How to tell if a person is stupid

Perhaps a few of you are intelligent and observant enough to have noted a pattern adopted by some of my more envious detractors.

The slipshod copycat or "answer" threads sprinkled around the forum, the pale imitations of my inimitable posting style (like bolding a nickname), or a catchphrase, for example.

The phenomenon has been studied by behavioral science, and is not rare by any means.

  • People with lower fluid intelligence (e.g., measured by Raven matrices) rely more on social learning/imitation than higher-intelligence individuals, who are better at deciding when and whom to copy and at integrating individual information. When the demonstrator’s high intelligence is known, lower-intelligence participants increase imitation rates; higher-intelligence participants adjust more flexibly based on observed behavior.
  • In dual-inheritance/cultural-evolution theory (Boyd, Richerson, Henrich and others), humans show model-based biases: preferentially copy successful, prestigious, or knowledgeable individuals. Prestige and success often correlate with competence/intelligence, so lower performers (including those lower in cognitive ability) disproportionately copy higher ones. This is adaptive for cumulative culture—most people do not invent, they copy effective variants. Related findings show children and adults preferentially copy experts or high-competence models over low-competence ones.

Related everyday or colloquial descriptions include simple “imitation,” “aping,” or “monkey see, monkey do,” but the scientific framing is selective social learning / biased cultural transmission.


Higher-intelligence people are more selective and often innovate or learn individually; lower-intelligence people lean more heavily on copying competent others as a compensatory strategy.


Naturally, I wouldn't assume that the individuals who are thus unwittingly demonstrating their obeisance to me are aware of the irony.


Here endeth the lesson.





images.jpg​
 
"Higher-intelligence people are more selective and often innovate or learn individually; lower-intelligence people lean more heavily on copying competent others as a compensatory strategy.

Naturally, I wouldn't assume that the individuals who are thus unwittingly demonstrating their obeisance to me are aware of the irony.

Here endeth the lesson."


1786999488484.png

:rolleyes:
 
christiefan915 said:
"Higher-intelligence people are more selective and often innovate or learn individually; lower-intelligence people lean more heavily on copying competent others as a compensatory strategy. Naturally, I wouldn't assume that the individuals who are thus unwittingly demonstrating their obeisance to me are aware of the irony. Here endeth the lesson."
Click to expand...

I thought you'd get it, sweety-paws. You may arise.


image.jpg​
 
iu


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.


images.jpg​
 
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...

Straw man.

You are arguing averages when the question is veracity. In the Tweet, no evidence to support the claim was offered.

The intelligent response to "Asian men are shorter on average" is "let's see your evidence." Further, define "Asian." Arabs are considered "Asian" (Despite being African) and tend to have average or above average height.

Statistically, southeast Asian men are substantially shorter than men in the west. Probably the most interesting comparative is between North and South Korea, where South Korean men are on average an inch and a half taller than those born and raised in the North. Demonstrating the effect of diet and nutrition on development in a dramatic fashion.

I'd love to see a comparative on the delta for IQ between North and South Korea, but can find no data. My guess is there is a substantial gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top