Average IQ is roughly 100 so if you take a group of people, I'll take 3 for this example: person 1 IQ = 60 or .6 of average person 2 IQ = 100 1 of average person 3 IQ = 140 1.4 of average Collectively their IQ is .84 of average or 84 (.6 x 1 x 1.4), much dumber than the normal single person. This may explain riots, soccer brawls, etc., as the crowds get bigger, the IQ drops signifanctly.
While that's a good theory, are you sure the avg. is 100? Mine is supposedly 130 and I don't seem to do good at the "tests".
? The average of your example is (60+100+140)/3 = 100, or (.6 + 1 + 1.4)/3 = 1.0, or 100% of 100, the individual average. Am I missing something? What explains soccer brawls is...
I'd have to call foul, as theories go. The average IQ of a crowd of Mensa members is likely to be just a bit higher than the average IQ of another population sample, know what I mean? Groups, individuals, IQ's:
Just having fun with numbers, but my formula would explain mob mentality. I truly believe being feed crumpets and tea since childbirth is the true cause of soccer riots Tis true, a group of above average people would have an even higher collective IQ according to me, but your average group just gets dumber and dumberer as it grows, again my formula explains mobs and think thanks too.
A population sample of a whopping 3. Not a large "n". I'm sitting up late with my two dogs, Max and Olu, brother yellow labs. Max is short for Maximilian. He wears a smoking jacket, smokes fine cigars, and drinks only Premier Grand Cru Bordeaux. Olu is short for Olu, which in Estonian means "beer," which means he's short on brains. He is looking at me this very moment, in what my wife and I call the "I am so going to eat you, man, when you go to sleep," because I'm up, the living room lights are blaring, and they can't get up on the couch to crash. All I know is if someone wants to do a group IQ of this hapless three, I'm dropping Olu and insisting on Max.
Aaah, labs are great dogs. When I was growing up we had a black lab that was the best dog. She was so gentle and well behaved. Now I have CoCo, a pomeranian, who is quite the opposite. He is a handful, has a major attitude, and does whatever he wants. He only likes me, and will growl at everyone else. They both sound really cute, you should let your dogs get up on the couch, turn off the light, and try to type softly.
A group is better than an individual, but the key here is the size of the group. 10-13 people is optimal. Anything more than that is a crowd.
LOL something else I was thinking.. some of you may be familiar with the '48 laws of power'.. i've noticed and if you read between the lines of the laws and other texts pertaining to it, that in groups individuals change and they focus on being 'the powerful one' for others to aspire for or become. Just notice some people.. 1 on 1 they are real nice right? Then when it's a crowd they change, either a jackass (usually if there's girls) or they try to impress and display their power. I've heard many people say "yea so and so is real nice when it's just you and him, but when it's a crowd he's just gay (different)." So basically more than 2 imo is when power begins and crowds form. Is 3 a crowd? I forget..
Small groups of Persons who are smart, work with each other well and complement each other in traits and qualities [correct each other's oversights, see the flaws the other one misses etc] have the greatest collective intelligence. otherwise a single person is smarter. Large crowds aren't very smart. Some random quotes “A committee is a thing which takes a week to do what one good man can do in an hour.†“If Columbus had had an advisory committee he would probably still be at the dock.†P.S 48 laws of power is awesome
Well, yourself, for one, as well as any strict constructionist, who imputes something on the order of sacred text to the document, and to the time it came from. Anytime the document is being considered, it isn't being ignored. And any time it is being interpreted, it is being just that, interpreted; it isn't being "re" interpreted, though I grant, to those predisposed to a particular political view, "reinterpreted" raises a vague spectre of subversion by "legislating" judges. I don't know about "re-interpreting on demand," but I do know that Jefferson's idea was to amend the constitution every 19-20 years, literally, corresponding to every change in generation. The point seems commonsensically clear; the document is a living thing, to be used by living people. Or, again, Jefferson: (By the way, though Guerilla, for one, decries democracy, calling majority rule a "tyranny," pretty simple example of what Jefferson, as well as all other Founders, felt on the subject). The rest, which you left out:
People can be swayed by the group a person should make best decision if they are well informed and not paid by lobbyists.
Source? Or are you once again deciding what my opinion is for me? So you're saying that "Congress shall make no law" could mean different things at different times, depending on who is interpreting it? NEWSFLASH! Guerilla doesn't agree with the Founders on everything! EXTRA EXTRA! Read all about it! I left it out because you tend to go off on tangents the longer your post is.
I suppose if you look at Bill Gates, Richard Brandson they are very clever people and they did it all on their own.
You are either a strict constructionist, or you are not. You either believe the constitution, though a great document, was meant to be a living thing, or you do not. Beyond: your response: Another: (Your emphasis in red; mine in black. Either way, this was your post, no one else's). Need more? Just a couple of random grabs from a host of like thoughts. You don't believe the constitution needs to change. Or are you now attempting the claim that you do agree with Jefferson on this, contradicting your several posts on the subject? You omitted the rest, typically of course. Your much vaunted "context" complaint seems to depend on the "context" of your trying to make a point, however erroneous it may be. And of course, it can, and has, meant different things, at different times, as with everything in the Constitution. As with every word in the Constitution, it is to be interpreted, and the Supreme Court has that role. The Supreme Court has largely decided it is to mean the State shall have no part in establishing religion. They are supported by the Founders' intent. But then, we've done this already. Shall we revisit? I guess, unless you find them useful to make your particular point, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your personal theory. Yep, to be sure. Guess "tangents" should be added to your toolbox of "context" complaint. Of course, there is that pesky fact it's a couple of short paragraphs (one of which are Alexander Hamilton's thoughts, not mine), utterly appropos to the discussion, but troublesome to you, I'm sure, given your views.
I don't need more, but considering your spotty record on taking things out of context, and that I have several thousand posts to my credit, please provide source links. And, for some reason, I don't see a smoking gun on, -or- I'm not interested in responding to the rest of your statements. I am only interested in seeing where you derived these opinions you attribute to me from. It seems as usual, you are taking significant license with what I have written, and what you want to say I meant.
Bud, these are your words, not mine. If you think that beyond having to endure them, I will now have to spend the time to go back to grab where I got them, forget it. Easy enough to find...you want to deny them, or you are making the attempt yet again to say "I'm taking things out of context", you prove it. Or, just keep stuffing the thread with these kinds of evasions, and maybe it will go away quietly, like so many others, in my experience. I'm sure that's true. I can't help here but thing of Jim Carrey's line in Liar, Liar: I can't overrule dodging things that refute one's contentions, of course.