Is the general IQ of this country really low or are Americans easily brainwashed?

Or both? I just read the results of the MSNBC poll that is currently showing over seventy per cent of respondents favoring drug testing welfare recipients. And reflecting on how people actually still vote for republicans.

I have an utterly unproved (personal) theory as to why and how this happens but its a bit long.

In a pinch I put the blame mostly on TV and talk radio.

Its really not all that long I guess.

I think TV can be a very good tool for teaching. I should start there because I haven't got anything against TV. The problem is that its not used for that, its used for entertainment and therein lies the problem. In order to enjoy a television show you have to do the same thing as when you watch a play or read a novel. You "suspend disbelief*" which is to say you accept information which you know is not factual to be true. That's the problem.

I would suggest that with today's flood of television we are constantly asked to suspend disbelief and we have done it so well and for so long that we no longer have much ability to question anything we see or hear. Consider that when you read a book or watch a play you need only suspend disbelief - accept without question that which any inspection would prove to be concocted or patently false - for a few hours at a time and generally not even daily. Not so when a TV plays 12 hours a day. Its like living in fantasy land every minute and I have to believe that after years of that sort of forced ignorance the effect is that we lose our ability to discriminate between that which is worth of our belief and that which is not.

Make sense? It is the continuous suspension of disbelief that leads to our inability to tell what is real from what is not. If you start from that point things can only go down hill. It leads to a confusion, lack of focus, and most importantly it leaves one with an inability to recognize an argument let alone analyze one.

Once a person is in that state its like training a dog.

That's what I think.


* I put this in quotes out of respect for the High School English teacher who introduced me to the concept.

And is more than likely fact The medium is the massage. I recently saw an interview with a director whose name escapes me at the moment and he said something that struck me: "it (the total sum of movie making) has to be pleasing to our eyes. That's the only thing that matters, really."

must be something in the water...

But I also suspect that IQ is poorly correlated with attitudes toward the disadvantaged.

And among Republicans, whose IQs actually follow an abnormal curve distribution.

:toast:

:shrug:

That would be interesting.

And scary.

:shrug:

68% of pop has an IQ between 85 and 115. About 96% between 70& 130. This is not quite accurate because the distribution is not perfectly normal, with a slight positive skew and slightly more people below 70 than would be expected in a pure normal distribution.

How are the RAW scores on any test assigned an "IQ score"?? Let's get real here. The testing organizations NORMALIZE the scores to a preordained Gaussian distribution. In other words, the distribution is "FORCED." (For those tested.)

To the proclaim that the population is 'proven' to have such a characteristic ... as demonstrated by testing ... is naive in the extreme.

The kind of "forcing" you're talking about can be done on non-normal distributions, but that's not actually what happens in IQ test development. An example of a "forced" distribution is the one that results in normalized T-scores for the clinical scales of the MMPI-2, which are for the most part (intentionally) positively skewed. With IQ, however, the mean raw score is assigned a value of 100, and the deviations about the mean raw score are simply multiplied by a ratio of 15/SD to arrive at the IQ distribution. If you look at the distribution of the raw scores of the norming sample on a Stanford-Binet, for example (I'm picking the S-B rather than the Wechsler for technical reasons having to do with floor effects), you will see a not-quite-normal distribution that is slightly positively skewed, and has a sort of little lump at the bottom. The reasons for the positive skew and the lump at the bottom have to do with the fact that most of the accidents that can happen to members of the sample are more likely to lower than to raise IQ.

more clearly, because I have no clue what you are trying to say, though it is clearly not about normal distribution, mean and median.

Just as the mean is. If you take a look at how IQs line up on a distribution graph, you can see that both the median and the mean (and mode for that matter) are all pretty damn close to 100.

If that's so, I'll have to sue the University that awarded me my B.S. in math.

:rofl:


Look ... IQ 'scores' are normalized to a Gaussian curve and "forced" into that distribution. That's how the 6 or 7 "reputable" testing organizations report the results. Thus, the preordained distribution (and the mathematical properties thereof) reflect that Gaussian curve.

But what about the folks who've never been tested in ANY significant population?

In reflecting upon this question, think "Heisenberg."

:rofl:

Is it that the median is a type of average? You didn't seem to notice that as you suggested that 'average' and 'median' were different things rather than one being a subset of the other.

. . . is a result of brainwashing. Well, maybe not in the militaristic sense of the word, but with a nearly constant barrage of television, radio, billboards, logos, etc. and the societal reinforcement of the images, beliefs, philosophy and world view that is consciously or unconsciously placed in that information we drink in daily without even being aware it happens, the way that most people view the world is so effectively manipulated that seeing anything else is nearly impossible. It's so freaking subtle too.

I assumed that you were referring to military style brainwashing. Sorry for the mistake.

If the electronic mediums really are an extension of our nervous systems then it's pretty hard to escape the constant barrage of message implants.

And I am willing to bet that a fair amount of them are on ritalin or some other form of amphetamine as well. Of course ritalin is legal.

who was #2 or #3 at the Justice Department already are drug tested. Of course, if your drugs of choice are alcohol and nicotine, they don't bother to test for those.

And this doesn't just apply to Republican voters.

:P

Film at 11!

No real way to measure intelligence with it except against the norm, which seems to be inexorably sliding in the wrong direction.

on the various major tests, the raw scores are slowly climbing, and the norms have to be adjusted so that higher raw scores are paired with lower IQ results.

But never mind. As you were...

is easy to control

That is all

replaced by lovely myths

Fortunately a good chunk of the population isn't easily brainwashed.

. . . bwahahahaha.

(semi-sarcasm).

The pro-police state and GREED bullshit is so intertwined within the fabric of this corporatized, consumer culture that people have been conditioned not to perceive things for what they actually are.

And appreciative of the present.

That it's so profitable to lock up harmless recreational drug users - w/o any substantive resistance from a brainwashed, docile populace - is just the icing on the cake.

:)

an alarming percentage of Americans drool on cue.

They are intellectually lazy and ignorant.

They always prefer the quickest, easiest solution, remedy, approach or whatever.

Lack of education, mostly, I would guess.

it's about being given taxpayer money when you are spending money on illegal drugs. Would you give a homeless guy $100 if you knew he would spend it buying coke? Problem with this is you can't just refuse to provide assistance. Some sort of treatment program would need to be setup which would cost the taxpayers more than just providing welfare.

they are resentful and jealous of anyone who gets anything they don't get or who they perceive as taking anything from them that they believe is undeserved. They rail against poor and needy welfare recipients, but have no problem with the corporate welfare recipients who rake in their billion$. This is because they lust after what those who truly rape our treasury have and would never think of having them drug tested.

Third Person Effect is in full force.

I understand the motivation, but the execution of this would hurt children and families.

I don't blame people for supporting means testing for Welfare...I blame the demagog Republicans who actually put this up without thinking it through at all. But, then again, should I be surprised about that?

It's my experience that this country generally doesn't have many moral qualms about hurting or killing the less fortunate.

x(

Sorry....the problem is humans...not just American humans

All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values.

Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.

We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.

"I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television.... You put something on the television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the TV set contradicts the images, people start trying to change the world to make it like the TV set images." ~ Hal Becker, media expert and management consultant, the Futures Group, in an interview in 1981

It almost automatically creates a perception in the viewer or listener that the person is in some way "important" because he or she is "on the tube" or ob the radio. It doesn't really matter what the content or lack of is. I am not sure if this is a neurological response or a cultural one. But it certainly sets the plate for the suggestions that follow.

Being confronted with "expert" opinions.

Manufacturing consent, necessary illusions, etc. Nothing new unfortunately...but it is odd existing in an era where so many people staunchly abide views that are such obvious bullshit.

WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Here's an articulate explanation of why, by one of my fav people, Larry Johnson:

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/12/18/a-game-we-play-to-fool-ourselves/
A Game We Play to Fool Ourselves

Please give it a read. To excerpt it here, would not give Larry's lucid thoughts justice.

Take a bow, Willfull Ignorance.

You've served many of our neighbors well.

Great read. Thanks for the link.

As a non-addict, I notice that much of DU is obsessed with talk radio, talk tv, tv news, etc..

That is to say, much more willing to rely on the "experts" who, re any number of topics, can convince people not to believe their own lying eyes/common sense, intuition, etc

Gee, wonder which shadowy aspects of the oligarchy benefit from that attitude within the subject populace?

It's easier to trust "what everybody says," "what everybody knows," than to evaluate things for yourself.

it's reinforced by mainstream media and supported by politicians and other supposed leaders.

Consider the ratio of TV watching to reading for the average person.

If they'd only stop and think about the drug testing issue: So a person tests positive for marijuana, and they lose their welfare benefits. OK, now what do they do? 1) Get a job (but they're on welfare because, for whatever reason, they can't get a job), 2) Receive help from friends or relatives (who are likely to be as poor as they are) 3) Petty crime, 4) Prostitution, 5) DRUG DEALING.

Yes, that's right. The morality police are likely to cause an increase in the number of drug dealers.

"...The Hidden Persuaders

Vance Packard's book The Hidden Persuaders, about media manipulation in the 1950s was a forerunner of pop sociology. It sold more than a million copies.His million-selling book The Hidden Persuaders, about media manipulation of the populace in the 1950s was a forerunner of pop sociology.

In The Hidden Persuaders, first published in 1957, Packard explores the use of consumer motivational research and other psychological techniques, including depth psychology and subliminal tactics, by advertisers to manipulate expectations and induce desire for products, particularly in the American postwar era. It also explores the manipulative techniques of promoting politicians to the electorate. The book questions the morality of using these techniques."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Persuaders


First developed to sell products by Madison Avenue Men (Mad Men) and easily adapted to the political arena.

Been going on a long time, too.

"...Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird


From War of the Worlds to live coverage of 9/11.


robdogbucky

The response to that is that they can a) stop doing drugs and then claim welfare or b) get a job and continue to do drugs

problem, which is the case with a lot of street kids, for example.

most people don't care if it's easy or not. Put down the pipe or don't but the consequences will come either way. ( good or bad )

Most hard working Americans don't have the time to go seeking out the truth. And they are certainly getting a narrow and biased version of it from the tv.

within both parties, it's hard to nurture a well informed populace. :(

We have got to stop allowing those assholes to control the information, control the dialogue and control all of us.

Especially now that we have the internet to help us find out the REAL truth.

dream of.

Modern America has a level of media saturation that so esily creates false realities, and the medium of TV itself is addicting and zombifying.

I'm not sure people are any different than we have been for 10,000 years or more.

The only thing that has changed, at bottom, is our Energy Available. The rich didn't need us to carry their sedan-chairs anymore, so slavery wasn't as important to them and could go.

But Energy Available is contracting now, and we should pass backwards through all of our suppose advancements as this millenium grinds onward.

Not in a straight line, though. Never in a straight line. There will be some brief periods where it looks like "prosperity is just around the corner".

But I digress. We Americans are no different than anyone else, only in the system and anti-tyrannical values we were bequeathed.

But those are gone ro nearly gone now, and when the bad times TRULY hit, the mask of what the American People have become, will be clear.

1930s Germans. That's what we are.

Soon, maybe as much as 20 years, but almost certainly not that long, we will show it even more than we have these past 8 years.

to think that online polls are accurate measures of public opinion?

Especially if I am largely ignorant and indifferent on the issue, it's best to just go with the flow.

I think people are easily biased and influenced.

This can easily be seen in the questions about invading IRAQ, and if it was a good idea at the time.

Regardless of your current view of Iraq, your thinking as to if it was a good idea at the the time shouldn't change. But this is not the results seen in polls.

I'm certain that TV has a strong influence on individuals, the evidence can be seen in how much Budweiser spends on TV advertising. If it didn't work so well, they wouldn't be spending the money.

I also think that for many, their opinions on current events are superficial, and are casually reached, and likewise are casually influenced.

In contrast, their political affiliation, is something they own, that describes them, and in many cases their family and their friends. This is very hard to change. In fact, I bet you will find a lot of people who are now voting for democrats find it hard to give up their republican label.

on vacation and happened to tune into the Jerry Springer show and after that Steve Wilkos. 'Nuff said.

Personally, I tried and failed to view an entire Springer show. It was too depressing , knowing how popular the show was..

will watch WHATEVER is on.

After all, television was very popular in China in 1990, when all it was showing was old movies and cheesy song shows (including a "traditional folk song" called "I Will Dedicate my Youth to the Communist Party"--My knowledge of Japanese allowed me to figure out that much from the character subtitles, which are common on Chinese broadcasts, due to the vast differences in dialects.)

Here in the States, medical shows and lawyer shows and forensic pathology shows seem to be in vogue now. In the 1950s, there were incredible numbers of Westerns, as well as live dramas, variety shows (with lots of variety, like Ed Sullivan, who showed everything from opera to rock bands), cultural programming, sitcoms, and children's programming. In the 1960s, there were a lot of rural-themed sitcoms and teen-themed sitcoms and dramas about hospitals and schools.

People watched them all.

Jerry Springer and WWE wrestling and other shows that make you lose IQ points aren't on because people demanded them. That's just industry propaganda. It's more that the network programmers are aware that many people will watch WHATEVER is on, and dumb shows are cheaper to produce than smart shows. Furthermore, if people are dumbed down by television, they're easier prey for advertisers and political manipulators.

And yep.

I am convinced that half the people in this country have room temperature I.Q.'s. I am by no means a genius but I get disheartened every time I am around large groups of people. Idiots are prevalent.

And irony alert.

As if being poor and needing public assistance is a good enough reason to strip away someone's Constitutional rights.