What the media presents has a strong influence on public perception. When the races are close, they only need to sway a few percent of voters.
I recall that in 2016, it was apparent to me that those in control of the media were intentionally giving Bernie as little coverage as possible. The stuff they were doing was blatant, once you became aware of it.
I remember seeing a news segment where they said something like, "The current leading Democrat in the primaries is Hillary Clinton. Yeah she's doing great. Also in 3rd place is Martin O'Malley or something." They would just blatantly omit Bernie.
I kept seing stuff like this and it really made an impression on me. Then, when the whole GameStop stock thing happened and all those private investors were making tons of money, taking it from rich hedgefunds, the media started telling everyone how dumb they would be to try to get in on the action. They were protecting the interests of the rich. It was a little intimidating to see them all do it, implying who was really in control of information and public perception.
So, I disagree. It's not as simple as, "America is not that progressive."
If only there were some method available, allowing you to search for and obtain information on any possible topic! Maybe in some sci-fi future world, this incredible information resource will also include instructional videos!
It might just be a matter of perspective. I'm not very knowledgeable on distros, so my opinion may come from ignorance:
To me, Ubuntu is too resource intensive with too much going on. Mint seems relatively lean yet modern, with all the basics covered. Debian is a little sparse (no sudo, no fdisk, what's going on here?).
Look, I'm saying the same thing that I also found on Wikipedia. You just put the scores in order and then you fit them to a normal curve. This is what it means to scale them ordinally and then fit this to a normal distribution.
Its clear that we aren't going to agree on any of this, so I'm going to stop replying.
Additonally, you seem to incorrectly think that an IQ of 0 would mean zero intelligence when I have explained exactly what an IQ of zero would mean.
I'm not saying intelligence is a normal distribution. I'm saying that IQ scores are a normal distribution.
The metric, IQ is a normal distribution because that's how the metric is defined.
I'd like to hear your explanation how an IQ of above 200 is possible and what that would actually mean.
Its only possible if there are about 10x more humans. With a population of around 80 billion, the smartest one person would have a z score of roughly 6.6 and an IQ of roughly 200. This is calculated from a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, which is how it's defined.
Here's a reference from Wikipedia for you, which, itself, references many scientific journals:
" IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[81][82][83][84][85] The raw score of the norming sample is usually (rank order) transformed to a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.[3] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 would mean half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points "
So, as I've been saying, you just put everyone's test scores in order from worst to best, calculate the z score of the person you're interested in, multiply by the SD (15) and add the mean.
It is also the case that for populations over 80 billion, you can have negative IQ scores, using the same logic that was used for a person with an IQ of >=200.
I think the confusion is that IQ is not an objective measurement. It's subjective.
Its not like say, height, where you can have a normal distribution and then a statistical outlier.
The IQ point isnt a constant, tangeable unit of measure, like an inch. Intelligence isn't something you can put a ruler up to and say, oh that's weird, this person has an IQ of 300 and is a statistical outlier.
IQ is defined statistically. You use some method of claiming that each person has a certain ranking of intelligence. Then you use a defined mean and SD to determine what IQ value that corresponds to, in the context of everyone else in the population.
You provided a link to reader's digest. It's not the most credible reference.
A negative IQ score and an IQ score above 200 would be possible with larger populations.
I have to disagree.
IQ as a measure of intelligence doesn't work that way. The number can't just get higher and higher because a person is really smart. A supreme, godlike intelligence doesn't have an IQ of say, a million.
IQ has a statistical definition and although intelligence may not follow a perfect normal distribution, IQ Score does.
If there are about 8 billion humans, then 1 of them is "the smartest" in some way. 1/8,000,000,000 is 1.2x10^-10, this has a z score of 6.33.
The current smartest person will have an IQ of (6.33x15)+100=195. No one has an IQ of 200. This isn't because a person can't be any smarter, it's because this is how IQ is defined. If a pure, perfect, godlike intelligence exists in our current human population, their IQ is 195.
I understand that you're saying there are more incredible geniuses than full on retards.
However, IQ scores are a normal distribution with an arbitrarily defined mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
So, IQ scores of 0 or 200 are both 6.6 standard deviations from the mean. If IQ is truly a normal distribution, you'd expect the number of people with IQ scores <= 0 and the number with scores >= 200 to be exactly the same, simply because this is how the scores are defined.
If you try to look up what proportion of the population falls outside 6.6 standard deviations, the z-tables don't go out this far. It's essentially 0% (0/100) but how many is it out of 8 billion?
Contrary to popular belief, we're all profoundly stupid. Even the smartest among us spend enormous effort in their struggle to comprehend our surroundings.
I know very little about psychology but doesn't this seem like a common symptom of some other issues, rather than its own disorder?
Haha, I also came back to check on the popcorn guy.
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to get into a disagreement with someone who clearly knows more about file compression than I do.
I was trying to make a joke where his crushed computer was merely compressed and I was using a terminal command to decompress the computer, as if it were a file.
I wasn't specifying tar as a file format. I was running the program "tar" using a terminal command.
I think that if you pointed the command I used at a compressed file, it'd decompress it but what do I know?