Originally posted by Sam The ShamSo you reckon that it's natural for 1 in 5 people in a population to be moron level or worse??
It would only be natural that people in the bottom 20% of the population's average IQ range would be more or less illiterate, that's basically moron level or worse.
But in Cuba, they are 100% literate, including the retarded,insane, autistic, and dyslexic. Just ask Castro.
I think that testaments speaks for itself.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyBottom 20% stabby, do the math. That's most likely in the high 70's and below. 70 is considered moron level, but the correct term now is "mentally challenged".
So you reckon that it's natural for 1 in 5 people in a population to be moron level or worse??
I think that testaments speaks for itself.
I'd have to check a bell-curve of IQ distribution, perhaps the percentage is lower. I don't know what the standard deviation is up and down from the 100 mark. If you're interested, let us know what you find out.
Originally posted by Sam The Shamhttp://www.concordspedpac.org/IQ-bell.JPG
Bottom 20% stabby, do the math. That's most likely in the high 70's and below. 70 is considered moron level, but the correct term now is "mentally challenged".
70 and below is considered retarded or moron. that percentage is about 3-4%, not 20%
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerI guessed 20% were in the high 70's and below, the chart you referenced shows 16% are under 85.
http://www.concordspedpac.org/IQ-bell.JPG
70 and below is considered retarded or moron. that percentage is about 3-4%, not 20%
That's not too big a difference for a guess I grabbed out of the air. It was actually pretty close.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamOk, I'll do the math, let me find a distribution curve...
Bottom 20% stabby, do the math. That's most likely in the high 70's and below. 70 is considered moron level, but the correct term now is "mentally challenged".
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461540296/distribution_of_iq_scores.html
The bottom 16% or so are below 85 IQ. Your guesswork is out.
Did you form your conclusion before processing the information perhaps?
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWhat, no snappy quibbling comeback?
I guessed 20% were in the high 70's and below, the chart you referenced shows 16% are under 85. I did not say 20% were below 70. Please reread my post and try not to misquote me in order to win arguments.
That's not too big a difference for a guess I grabbed out of the air. It was actually pretty close.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDo you mean the sort of stupid people who can still manage to operate a mobile phone and a sony playstation and understand the ins and outs of which sneakers are fashionable?
Any idea's beyond "cause they don't have any brains"?
Or people with actual problems?
Originally posted by Sam The Shammy poiny was simply that to be considered retarded ( DSR a notable exception) the IQ would be 70 and under. The 16% includes "slow" adults. There is a difference.
I guessed 20% were in the high 70's and below, the chart you referenced shows 16% are under 85.
That's not too big a difference for a guess I grabbed out of the air. It was actually pretty close.
Originally posted by MexicoBush is a graduate of Yale and his grades where better than (cough, cough) John Kerry's, the world's most nuanced debater.
Oh I don't know, darwinin evolution will defeat us in the end. Eventually we'll leave enough stupid people in charge all over the world (cough, cough bush) that we'll eliminated ourselves. Showing that natural selection applies whether we're aware of it or not.
Originally posted by aging blitzerThey didn't get those problems overnight -- they had to take a lot of steps to get where they are -- that's why they're stupid.
Do you mean the sort of stupid people who can still manage to operate a mobile phone and a sony playstation and understand the ins and outs of which sneakers are fashionable?
Or people with actual problems?