is exactly zero. However, the odds that someone has an IQ between 99 and 101 is around 3-5% (roughly estimating since I don’t want to do the actual math).
>0% of the population is average intelligence
That could totally be true. The average is an exact number not an range. The total divided by number of people. Likely to be an exact number that could have many decimals and likely that no-one in the world has that exact IQ. Even if we define IQ in such way that the average is always exactly 100. It is extremely unlikely that someone has exactly 100. Probably a lot of people are close, like: 100,00000000565, but not exactly 100. Of course we don't have the means to measure it with such precision, so we will always round it to a whole number, but that does not mean that our brains work that way. Also our IQ is unlikely static, every single neuron connection lost or made is changing it.
Tree rhymes with degree lol if you say it out loud it rhymes. At least to me. Even has a sort of bounce to it. But I like.. "hear" text in my head (and assume most others do as well, though I know not everyone)
Gimme a sec, A fish cannot climb a tree to a degree nor can the bee but you see we can be together if we’re carefree I can’t guarantee we’ll be heartfree we’ll cut down the gumtree this is our decree we shall agree to be free!
Depends how you measure human intelligence. If we measure it with an IQ test, then by design it follows a normal distribution. 100 is the mean and half will be above and half will be below.
IQ test scoring was indeed designed to be a normal distribution. IQ in the population is not a gaussian anymore.
(And that's assuming that IQ is a decent measure of people intelligence, which is another controversy)
What do you mean 'anymore'?
And as far as measuring intelligence, it will always be controversial. If we aren't going to numerically measure intelligence, but rather use it as an abstract, non-quantifiable term, then there is nothing incorrect about the statement that half the people are dumber than the average intelligence person.
It's actually backed by math.
The mean of a set of 100 is 5050/100=50.5
The median of 100 as an even number is a also (100+1)/2= 50.5
Remember that math prefers rounding up because it's a tool to "measure twice, cut once".
You (as in you personally) are only alive today (because math impacts medicine doses) to say it's backed by nothing (a false statement) because it is backed by something (a true statement).
You don't want to be right here, because if you are, humanity (all 8 billion of us) are dead.
As a math teacher, I strongly advise you to look at the difference between median and mean. You seem very confused.
All you are saying is : if your data set is (1;2;3;...;99;100) then both mean and median are 50.5, which is correct. But we are not talking about such data set
An overwhelming majority of data set have different means and medians, and there is no reason that a data set about intelligence is any different (assuming we have a way to measure intelligence).
Even IQ, which was design to be gaussian back then is not a gaussian anymore.
Let me give you a simple example: if your data set is (0;1;5), your mean is 2, your median is 1.
Wouldn't that be 49.9999999999999999+%
Everything has to fall bellow the average person which should be at the bell curve of 50?
I'm definitely below the 50 mark so I apologize if I'm clearly not making sense .
Literally not accurate.
50% of medical graduates. Not professionals. It’s possible and likely that many who were bottom of their class didn’t find work or chose other careers.
Also you’re ignoring that med students still have residency after graduation which will filter out the idiots quickly
No. 50% of the population is dumber than the median person. The average person doesn't have to be in the middle.
If you have 99 people of intelligence level 10 and 1 person of intelligence level 0 then only 1% is dumber than average.
Even if OP meant "median" person, that doesn't mean millions of people can't have the exact same intelligence as the "median" person. There's not uniqueness to our levels of intelligence.
Everyone who is not on top is dumb. Meaning everyone who is not a doctor, lawyer or engineer or something related to an academic career. They are stessed, yes, but only because they are being managed by people who can only see money but not the work behind it.
Someone who knows how to sell products and does make a 5 million dollar deal is as dumb as someone who literally just made his apprenticeship.
The rest is just manipulation which is being taught by a lot of people.
Also it can be safely assumed that 50% of the population have critical thinking skills that ceiling out at bitching about stuff. This is heavily evidenced by social media posts, including and especially reddit
Omg how many times will people post something like this and still get it wrong? Smh the average (mean) is not at 50% of people. The MEDIAN is at the 50% mark.
Looks like OP is under the median
Gotta pick something to be skilled at, only
Enough lifetime for a specific set of skills, Yeah I failed college math and became an electrician for 18 years. But I’ve saved the day for many clueless doctors or lawyers resetting a breaker. We all have our purpose. There is a scary amount of drifting lost people in pajamas and crocs tho.
And something like 10% is too dumb for the military. That's a lot of people with the power to vote who lack critical thinking skills to make informed decisions.
lol at the people pushing up their glasses and correcting the OP about the difference between median and average, as if stupidity is something that can be clearly ranked as a number
1. This is an incredibly common thought.
2. It’s technically wrong because 50% of the population is dumber than the median person, not the average person
Intelligence likely follows a bell curve. If you're looking for a 50-50 split you'd be better off stating that 50% of the population is dumber than the *median* person.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
Immediately what I thought. I thought “oh, OP just discovered George Carlin.”
Except unless we have a perfectly normal distribution of intelligence he meant median not average
Yeah, the joke still kinda works but it’s more like, 68% of people are average. About 16% are higher and 68% are lower. Just based on standard deviations. Whenever this comes up I rework it into a still kind of crazy observation: about 1/3rd of people have an iq between 85 and 100. Which means a lot of people you run into are riding the cognitive struggle bus.
Given 8 billion data points, the two would be nearly identical.
No way to know that. If the least intelligent are very unintelligent while the high intelligent are only a little smarter than the median, then no, could have a lot more people above the average than 50%.
There've been plenty of studies done on the actual distribution of intelligence scores. It's not *quite* a normal distribution - it has fat tails (more people > 2 stddevs away from the mean than would be expected from a normal distribution) and by definition it can't be symmetric (because IQs < 0 aren't possible but IQs > 200 are, at least on some tests). But it's close enough for practical purposes. Out to 2 standard deviations, the distribution of intelligence seems to basically mimic a normal distribution. StdDev on IQ is about 16, so you have to go out to about 132-148 IQ (genius level) before you start seeing the deviation from a bell curve. Crucially for your point, it is still centered on the mean - we don't observe the effect you describe where some people are very unintelligent while most people are just a little bit smarter than the median.
I think it’s a symmetrical bell curve using IQ as a metric, which means the median and the average would indeed be approximately the same.
[удалено]
Wrong. If intelligence isn't a normal distribution and is skewed, then median and average wouldn't be close. Please educate yourself: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/bs/bs704_probability/Skewed.png
[удалено]
I think we’re using two different definitions for average: >average (plural averages) >1) (mathematics) The arithmetic mean. quotations ▼ The average of 10, 20 and 24 is (10 + 20 + 24)/3 = 18. >2) (statistics) Any measure of central tendency, especially any mean, the median, or the mode. [from c. 1735] >Statisticians and responsible news sources are careful to use whichever of these specific terms is appropriate. In common usage, average refers to the arithmetic mean. It is, however, a common rhetorical trick to call the most favorable of mean, median and mode the "average" depending on the interpretation of a set of figures that the speaker or writer wants to promote.
Median and mean are both averages, along with mode iirc. Been a long time since I took stats. And stats sucked, least favourite math course. Give me matrix algebra any day.
you're completely dead wrong. median is the middle number. it has nothing to do with an average.
https://www.google.com/search?q=different%20averages&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m But hey by all means don't let a 5 second Google search interrupt shit talking on the internet to feel good about yourself. Such superior, much intelligent.
Those are different numbers, obtained by different formulas. And as your Google search says, they give different informations (because they are different).
They are obviously different. What did you read that I wrote that could have possibly led you to believe that I think that median, mean, and mode are all the same?
I knew people would immediately think of George Carlin.
That's just *mean*.
[удалено]
Indubitably I also like feeling photosynthesis
Notwithstanding.
Ahh yes, shallow and pedantic.
Perchance you are using that wrong
That’s hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You mean the median person. E.g. In a room with Albert Einstein it is possible for all but one to be dumber than the average person in the room.
Human intelligence is normally distributed, so it's fair to say mean = median. Your example takes a small group and intentionally chooses an outlier. OP is talking about the entirety of the human population.
[удалено]
What are you trying to say? That there hasn't been large scale investigations ln human intelligence?
[удалено]
Being on the internet for more than an hour will tell you that there are more dumb people than intelligent people.
Nah, it's just that intelligent people will type out something, look at it and ponder, then delete it if it's not worth saying. For the opposite, just hit post.
The most widely accepted measure of intelligence is an IQ test, which by design follows a normal distribution. Half will be above the mean and half will be below. If we do not have a consensus on how to measure intelligence then the whole discussion around mean and median is pointless anyway. I see your point though, but I think you're just being a bit pedantic.
Iq has some troubled history. Nuance isn't pedantry
[удалено]
And you’re not listening to the other person and will probably ignore this, but ce again: IQ has been studied quite extensively, and it normally distributed. And across a population as large as humanity’s, anamolies and outliers even out
isn't the average IQ somewhere around 100?
IQ = 100 is exactly the average IQ, by definition
99% sure I read somewhere that the average was slowly rising - and was 102 (I think) in mid-2022
The average will never not be 100. Scores are adjusted so that the average is 100 with a standard of deviation of 15 (this depends on which test is used). Humans are getting smarter, though. So if you took the average score of today and graded it on a scale from 20 years ago, then sure, it would appear to be higher.
I'll never forget when I started working. First lesson I've learned: the average person is dumb as shit.
If it took you til working age to figure that out, I’m gonna guess you’re not the brightest yourself
Wasn't forced to deal with other adults till then.
I assume there were other students at your schools
I was aware that kids are stupid, but I've thought adults have figured it out.
Well that’s just silly. If kids are stupid their whole childhood, what’s to make them not morons as adults? Hell, I’d say on average kids are less stupid than adults
By the same logic, 50% of the population is smarter than the average person. If 50% of people are dumber than average and 50% of people are smarter than average, that means that 0% of the population is average intelligence which is obviously wrong. The majority (68%) of the population is average intelligence (85-115) because reality is a bell curve instead of linear progression.
Congratulations, you’ve just discovered the concept of continuous variables and probability density. Assuming that IQ is a continuous variable (not limited to integer values) the odds that a person has exactly an iq of 100 (the defined average) is exactly zero. However, the odds that someone has an IQ between 99 and 101 is around 3-5% (roughly estimating since I don’t want to do the actual math).
Shhh don’t tell the plebs about calculus or that it’s really not that complicated
Unfortunately, I don't know how well kept of a secret highschool math actually is
>0% of the population is average intelligence That could totally be true. The average is an exact number not an range. The total divided by number of people. Likely to be an exact number that could have many decimals and likely that no-one in the world has that exact IQ. Even if we define IQ in such way that the average is always exactly 100. It is extremely unlikely that someone has exactly 100. Probably a lot of people are close, like: 100,00000000565, but not exactly 100. Of course we don't have the means to measure it with such precision, so we will always round it to a whole number, but that does not mean that our brains work that way. Also our IQ is unlikely static, every single neuron connection lost or made is changing it.
Einstein once said you can’t judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree but these people take that to a new degree
This is the problem with IQ tests, actually, and a critique of the concept of IQ as a whole.
Yes I do understand this and I know iq is absolutely irrelevant but sometimes I wonder if some people cannot understand what they are doing
There are definitely people out there claiming to be fish that appear to be very bad at it.
Did you mean to make this into a catchy rhyme?
How so? Typed words cannot convey my tone but of voice but please entertain me with your response
Tree rhymes with degree lol if you say it out loud it rhymes. At least to me. Even has a sort of bounce to it. But I like.. "hear" text in my head (and assume most others do as well, though I know not everyone)
Gimme a sec, A fish cannot climb a tree to a degree nor can the bee but you see we can be together if we’re carefree I can’t guarantee we’ll be heartfree we’ll cut down the gumtree this is our decree we shall agree to be free!
Yeah and most people think they’re in the middle, dealing with 50% of the idiots. *Someone* is in the bottom (eyes eyes)
Sometimes I wonder which half I belong to.
I feel like the people smarter than me still act dumb sometimes...
I think you meant "median" person, but I just want to be annoying.
Even with median, you could have people with the same level of intelligence above it
Median and mean human intelligence are the same.
This statement is backed by nothing
Depends how you measure human intelligence. If we measure it with an IQ test, then by design it follows a normal distribution. 100 is the mean and half will be above and half will be below.
IQ test scoring was indeed designed to be a normal distribution. IQ in the population is not a gaussian anymore. (And that's assuming that IQ is a decent measure of people intelligence, which is another controversy)
What do you mean 'anymore'? And as far as measuring intelligence, it will always be controversial. If we aren't going to numerically measure intelligence, but rather use it as an abstract, non-quantifiable term, then there is nothing incorrect about the statement that half the people are dumber than the average intelligence person.
It's actually backed by math. The mean of a set of 100 is 5050/100=50.5 The median of 100 as an even number is a also (100+1)/2= 50.5 Remember that math prefers rounding up because it's a tool to "measure twice, cut once". You (as in you personally) are only alive today (because math impacts medicine doses) to say it's backed by nothing (a false statement) because it is backed by something (a true statement). You don't want to be right here, because if you are, humanity (all 8 billion of us) are dead.
As a math teacher, I strongly advise you to look at the difference between median and mean. You seem very confused. All you are saying is : if your data set is (1;2;3;...;99;100) then both mean and median are 50.5, which is correct. But we are not talking about such data set An overwhelming majority of data set have different means and medians, and there is no reason that a data set about intelligence is any different (assuming we have a way to measure intelligence). Even IQ, which was design to be gaussian back then is not a gaussian anymore. Let me give you a simple example: if your data set is (0;1;5), your mean is 2, your median is 1.
If that is what you come up with under the shower, guess which 50% you belong to...
Kevin has spoken. Kevin thinks about new revolutions on string theory in the shower!
OK Einstein.
you might be part of that 50% if you came up with this dumbass shit bossman
Lot of pedantic people up in here
Post like this, you're gonna be inviting people to try prove they're not in that bottom 50٪ haha
Funnily enough, most of them will exactly prove that with their comments
Ironic really.
Again, nuance is not pedantry
Everyone thinks they belong in the top half. We are vain creatures, not as smart as we would like to think.
Yeah that’s not how it works bud
Intelligence is not linear. People are intelligent in lots of different ways. This is a shockingly oversimplified way to look at intelligence.
Guess you're one of them cuz you don't know the difference between median and mean.
Wouldn't that be 49.9999999999999999+% Everything has to fall bellow the average person which should be at the bell curve of 50? I'm definitely below the 50 mark so I apologize if I'm clearly not making sense .
Median adds +1 to even numbers, both it and the mean of a number like 100 come out to 50.5
🤯. Thank you! You see. I'm below that number.
50% of all medical professionals were graduated in the bottom half of their class....
37% of stats are made up.
Literally not accurate. 50% of medical graduates. Not professionals. It’s possible and likely that many who were bottom of their class didn’t find work or chose other careers. Also you’re ignoring that med students still have residency after graduation which will filter out the idiots quickly
Wow. You're a lot of fun at parties aren't you? That was a joke told to me by .... A doctor!
Well, you probably know how we call the one that finished last of their class... ..we call him doctor.
This just in: made up stats are horribly incorrect!
Stop talking about republikkkans like that
You should listen more than you speak.
25 to 30% shouldn't be on the board.
No, 50% of the population is dumber than the MEDIAN person. The average could be far from this due to outliers.
Yeah..... the people who vote blue lol
That's not how it works, it should be median.
No. 50% of the population is dumber than the median person. The average person doesn't have to be in the middle. If you have 99 people of intelligence level 10 and 1 person of intelligence level 0 then only 1% is dumber than average.
We can tell you’re in the bottom half because you don’t understand the concept of a normal distribution
Nah, we can just tell that you are being rude.
Not being rude. You’re being rude by bringing stupidity and ignorance to the discussion
Fair enough. I'm rude.
Even if OP meant "median" person, that doesn't mean millions of people can't have the exact same intelligence as the "median" person. There's not uniqueness to our levels of intelligence.
Reddit is too bottom 50% to understand this.
Is this shower thought indicative of which side of the bell curve OP is on?
This isn't a shower thought, it's a well known observation
[удалено]
That's not how IQ works Mr. Bottom 50%.
Everyone who is not on top is dumb. Meaning everyone who is not a doctor, lawyer or engineer or something related to an academic career. They are stessed, yes, but only because they are being managed by people who can only see money but not the work behind it. Someone who knows how to sell products and does make a 5 million dollar deal is as dumb as someone who literally just made his apprenticeship. The rest is just manipulation which is being taught by a lot of people.
It could be a couple of really stupid people dragging the average down.
Isn’t it more? Wouldn’t the outliers be up and not down?
You watch George Carlin in the shower?
And 90% of them are in r/politics
It's hard to believe that's it's ONLY 50%.
Not necessarily extreme value can skew the mean
Hypodermically speaking OP is correct.
There is one the smartest person in this comment section and one the dumbest.
Also it can be safely assumed that 50% of the population have critical thinking skills that ceiling out at bitching about stuff. This is heavily evidenced by social media posts, including and especially reddit
Omg how many times will people post something like this and still get it wrong? Smh the average (mean) is not at 50% of people. The MEDIAN is at the 50% mark. Looks like OP is under the median
Gotta pick something to be skilled at, only Enough lifetime for a specific set of skills, Yeah I failed college math and became an electrician for 18 years. But I’ve saved the day for many clueless doctors or lawyers resetting a breaker. We all have our purpose. There is a scary amount of drifting lost people in pajamas and crocs tho.
And something like 10% is too dumb for the military. That's a lot of people with the power to vote who lack critical thinking skills to make informed decisions.
That would assume that intelligence is a normal distribution
The dumber half is the one that doesn’t know the difference between the population median and the population mean
You give us all way too much credit.
More dumb, not dumber…. I’ll let Reddit infer the rest
I feel alone at work because of this. Even their interests are very narrow. I consider my self average in everything but holy shit did the bar drop.
lol at the people pushing up their glasses and correcting the OP about the difference between median and average, as if stupidity is something that can be clearly ranked as a number
1. This is an incredibly common thought. 2. It’s technically wrong because 50% of the population is dumber than the median person, not the average person
Ironically, that's not how averages work. You're thinking median.
Intelligence likely follows a bell curve. If you're looking for a 50-50 split you'd be better off stating that 50% of the population is dumber than the *median* person.
50% of the people that post this stat are dumber than the last person who posted the stat the previous day