Contrary to popular belief, we’re all profoundly stupid. Even the smartest among us spend enormous effort in their struggle to comprehend our surroundings.
That’s quite a reduction and profoundly stupid. First off, the simple fact that-- WOAH, there’s a wall here??
At least half of us are below average.
If we’re talking about IQ, than no. An IQ between 85 and 115 is considered average. This entails 68% of the population. So, only 32% of people are not average and only 16% are below average.
The average is exactly one value and nobody has exactly that value. Since average~mean 50 % are below and 50 % above average.
What you are talking about is a range that is around the average, specifically one standard deviation (=15 points) around the average/mean value, which is a completely arbitrary range and I do not know why you assign “average” to this range. 90 to 109 is a range I know to be attributed “average”, still arbitrary, but at least an actually established range.
You mean the median? :3
But in a perfect bell curve, isn’t the median always the same as the average?
And even if it’s not a perfectly symetrical bell curve, aren’t they generally close enough to ignore the differance
Yes Yes, with IQ both are the ~same. It was more of a teasing joke.
It can’t be that many.
It’s not. I assure you there are far more outliers on the low end.
But I’m sure there are more people with 200+ IQ than with <0.
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?
If IQ is truly a normal distribution
It’s not. Here’s a list containing a number of people above 200.
However, no-one has a negative IQ.
any article that lists historical figures with even estimates their IQs can be discarded as bullshit. IQ has specific testing criteria and imo the most important part of it is its basis in general distribution - if we don’t know the IQ of the average peasant, we can’t know the IQ of Shakespeare
besides, IQ is a borderline pseudo science to begin with. i was made to take an official IQ tests and the second i stepped out of the test room i started wondering how is this going to accuratly portray my “innate” intelligence when the vast majority of the things on the test can be learnt or otherwise trained to be better at
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 Upvoted just for the tapioca mention
Tapioca does sound good.
I often describe myself as “3lbs of mostly fat piloting a meat mech.” To the point that my wife sometimes refers to injuries as malfunctions/damage to her meat mech.
I’m an ugly bag of mostly water.
They’re made out of meat.
I really don’t like that version because they just look like us and I don’t think they should. Especially with the part about tongues. It doesn’t really make sense.
This is the original short story by Terry Bisson that it’s based upon.
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html
I don’t know if anyone has done one with CG robots or something, but they should. Bisson must have been inspired by The Cyberiad by Stanislaw Lem, one of my all-time favorite books. Incidentally, I recently found out that book was an inspiration for Will Wright when he came up with SimCity.
For what it’s worth, it’s a bit nostalgic seeing that “look” of 90s film making and I grew up sorta near that diner.
It was a student film as well, and I appreciate how both good and bad the acting is. Why would the one with authority be in a band-leader getup, if not because in their fractured understanding of us it would make sense?
Dunno, lots of small interesting touches to it.
All the way through?
Fitting, really, to be a dream to meat.
Aren’t the eyes teeeechnically part of the brain?
But poltergeist cat is real!
You momma is FAT (with water and salt)
File Allocation Table?
Yeah your momma’s so big she’s not even FAT she’s exFAT and can store files up to 120 petabytes
Yo mama’s like exFAT; she’s got no permissions so anyone can access anything and her low requirements mean she gets embedded everywhere.
OP has a baby in their head
If we are talking facts, neurons don’t use electricity, it’s a cascade of released ion potentials. Thats why nerves are so much slower than electrical signals.
He should have said “power” not electricity
Humans dissipate power in the range of old tungsten lamps - on the order of 100W at rest, brains use about 20% of that, so 20W - about the same as an energy efficient globe
Hi. I’m just curious what part of the world you’re from that light bulbs are called a globe?
Cheers.
Yeah we call them light globes in Australia, as well as bulbs
Brain uses more wattage than a lightbulb, unless we are counting incandescent bulbs because it makes the stat seem more impressive.
It was estimated back when incandescent was standard.
Keep in mind that’s not accounting for energy consumed from neurons burning oxygen, which accounts for 20% of a human body’s consumption.
That phrase first came out when incandescent bulbs were the most common, so they consumed like 60W vs 7W for an equivalent LED bulb. The brain is somewhere around 20W.
I don’t give a damn about Lemmy points, but you just said essentially the same thing as the above commenter and the Lemmy points are diametrically opposed. I love it!
Oh yeah? I care even less about Lemmy points. Watch as I fearlessly downvote myself!
Yeah and LED bulbs were the norm 15-20 years ago. my point is this is a repost of a Reddit repost of a Tumblr comment that was reposting a factoid that was already wrong when it was originally posted 5-6 years ago.
Your timeline is incorrect. 15 years ago was 2009, when CFLs were most common. A 60W equivalent CFL was 13W and 100W equivalent was 23W. My house was still mostly incandescent bulbs with some CFLs for bulbs that had died and weren’t on a dimmer. Commercial LED bulbs intended for residential use only started being released in 2009-2010 with incentive from the US government.
Ok, not in the US so idk. the last CFL bulb I bought was long before 2009.
Either way, the brain still uses more power than a 13W CFL, and the tumblr post is from 2018, and the Reddit post is even more recent. “It would have been technically correct if it was posted 20 years ago” doesn’t really change the fact that it’s not true anymore
Maybe the brain will one day invent something more tiresome than watching reddit users exchange tautologies.
