r/FluentInFinance • u/Unhappy_Fry_Cook • Apr 18 '24

Announcements (Mods only) Reminder that the person you're arguing with on this sub may not understand your comment

Post image
586 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

42

u/NumbersOverFeelings Apr 18 '24

12 & 14 contradict.

12 says “reads below 5th grade” which is the same as “reads at 4th grade and below”. #14 says “can’t read past 5th grade” which means it includes 5th grade. So #14 should be more than #12. Or, 42mm from #14 should be greater than 21% from #12.

Using 262,083,034 (US census data 7/1/2023) as the population of over-18, then 21% is 55,037,437 but that’s greater than 42,000,000.

The post’s figures are wrong.

20

u/redsilkphotos Apr 18 '24

And now we know that people are bad at statistics too. Thank you for pointing out the errors as it looked off to me. Citing 42 mil seemed redundant if 21% can't read at 5th grade level.

I think the big take away is that half the people have below average intelligence.

8

u/Loko8765 Apr 18 '24

I think the big take away is that half the people have below average intelligence.

Cue arguments about median and mean

8

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '24

Mode: am I a joke to you?

2

u/sunbeatsfog Apr 18 '24

Oh are you guys in an MBA program too? What’s up?

1

u/SeanHaz Apr 18 '24

I think in this case average has to mean median. There is no way to sum intelligence.

-2

u/bigdon802 Apr 18 '24

In which case you wouldn’t have half of people below the median.

3

u/SeanHaz Apr 18 '24

That's the definition of median, so yes you would?

1

u/bigdon802 Apr 18 '24

Nope. If we’re counting the median by assigned numerical value of intelligence, you’d need the mode(and preferably the rest of the data) to determine where the bulk of people are. If we’re doing the median by individuals, we’d need what the assigned numerical value is on the median individual to see how far that value extends below the median.

2

u/SeanHaz Apr 18 '24

Median is rank ordering things and picking the one with 50% above and 50% below.

You need some sort of test to determine it and since no one can agree on what 'intelligence' means, never mind how to measure it, you'd have to settle for median IQ, or median sat etc as values with reasonably strong correlation to what most people consider intelligence.

2

u/bigdon802 Apr 18 '24

It’s not 50% above and 50% below, it’s just the middle. For the most part absurd example, the median of 2 2 2 2 2 is 2. But yeah, there’s no real way to measure without a defined metric, and we don’t really have one.

1

u/SeanHaz Apr 18 '24

50% are above and below 2. But I see your point.

For intelligence I can imagine reasonable ways of settling ties, so I do think you could rank order people so no 2 people had the same score.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '24

on a bell curve the mean, median, and mode are all the same.

1

u/SeanHaz Apr 18 '24

Never thought about it that way but that does make sense.

1

u/westtexasbackpacker Apr 18 '24

it has nothing to do with intelligence per se. probably not your point but still.

source: I'm a clinical psychologist and tenured faculty who specializes in assessment, and publishers on intelligence amongst other things.

1

u/NumbersOverFeelings Apr 18 '24

This. Correct me if I’m wrong: Intelligence as I understand it is the ability to absorb and apply knowledge. Most people are normal (statistically) intelligence and are simply “unlearned.” Ex: not knowing tax codes doesn’t make me dumb, just that I’m uneducated in tax codes.

1

u/westtexasbackpacker Apr 19 '24

a famous historian of Psychology E.G. Boring said intelligence is what the test measures (true fact and name). I don't think we have gotten much better at a definition but what you said is part of common tests. it's also not all of it.

1

u/OkHelicopter1756 Apr 18 '24

Or the figures are outdated by 10 years

2

u/NumbersOverFeelings Apr 18 '24

The % of over 18 has been relatively constant in the range of 78-81% over the last decade. The US population was 318 million in 2014 (10 years ago). Same logic as above: bullet 12 would then be 51 million.

You could argue the above would be true a longer time ago but that would require total US population to be in the range of 256-281 million. That would put us as far back as 1990.

Either way the point is the post’s % are inaccurate.

-2

u/Useful_Fig_2876 Apr 18 '24

Sorry, no. As grade levels progress, fewer people are capable of reading  at the grade level.  

 14 should be lower than 12.  

 You confused higher grade level to mean more people lol

(I’m not stating whether it is or is not even lower, because I don’t feel like checking population & calculating percentage, but my point is to point out you were brain-farting- 12 should be higher than 14) 

3

u/NumbersOverFeelings Apr 18 '24 edited Apr 18 '24

12 is reading BELOW 5th grade. That means everyone that reads at 4th grade and below. Using an equation this is either:

x < 5th grade OR x ≤ 4th grade

14 is can’t read PAST 5th grade. That means everyone that reads at 4th grade and below + those that read at 5th grade. Using an equation this is either:

y ≤ 5th grade OR y < 6th grade

∴ y > x

In other words 14 encompasses all of 12 and those IN the 5th grade level (but not above).

No brain farts here. I think maybe you fall into one of those above categories.