4 ms·

Sure, there definitely are liberal low-information voters. Consider the mask-opposed anti-vax crusader who nonetheless eats vegan and votes Democrat, for instan

by ttul 4y ago

Sure, there definitely are liberal low-information voters. Consider the mask-opposed anti-vax crusader who nonetheless eats vegan and votes Democrat, for instance. The average person has an IQ of 100. Given that average IQ is defined as being one standard deviation of average, the vast majority of voters are between low intelligence and average intelligence. About 84% of voters thus have low-to-average intelligence (68% fits in one standard deviation of average; 68/2 + 50 = 84%). Regardless of your political leaning, I think it’s worthwhile accepting that most governments are elected by people who aren’t as smart as the typical HN contributor.

wizofaus 4y ago
Fairly sure your maths is off there...IQ is supposed to have normal distribution, hence ~50% have below-average intelligence, 50% above-average: how can 84% possibly have low-to-average? Either way, even if it's true that some significant percentage of voters have below-average IQ, how strong is the evidence that they'll make a "worse" collective choice of government than those with above-average IQs? That's basically assuming that the properties of candidates that will ensure they can act as part of an effective government are somehow "too hard" to accurately judge unless you have above average IQ. It seems just as possible the opposite is true - i.e. those with above average IQ aren't good at judging the sorts of properties candidates need to be govern effectively - at least partly because that implies being able to govern in way that works well for those in the below-average-IQ group (i.e. those in the above-average-IQ group will probably do reasonably well for themselves regardless of the quality of government).
- wahern 4y ago
  The comment uses a definition of average as scores within one standard deviation of the mean. (The comment also uses average as the mean score, 100, which makes it confusing--two meanings of average. NB: Mean is also median in normal distributions.)
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I suppose it's the redefinition of average to include IQs up to "115" that I'd say was the issue then...
    - wahern 4y ago
      TIL that apparently both Stanford-Binet and Wechsler have classification systems which both define "average" as 90-109. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelligence_Scales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelli... (the latter includes the latest scale for Standford-Binet) Google provides many hits of people using average to mean within one standard deviation, or 85-115, but in a few minutes of searching I couldn't figure out a proper authority for that.

by ttul 4y ago

wizofaus 4y ago

Fairly sure your maths is off there...IQ is supposed to have normal distribution, hence ~50% have below-average intelligence, 50% above-average: how can 84% possibly have low-to-average? Either way, even if it's true that some significant percentage of voters have below-average IQ, how strong is the evidence that they'll make a "worse" collective choice of government than those with above-average IQs? That's basically assuming that the properties of candidates that will ensure they can act as part of an effective government are somehow "too hard" to accurately judge unless you have above average IQ. It seems just as possible the opposite is true - i.e. those with above average IQ aren't good at judging the sorts of properties candidates need to be govern effectively - at least partly because that implies being able to govern in way that works well for those in the below-average-IQ group (i.e. those in the above-average-IQ group will probably do reasonably well for themselves regardless of the quality of government).

wahern 4y ago
The comment uses a definition of average as scores within one standard deviation of the mean. (The comment also uses average as the mean score, 100, which makes it confusing--two meanings of average. NB: Mean is also median in normal distributions.)
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I suppose it's the redefinition of average to include IQs up to "115" that I'd say was the issue then...
  - wahern 4y ago
    TIL that apparently both Stanford-Binet and Wechsler have classification systems which both define "average" as 90-109. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelligence_Scales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford%E2%80%93Binet_Intelli... (the latter includes the latest scale for Standford-Binet) Google provides many hits of people using average to mean within one standard deviation, or 85-115, but in a few minutes of searching I couldn't figure out a proper authority for that.