Some time ago I came to the conclusion that the average person really isn’t that smart.
Half he population has below average intelligence. Don’t expect too much.
Assuming a symmetrical distribution. I’m not sure the raw data distribution is symmetrical.
Plus there’s also ignorance which often allies with lack of intelligence in poor decision making. And I’m pretty sure ignorance is a highly skewed distribution.
Most measurements associated with intelligence in humans appear to be normally dstributed. Symmetry is a pretty safe assumption
But people with less intelligence are more likely to fall for Trumps lies. That’s what skews the MAGA movement to be a bit less sharp.
Is that because intelligence is normally distributed, or because the tests to measure it were designed to produce a normal distribution?
Point of order: I noted “measurements associated with intelligence”, not intelligence directly. And that’s not just ‘intelligence tests’ but things like memory or arithmetic speed drills.
And this should come as little surprise. Many things approximate a normal distribution.
That said, it’s also true that, as above, there’s a bit of self-selection. MAGA types do skew lower lower education and probably less intelligent as well. If you’re just measuring among them, your sample is not representative of Americans in general.
They were not designed to generate a bell curve. The results fall into a nomal distribution.
Gordian Knot answer:
MAGAts are mostly low-I.Q. stupid deplorables.
I’ve long felt MAGA’s biggest problem wasn’t stupidity. A stupid person might have to burn themselves on a hot stove two or three times before the lesson sinks in, but eventually they learn. If MAGA is stupid it’s because they’re willfully obstinant. They knew exactly who Donald Trump was when they elected him. They deliberately chose to ignore all the warning signs. I wish they were just stupid, because I think that’d be much easier to deal with.
Yup, some just can’t admit how clearly, absolutly wrong they where/are. They’d have to own it. Others are just disconnected and dum(b) as a bag of rocks.
They are certainly obstinate but it’s not that they ignored the warning signs. The warning signs are precisely why they chose him.
It’s more they thought he’d either only hurt “those” people or at least hurt them worse. A lot of them, even now, are still ok with him as long as “they” are getting it worse. A few are having buyer’s remorse, but only a few
And if you were subscribed only to their media sources, you’d think he was doing far more good for you than he really is.
Because of all the imaginary problems the criminal regime and their propagandists have invented then stopped talking about so to their chosen audience it seems those problems have been solved.
But…but…but…he’s owning the libs!
To them the “warning signs” were attractive. Trump is cruel, stupid, ignorant, bigoted, selfish and irrational; the ideal human being by right wing standards. A devotion to vileness and the denial of reality for their own sake are core to the entire right wing and have been for longer than this nation has existed. It comes directly from being all about defending an unjust social order that is contradicted by reality, whether that social order is the French aristocracy or modern American racial & class stratification.
Cruelty and irrationality are what the Right is for, and always have been.
Actually, yes they were and are. It was a rhetorical questions.
“Party over county” and that’s because they’re still convinced the Democrats are Evil Incarnate out to destroy the country. No matter how bad the Republican choice is, that choice is the one they will make and console themselves with their mantra: At least I didn’t vote for the Democrat.
I know they’re forcibly rescaled to a standard normal distribution but do you have a cite that they are currently designed to be so naturally? That would be a lot more work than just creating a spread of difficulty.
I’ll just leave this here…
I’m not sure why, unless you want to provide support for the raw data of being sufficiently of scale and distribution for the CLT to apply.
Oh, wait, here, I’ll give you something:
Many psychometric tests are based on the assumption that the raw scores are a manifest expression of a latent personality trait or ability which itself cannot be directly assessed. As highlighted in Fig 1, norming aims at mapping the raw scores of a test to that latent ability. While the latter one is usually assumed to be normally distributed, the same unfortunately does not apply to the raw score distribution. For example, most test scales have only a limited range of discrete possible outcomes, which can lead to skewed distributions constrained with floor or ceiling effects.