• snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I remember seeing a lot of people expand their horizons on all kinds of topics when the internet first started catching on.

    Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      i think its more about deliberate disinformation than about it being just a subset of people.

      i remember everyone was in awe that they could just type out a question an get the best information we had

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Now I think it was because they were actively looking for understanding something new, and did not represent the general population.

      Assuming that intelligence (and I don’t mean IQ or any other psychometric “proxy” for intelligence, but intelligence as an abstract trait) is normally distributed like most other traits, 50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median.

      And anyone trying to claim that intelligence as a concept is a completely socially constructed trait and that there is no difference in intelligence between people can shove it up their ass.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I wasn’t even commenting on IQ, just the general population’s interest in even trying to understand new things.

        A lot of otherwise smart people I know just can’t get past the indoctrination of bigotry from their youth that is reinforced by conservative media.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Oh I know you weren’t, it was just a disclaimer because a lot of people seem to think that any references to intelligence specifically mean IQ and go into frankly incredibly tedious tirades on IQ’s faults

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        50% of people are going to be dumber than average because in normal distributions the mean is the median. The “general population” is not smart by any definition.

        What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th? What if “gifted” is anything above the 50th percentile?

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          What if “smart” begins at the 35th percentile, rather than the 50th?

          I didn’t mean that the 50th is where “smart” begins, just that 50% are going to be below average in intelligence.

      • gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        intelligence as an abstract trait

        I read something about this two days ago, it’s called “g factor” or something. And yes, it follows a normal distribution.

        Apparently, it’s very similar in animals than it is in humans.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The g factor is actually a psychometric construct to an extent, and its distribution isn’t known but it’s generally thought that it’s probably normally distributed. Basically the g factor just summarizes how results on a bunch of different cognitive tasks tend to correlate.