Readability# Doing some math, because I can and it embarrasses liberals

Glenn Reynolds linked to this debunking of a study which claimed that Fox News viewers have an average IQ of 80. Yahoo News published the study.

An IQ of 80 is awfully low — representing somewhere in the range of the least intelligent 10% of Americans. (More, here.)

About thirty percent of Americans regularly watch Fox News. The Nichols study, cited above, claims that those thirty percent of Americans are, on the average, dumber than 90% of Americans.

Okay, I’m cracking up here. This guy’s claim is the opposite of Lake Wobegon, but just as mathematically inept: he’s saying that 30% of Americans are among the dumbest 10% of Americans. Not possible, kids, not possible. Basic pigeonhole principle.

At most, 20% of the population can have an IQ that averages in the bottom 10% of the population: every person with an IQ of 100 could be balanced out by someone with an IQ of 60. Since IQs are distributed on a bell curve, and less than 1% of people have an IQ of 60, you can only balance them out with an equal number of people who have an IQ of 100 to keep your average at 80. (Imagine reflecting the left-hand side of the bell curve over the average, and you have the highest number of people who can have that average IQ, and the ways that it is distributed.) Ergo, even assuming that every single Fox News viewer were among the dumbest in the nation, you can’t get more than 20% with an average IQ of 80. Sorry, liberals!

I will further note that even a small number of highly intelligent Fox News viewers will wreck havoc on the results (if the ‘average’ were taken to mean ‘the mean’) — you need quite a few people with IQs in the lowest 10% to balance out one Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Ann Coulter.

But keep remembering, my conservative readers, *we’re *the dumb ones. Those who look at a “study” like this and publish it on Yahoo News are smarter than those who can prove that said study results are mathematically impossible. Turns out, the joke is on them.

Glenn Reynolds linked to this debunking of a study which claimed that Fox News viewers have an average IQ of 80. Yahoo News published the study.

An IQ of 80 is awfully low – representing somewhere in the range of the least intelligent 10% of Americans. (More, here.)

About thirty percent of Americans regularly watch Fox News. The Nichols study, cited above, claims that those thirty percent of Americans are, on the average, dumber than 90% of Americans.

Okay, I’m cracking up here. This guy’s claim is the opposite of Lake Wobegon, but just as mathematically inept: he’s saying that 30% of Americans are among the dumbest 10% of Americans. Not possible, kids, not possible. Basic pigeonhole principle.

At most, 20% of the population can have an IQ that averages in the bottom 10% of the population: every person with an IQ of 100 could be balanced out by someone with an IQ of 60. Since IQs are distributed on a bell curve, and less than 1% of people have an IQ of 60, you can only balance them out with an equal number of people who have an IQ of 100 to keep your average at 80. (Imagine reflecting the left-hand side of the bell curve over the average, and you have the highest number of people who can have that average IQ, and the ways that it is distributed.) Ergo, even assuming that every single Fox News viewer were among the dumbest in the nation, you can’t get more than 20% with an average IQ of 80. Sorry, liberals!

I will further note that even a small number of highly intelligent Fox News viewers will wreck havoc on the results (if the ‘average’ were taken to mean ‘the mean’) – you need quite a few people with IQs in the lowest 10% to balance out one Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Ann Coulter.

But keep remembering, my conservative readers, *we’re *the dumb ones. Those who look at a “study” like this and publish it on Yahoo News are smarter than those who can prove that said study results are mathematically impossible. Turns out, the joke is on them.

A number of issues regarding IQ were brought up in the post; and based on the content; it appeared that the writer was unfamiliar with the basics. Those with an IQ of 60 are not “balanced out” by those with an IQ of 100. The other end of the curve; those at the top 1%; have an IQ of 140 or higher.

As I stated before; this Yahoo story is not credible.

However; a lack of flexibility in thinking is reflected in the conservative rhetoric. “…standing athwart history yelling stop” is not the motto of a flexible thinker. KWIM?

For studies about IQ and conservatism try Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes and Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism.

Now I’d like to see your scholarly articles to back up that rant of yours about taxes and sluts.

For the purposes of an average, yes, an IQ of 100 does balance out an IQ of 60. I then discussed the differing numbers of people with an IQ of 60 and an IQ of 100:You really need to work on your reading comprehension, Jeanne. MSTU should have taught you better.

of course his math works out; if he watches fox news.

When you are at a poker table and you can’t find the goat…its most likely you.

The average IQ is 100 + or – 15. About half of the population has an IQ of 100. Seventy five per cent of the population is between 85 and 115. The opposite tail of the Bell curve from the 60s is balanced out by the 140s. The 100 IQ is right there at the peak of the curve.

Conservations by nature may be less flexible in their thinking. The openly admit to a preference for sameness and old ways. But this “study” sounds like nonsense. Yahoo should not have given it space; IMO.

Jeanne, my little genuis, we aren’t talking about the average IQ; we’re talking about the percent of the population with an IQ of 80 or below, which allows us to apply the pigeonhole principle to the claim made by Yahoo News.

If you are going to claim that conservatives are “less flexible” in their thinking, then please back yourself up with a reputable, peer-reviewed, non-laughable study. Also, compare to liberals, whose entire mantra these days seems to be “bigger government, pay for the consequences of sluts, more taxes, tax the rich, eat the rich.”