if we could improve the intelligence of the average voter by 10 IQ points
Please do be careful with statements like this. If by ‘average voter’ you mean ‘voter of average IQ’, then what you propose is mathematically impossible.
Why is that? Of course we all know that the average IQ can’t be 10 points higher than the average IQ, but that would be a silly way to interpret what he said, and I can’t think of any mathematical reason why the new average couldn’t become, say, 110 instead of 100… (I can think of lots of practical reasons, though) (EDIT: and of course I mean on today’s scale, as others have pointed out)
The charitable interpretation makes perfect sense: improve the intelligence of the electorate until their average score on the IQ test normalized for today would be 10 points greater than the norm.
Was the massive downvote here because I didn’t include enough information about how this is mathematically impossible, or because people don’t agree that one should speak with precision, or because people don’t like me pointing out that one should speak with precision?
I didn’t downvote you, but my guess is that you were perceived to be impolite about your failure (deliberate or inadvertent) to get the point of the original remark. Neither missing the point nor being impolite tend to be looked on favorably.
Please do be careful with statements like this. If by ‘average voter’ you mean ‘voter of average IQ’, then what you propose is mathematically impossible.
um, well ok, if you want to be a pedant about it, replace it with:
“if we could improve the intelligence of everyone in our society such that (scored on the current IQ scale) the average score was 110”
Why is that? Of course we all know that the average IQ can’t be 10 points higher than the average IQ, but that would be a silly way to interpret what he said, and I can’t think of any mathematical reason why the new average couldn’t become, say, 110 instead of 100… (I can think of lots of practical reasons, though) (EDIT: and of course I mean on today’s scale, as others have pointed out)
The charitable interpretation makes perfect sense: improve the intelligence of the electorate until their average score on the IQ test normalized for today would be 10 points greater than the norm.
not helpful, but not worth negative ten points either. negative five at worst. upvoted.
Was the massive downvote here because I didn’t include enough information about how this is mathematically impossible, or because people don’t agree that one should speak with precision, or because people don’t like me pointing out that one should speak with precision?
Technically, you didn’t point out that one should speak with precision. Therefore, your entire question is indecipherable gibberish.
I didn’t downvote you, but my guess is that you were perceived to be impolite about your failure (deliberate or inadvertent) to get the point of the original remark. Neither missing the point nor being impolite tend to be looked on favorably.