How to tell if a person is stupid

Hawkeye10 said:
This topic has been showing up in my X feed....it is mostly BS.
Click to expand...

So you say.


The core claim is largely valid as a test of basic statistical reasoning, though overstated as a pure "IQ test."


The embedded text (a 2022 4chan post) argues that responding to a true group-average claim—like “Asian men are shorter on average”—with “not all Asian men are short” or “I know a tall Asian guy” reveals a failure to grasp statistical averages, variance, and the distinction between group means and individual cases. That response treats an average as if it were a universal claim about every member of the group.


Why the logic holds​


  • Averages describe central tendency in a distribution that has variance/overlap. Exceptions (tall Asian men, short European men, etc.) are expected and do not refute the mean. Pointing to one does not address the claim.
  • This is a common error: conflating a statement about the group mean with a claim of zero exceptions or zero overlap. People who understand distributions do not treat counterexamples as refutations of averages.
  • The height example itself is empirically true. Multiple data sources (CDC/NHANES, national surveys, and large meta-analyses of adult height trends) show East Asian and Asian-American men have lower average adult male heights than non-Hispanic White or Black American men (roughly ~5'7" vs. ~5'9–5'10" ranges, with substantial overlap). Nutrition and other factors affect absolute levels, but the directional group difference is well-documented.

This pattern appears frequently in discussions of any group difference (height, crime rates, test scores, disease prevalence, etc.). Treating “not all X” or a single anecdote as a rebuttal to an average is a failure of abstract/statistical thinking.


Limits and overstatement​


  • It is not a precise or comprehensive IQ test. It primarily measures statistical literacy, comfort with distributions, and resistance to certain motivated-reasoning patterns. High-IQ people can still make this error under social pressure, tribal incentives, or when the topic is emotionally charged; lower-IQ people can grasp averages in neutral domains (sports stats, weather, etc.).
  • The language “genuinely low IQ,” “literally CAN NOT understand abstracts,” and “no attempt at rationalizing… will increase their IQ” is hyperbolic. Many people understand averages in other contexts but default to individualistic or egalitarian intuitions here. It can also reflect conversational norms (pushing back against perceived stereotyping) rather than pure inability.
  • Outliers and variance are relevant to many real-world questions (e.g., individual prediction, selection, policy targeting). Averages matter for aggregates; they are weaker for individuals. The post correctly notes that exceptions do not disprove the average, but a sophisticated reply can acknowledge both the mean and the variance without treating the mean as nonexistent.

Bottom​


The diagnostic works reasonably well for detecting people who do not distinguish group averages from universal claims about every individual. The underlying statistical point is correct, and the chosen example is factually accurate. Framing it as an ironclad, quick IQ screen that proves permanent inability is exaggerated rhetoric common to anonymous imageboard posts. It is better understood as a practical filter for basic competence with means, distributions, and the difference between “on average” and “always.”
 
Diogenes said:
So you say.


The core claim is largely valid as a test of basic statistical reasoning, though overstated as a pure "IQ test."


The embedded text (a 2022 4chan post) argues that responding to a true group-average claim—like “Asian men are shorter on average”—with “not all Asian men are short” or “I know a tall Asian guy” reveals a failure to grasp statistical averages, variance, and the distinction between group means and individual cases. That response treats an average as if it were a universal claim about every member of the group.


Why the logic holds​


  • Averages describe central tendency in a distribution that has variance/overlap. Exceptions (tall Asian men, short European men, etc.) are expected and do not refute the mean. Pointing to one does not address the claim.
  • This is a common error: conflating a statement about the group mean with a claim of zero exceptions or zero overlap. People who understand distributions do not treat counterexamples as refutations of averages.
  • The height example itself is empirically true. Multiple data sources (CDC/NHANES, national surveys, and large meta-analyses of adult height trends) show East Asian and Asian-American men have lower average adult male heights than non-Hispanic White or Black American men (roughly ~5'7" vs. ~5'9–5'10" ranges, with substantial overlap). Nutrition and other factors affect absolute levels, but the directional group difference is well-documented.

This pattern appears frequently in discussions of any group difference (height, crime rates, test scores, disease prevalence, etc.). Treating “not all X” or a single anecdote as a rebuttal to an average is a failure of abstract/statistical thinking.


Limits and overstatement​


  • It is not a precise or comprehensive IQ test. It primarily measures statistical literacy, comfort with distributions, and resistance to certain motivated-reasoning patterns. High-IQ people can still make this error under social pressure, tribal incentives, or when the topic is emotionally charged; lower-IQ people can grasp averages in neutral domains (sports stats, weather, etc.).
  • The language “genuinely low IQ,” “literally CAN NOT understand abstracts,” and “no attempt at rationalizing… will increase their IQ” is hyperbolic. Many people understand averages in other contexts but default to individualistic or egalitarian intuitions here. It can also reflect conversational norms (pushing back against perceived stereotyping) rather than pure inability.
  • Outliers and variance are relevant to many real-world questions (e.g., individual prediction, selection, policy targeting). Averages matter for aggregates; they are weaker for individuals. The post correctly notes that exceptions do not disprove the average, but a sophisticated reply can acknowledge both the mean and the variance without treating the mean as nonexistent.

Bottom​


The diagnostic works reasonably well for detecting people who do not distinguish group averages from universal claims about every individual. The underlying statistical point is correct, and the chosen example is factually accurate. Framing it as an ironclad, quick IQ screen that proves permanent inability is exaggerated rhetoric common to anonymous imageboard posts. It is better understood as a practical filter for basic competence with means, distributions, and the difference between “on average” and “always.”
Click to expand...
No....those who say what are told to say and think may or may not be stupid.....submitting to authority has nothing to do with IQ.
 
I was recently reading? (might have been a YouTube) someone talking about large numbers of people effectively being like the Borg......they do not/can not think for themselves.....all they can do is figure out what their instructions are......it would not ever occur to them to question or resist instructions. This is the sort of thing that Peter Hitchens has long talked about.

I dont know that they are all low IQ.....might be....or it might be that they are fanatics to living a life of least resistance.
 
The diagnostic works reasonably well for detecting people who do not distinguish group averages from universal claims about every individual. The underlying statistical point is correct, and the chosen example is factually accurate.
 
HPNW_9JWYAArUIc
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Thank you. Also, if they constantly beg for attention on an Internet forum by frantically posting and trolling, rather than finding what they need in real life, they likely are stupid.
Click to expand...
Sez the jealous sea hag who spends her entire day harassing one particular poster.
:magagrin:
 
Lionfish said:
Sez the jealous sea hag who spends her entire day harassing one particular poster.
Click to expand...

She's the Queen of the Pussy Posse since Darla flounced.

Say, she routinely claims she has me "on ignore", doesn't she? :thinking:

And you'll note that she was unable to refute my point.

:indeed:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top