• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nearly half of Americans are stupid.

Ruptga

Ruptga

Lifer
This one is the OP, nevermind the timewarps.

You heard it here first.

This last part in particular made me lol:
Given that medical conspiracy theories are so widely known and embraced, said Oliver and Weed, it would be unwise to dismiss all those who believe them as a "delusional fringe of paranoid cranks." Instead, they suggested, "we can recognize that most individuals who endorse these narratives are otherwise normal" but use a sort of cognitive shortcut to explain complex and confusing events.
Click to expand...
That is an extremely scientific and impartial way to say that a lot of otherwise normal people are too stupid or too lazy to think complex things through.

And I wouldn't read too much into the large number of "neither agree nor disagree" answers. A lot of people will answer that way simply because they haven't heard of whatever subject, not because they're informed but still uncertain of the truth.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Pedantic said:
That's if your premise is that stupidity is based off the average. Which is, itself, kind of stupid.
Click to expand...

Hang on now, there is no objective standard of intelligence, so a relative definition is the only option. For example:
When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less, although this was not always so historically.
Click to expand...
You could certainly argue that stupid should only refer to the bottom quartile, or bottom quintile, however I've always taken stupid to mean "less intelligent than most", which would be half.
 
Colt45 said:
I'd say people that are less than a SD above the 'average american' are borderline retarded. :awe:
Click to expand...

At first I laughed and thought that was maybe a little excessive, but then I remembered 46% of Americans hold a creationist view of human origins, and as we all know...



FGPetarded2.jpg


It doesn't look good for us at all. 🙁
 
OverVolt said:
Heh.
Click to expand...

I saw that before you changed your mind. I do understand being suspicious of pharmaceuticals companies, doctors, etc., but there is a huge difference between suspicion and buying into a conspiracy theory.

Personally, I don't look down on anyone for being suspicious; I do look down on people for talking about what "they" don't want you to know.

senttoschool said:
Statistically, 98% of people here work in IT, are fat, have little to no friends, and hate everything.
Click to expand...

And 98% of unsourced statistics are made up on the spot.

I'm taking that to mean that you're butthurt after being indirectly called out as an idiot. You don't have to take it personally; it happens to everyone from time to time, unless you refuse to learn from it, then it happens all the time.
 
Last edited:
Ruptga said:
Hang on now, there is no objective standard of intelligence, so a relative definition is the only option. For example:
You could certainly argue that stupid should only refer to the bottom quartile, or bottom quintile, however I've always taken stupid to mean "less intelligent than most", which would be half.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that doesn't mean that "intelligent" has to mean "better than average".
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
Yes, but that doesn't mean that "intelligent" has to mean "better than average".
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to, it just does by convention. It does get pretty weird though, if you want to be pedantic about it.

Stupid often refers to the bottom half. It can also refer to the bottom third or quarter.
Average often refers to the middle two quarters. It can also refer to the middle third.
Smart often refers to the top third. It can also refer to the top quarter, third, or tenth.
Intelligent is often a synonym for smart. It can also refer to the top two thirds or three quarters.

Really, it's all about context.
 
Ruptga said:
It doesn't have to, it just does by convention. It does get pretty weird though, if you want to be pedantic about it.

Stupid often refers to the bottom half. It can also refer to the bottom third or quarter.
Average often refers to the middle two quarters. It can also refer to the middle third.
Smart often refers to the top third. It can also refer to the top quarter, third, or tenth.

Really, it's all about context.
Click to expand...

"Average" tennis players are bad at tennis.
"Average" pianists are bad at piano.
"Average" typists get, what, 30-40wpm?


"Average" intelligence people are pretty stupid.
 
From the Article:
Just over half of Americans rejected outright a widely circulated theory alleging that the CIA deliberately infected African Americans with the HIV virus under the guise of a hepatitis inoculation program. But 12% agreed, and 37% said they neither agreed nor disagreed.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

it's close enough that in the mind of an average american (idiot), if they've heard the truth, they'll believe the falsehood. since that particular falsehood is not that far removed from the truth.
 
Lets be very clear here. There are two types of situations where stupidity appears.

1. Someone is ignorant because they have not been presented with the correct information. Think 3rd world countries where not everyone has access to an education.

2. Someone who is stupid because they ignore information and evidence presented to them or are unable to understand information due to a lack of intelligence.

So with that said 46% of Americans are #2 and completely stupid because despite being educated and presented with the correct information they think that "god created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
 
That's how most religions started out (that, and wanting to make up a reason why you are superior to the rest of the world). Not being able to explain something and then claiming it was a divine act that caused it. When more and more was explainable through science monotheism became more popular as then anything that can be explained can be removed from the list, and you can still claim your god can do the rest of it.

Ignoring what you don't (want to) understand has always been a powerful tool. It's used in racial conflicts (uber- & untermenschen), in religious conflicts (their god is false, our religion is the only true one!), in conflicts about strategically positioned land (see the situation involving the islands between China and Japan), in economical conflicts (the Krim) and in combinations of these (Israel/Palestine for example).
Ignore whatever the other party claims, amplify anything they do wrong as sole proof of your right, and keep repeating your claims even if no one is listening or arguments against them have been presented.
 
Half is a very conservative number. I'd extend this to Canada as well, as most people I encounter in daily life are functionally retarded.

Also timewarps are back!
 
People who don't believe in creation, generally do so with the same rigor as those who do believe, as a litmus test it means nothing.
 
mikeford said:
People who don't believe in creation, generally do so with the same rigor as those who do believe, as a litmus test it means nothing.
Click to expand...

No they don't, it just looks like it to people who refuse to examine the reasons non-creationists believe as they do. One is evidence based, and won't change so long as the evidence doesn't. The other is based on steadfast denial of the evidence, and won't change for any reason at all. Once the evidence has reached a certain level of stability, as in most inaccurate conclusions have already been eliminated and most new evidence only supports what previous evidence was already telling us, then why should non-creationists change what they believe? Of course it looks like rigor to creationists because they could only see that it isn't by examining the evidence underpinning it, and that's the very thing they must avoid to maintain their own beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top