0603: "Idiocracy"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
6453893
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby 6453893 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:10 am UTC

I don't oppose Idiocracy so much as every individual who insists we can fix the problem by increasing education in their favorite field.

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby philsov » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:13 am UTC

I look forward to more from the xkcd version of Richard Attenborough
Image
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

VHBT
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:18 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby VHBT » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:14 am UTC

Kalos wrote:Also, IQ is pretty much the least effective way at measuring anything... especially intelligence.

Actually, IQ can be a good indicator of gullibility.
"Look! This online test says my IQ is 158!"

User avatar
Velict
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
Location: Icecrown Citadel

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Velict » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:15 am UTC

I found the lack of evidence irritating, but I suspect that most of my irritation comes from the fact that I side with no-hat for the most part. It's not good form for a debate, but this is just a webcomic intended to amuse - or, perhaps, deliver a message tangential to the material.

Edit: It's too complicated a topic to debate here, but I heartily recommend that anyone who doubts the validity of IQ pick up some reading material on the subject. Linda S. Gottfredson has written an excellent article on the subject, and there are numerous print books arguing for or against the validity of IQ. The Mismeasure of Man is a very prominent book proposing a theory contrary to IQ, and while no particularly good book arguing for the validity springs to mind immediately, The Bell Curve has become rather infamous for its advocacy of IQ's usage in social programs.
Last edited by Velict on Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
the_phoenix612
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:27 am UTC
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Randal, Get the fuck out of my head!

Postby the_phoenix612 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:17 am UTC

almafuerte wrote:<rant>
I was talking about this yesterday. I said something along the lines of "All individuals in any species reproduce as much as they can. I hate people thinking evolution is intelligent, and talking about how 'wise' nature is!. We already have people that think there's intelligence involved in evolution, they are called creationists, and they are wrong and stupid. Evolution is nothing but randomness, the universe is binary, that means we always have 2 chances: 0 or 1, true or false, something or nothing. In the begining there was nothing, or anything, or everything, whatever you want to call it, there was nothing else to compare it too, so that was whatever it was by itself. The only possible next state for that singularity is just one thing, and that is whatever can be defined as NOT that other thing. So, we call that previous inevitable state 'nothing' ,and the only possible state that is not nothing as 'something'. They define each other and require nothing else to just be because there's nothing else yet. There we have what we call 'tendency, inertia, intention' or whatever human name you want to give it. After that, that same impulse goes on and on and as entropy is beyond our understanding we see patterns and intentions. There are none. There's no intelligence in that, just fucking chance and since we are also a product of that chance, we see similarities and patterns in it. So, it's in any individual's nature to fuck as much as possible, and reproduce. That instinct brought us here, and because of self love and our instinct of self preservation we see that as 'evolution = improvement'. It's not, chance just goes around and stable, sustainable states last longer. If we consider the 'wrong' people is reproducing more, then fuck more!. Stop pretending there is intelligence or anything like that in nature, that's just as stupid as the zombie jew story.
</rant>

Seriously Randall, get off my head!

It is my personal opinion that <rant></rant> tags should actually do something.
Vi verborum omnia superabo


User avatar
6453893
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby 6453893 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:17 am UTC

VHBT wrote:
Kalos wrote:Also, IQ is pretty much the least effective way at measuring anything... especially intelligence.

Actually, IQ can be a good indicator of gullibility.
"Look! This online test says my IQ is 158!"

It is also a great measure of who has too much goddamn free time.
"I got 122 on one IQ test and 137 on another. Which one is right?"

halplm
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:13 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby halplm » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:19 am UTC

I am a huge fan of xkcd, but no comic has ever made me feel the need to post here until this one.

It was wrong on every level... to insinuate IQ is a factor with who has kids, and to insinuate that it doesn't matter that educational and cultural values are utterly failing to the point where more and more people grow up uneducated is patently absurd.

Then to flat out state that we've screwed up the climate is beyond absurd in its idiocy.

I'm deeply disappointed in this comic. There is no humor, and it's blatantly absurd idiology is disgusting.

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby mythago » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:25 am UTC

NoHat was starting to go down that very favoritest of arrogant-geek paths: the Breeding License. Never mind the very ugly history of what happened when "scientific eugenics" was actually legal, or the fact that such a program would be administered by the same kind of people who want intelligent design in school textbooks; we must indulge in the pathetic fantasy that in Utopia, everyone would be just like us, only hotter.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

Deciheximal
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:58 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Deciheximal » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:58 am UTC

I found the lack of evidence irritating, but I suspect that most of my irritation comes from the fact that I side with no-hat for the most part. It's not good form for a debate, but this is just a webcomic intended to amuse - or, perhaps, deliver a message tangential to the material.

Exactly how I saw it. Pity this particular strip doesn't actually have much humor in it.
Last edited by Deciheximal on Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I like digraphs. Hey look, there's a digraph in digraph!

User avatar
linguistic
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:16 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby linguistic » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:59 am UTC

halplm wrote:It was wrong on every level... to insinuate IQ is a factor with who has kids, and to insinuate that it doesn't matter that educational and cultural values are utterly failing to the point where more and more people grow up uneducated is patently absurd.

Then to flat out state that we've screwed up the climate is beyond absurd in its idiocy.

I'm deeply disappointed in this comic. There is no humor, and it's blatantly absurd idiology is disgusting.


I didn't really see that it was insinuating anything of the sort (WRT IQ); he was saying that the argument was invalid for one particular reason, not that it would have been valid otherwise.

It also doesn't state that "it doesn't matter that educational and cultural values are utterly failing...", partly because you can't measure that. But mostly because it doesn't actually say that.

Also:
If you're denying that humans are a significant cause of climate change, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Son of a bit!

User avatar
Felix Tamen
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:10 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Felix Tamen » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:03 am UTC

mythago wrote:[...] that very favoritest of arrogant-geek paths: the Breeding License. Never mind the very ugly history of what happened when "scientific eugenics" was actually legal [...]


Thank you! Until I read this, I was appalled by the tacit acceptance of Breeding License thinking in this thread.

People are arguing a number of points, but no one seems to question the basic assumption that more smarter people = better. This seems dubious. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were smart, but murdered millions. Today, smarter people tend to have the most money, consume the most resources and emit the most CO2. This is even truer if you accept class as a proxy for intelligence (I don't, but No-Hat does).

What the world needs is not more smart people; it's more nice people. Humbler people. More caring, more circumspect people. People who think and care about those around them. Such people are made, not born.

It doesn't take a genius to be a good person.

taiki
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:38 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby taiki » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:04 am UTC

Where the hell is the comic? Unless I'm missing something here.

I think this is a test. :| FIrefox says there's an image there but it's not viewable, and my iPhone is just giving me a ? mark.

On that note, I have tickets to the 12:01 showing of Ass. Anyone going?

User avatar
sunami
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:52 am UTC
Location: Arlington. The state of Northern Virginia.

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby sunami » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:08 am UTC

Alcazabedabra wrote:
sunami wrote:The phrase "dragged IQ scores [down]" or any variant insinuating that average IQ scores change has caused the destruction of more soda cans by me than any other statement.


Sorry. You're wrong.

The standard IQ score of 100 is the (yearly adjusted) societal average.

That average has been rising (depending on who you ask) at a rate of .3 to .4 points per year, or around 3 points per decade.

That would mean that an IQ score of 103 in 1999 would be an adjusted score of 100 today.

Code: Select all

IQ   Percentile
65   01
70   02
75   05
80   09
85   16
90   25
95   37
100   50
105   63
110   75
115   84
120   91
125   95
130   98
135   99


I claimed that the average IQ score does not change (100). You then claimed I'm wrong and in the very next line stated that the average IQ score does not change (100). I do not claim that the average intellect (or whatever word fits there) will be the same at any point in time. 100 now could represent a person that would score 80 or 120 a thousand years ago, but the average at any given time will be 100. This is both at the graph at the start of Idiocracy, and the line about dragging IQ scores, not the intellect the scores represent.
"You heard it here first: all my software is shitty."

Draco18s
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:50 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Draco18s » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:08 am UTC

dasada122 wrote:I would have preferred it if White Hat had produced some form of evidence to back his position.


Every article linked to "proving" the point has had no data that I can look at backing it up. Even the wikipedia article on The Flynn Effect has one graph showing the test results of "Blacks" on 5 different tests (way of measuring IQ) over the course of 30 years, with 1 test taken every 10 years (that is, each test has no more than 3 data points).

I see almost no evidence to back up the point.

I will, however, agree that Idiocracy isn't right. I just think that the point presented is the wrong one. Idiocracy isn't meant to be an accurate representation of the future of humanity (the intelligent tend to seek other intelligent partners, and tend to rise to the top of society. So the rulers of society will tend to say smarter than everyone else, in that they can exploit those dumber than them), its meant as a commentary on how our society doesn't actually "value" intelligence in general.

Warll
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:19 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Warll » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:10 am UTC

Firefox says that the image is currupted, is this some test? Am I supposed to hex edit the image so that it works? I'm just not smart enough to do that.

Warll
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:19 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Warll » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:12 am UTC

Ah I got it! Had to download it then open it with irfanview, it then complained that it was really a .PSD misnamed.

User avatar
b.i.o
Green is the loneliest number
Posts: 2519
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Hong Kong

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby b.i.o » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:18 am UTC

Warll wrote:Firefox says that the image is currupted, is this some test? Am I supposed to hex edit the image so that it works? I'm just not smart enough to do that.

No, it's not a test. It won't load for me in FF3, but works fine on Chrome.

Shale
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:21 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Shale » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:23 am UTC

Loads fine. You're just all idiots. </topical humor>

No-hat's last two lines are what makes the comic for me. The first is the whole "the uncultured masses like things I don't! They must be morons!" thinking that makes so many people frankly insufferable, and the part about eugenics has already been covered.

drekhan
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:20 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby drekhan » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:26 am UTC

I usually like xkcd, but I just found this one pompous and unfunny.

Admiral-Bell wrote:Randall is right, IQ scores go up over time: http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml


Notice that the two most supported causes both focus on increasing the low end of the IQ spectrum, not the high end.

It's possible that the smartest are getting dumber while the lowest IQ's get some basic gains from better nutrition and some schooling.
Last edited by drekhan on Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:32 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Jack
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:31 am UTC
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Mr Jack » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:32 am UTC

Correlation doesn't imply causation? Surely?

dnamra
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:58 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby dnamra » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:35 am UTC

Esn wrote:
dasada122 wrote:I would have preferred it if White Hat had produced some form of evidence to back his position.

Yeah, I found that irritating as well. He's no better than no-hat guy.

I don't know, I thought that the simplicity of the comic was somewhat endearing. Rather than getting bogged down in a discussion over the various statistics and validity of the data (as this thread has), the comic merely relays the opinions of these characters and sums it up in the brilliant punchline "More harm has been done by people panicked over societal decline than societal decline ever did." Plus, I find it refreshing that the comic assumes its readers are intelligent enough to investigate and judge the arguments themselves.

Draco18s wrote:Every article linked to "proving" the point has had no data that I can look at backing it up. Even the wikipedia article on The Flynn Effect has one graph showing the test results of "Blacks" on 5 different tests (way of measuring IQ) over the course of 30 years, with 1 test taken every 10 years (that is, each test has no more than 3 data points).

I see almost no evidence to back up the point.

Well, I believe this is one of the classic Flynn studies showing general IQ increase over time that people are referring to; I do apologize if you can't access the full report, but unfortunately that's the way journal publications are sometimes. And at least as far as education levels go, this graph shows a general increase and seems to be based on reliable data, although it is limited to the US.

Personally, I never believe claims of societal decline, largely because I don't think anyone is in a position to objectively measure the "quality" of society.

Warll
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:19 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Warll » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:35 am UTC

"but I just found this one pompous and unfunny."
Which is exactly what I thought of the movie. Everyone is someone's moron, just as there are always two sides to a story. Oh and the movie had some nasty illogical economic aspects.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Waylah » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:39 am UTC

I don't oppose Idiocracy so much as every individual who insists we can fix the problem by increasing education in their favorite field.

haha :) Everyone should learn biochemistry from the age of four. definitely. ;)

What the world needs is not more smart people; it's more nice people.

Yeah, more nice people wtf!! More smart people would be nice too, but not at the expense of genuine good guys.
And interesting people! and and ... There really is so much more to people than what an IQ measures. Hell, who has the right to measure people's worth like that? Good comic.

I'd be more concerned about -healthy- people. Gamete screening so individuals heterozygous for genetic disease can make sure the kids they have are healthy. They already do it for haemophilia.
Last edited by Waylah on Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:40 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Azkyroth
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:35 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Azkyroth » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:39 am UTC

I'm pretty sure the conflation of "intelligence" with "adherence to slightly anachronistic formulations of stereotypical Anglo-American middle class cultural norms with regards to modes of speech and entertainment preferences" is a far more destructive cultural phenomenon than any show or trend of shows that ever was or will be on TV.

User avatar
Alcazabedabra
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:03 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Alcazabedabra » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:47 am UTC

sunami wrote:I claimed that the average IQ score does not change (100). You then claimed I'm wrong and in the very next line stated that the average IQ score does not change (100). I do not claim that the average intellect (or whatever word fits there) will be the same at any point in time. 100 now could represent a person that would score 80 or 120 a thousand years ago, but the average at any given time will be 100. This is both at the graph at the start of Idiocracy, and the line about dragging IQ scores, not the intellect the scores represent.


Hmmm... you're right. You said you didn't like it when people claimed that IQ scores were being dragged down or up or wherever.

My point (except for the you being wrong part) is still valid - the average is constantly adjusted toward the average results of the test. The average intelligence which the "100" score represents changes constantly.

So! Watch what's happening to that score - In what direction is that average being adjusted? That's the question.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Waylah » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:50 am UTC

Just by-the-by,
how come I can't say 'lol!' (ell oh ell)
Isn't that just a bit of pedant superiority?
I really did laugh out loud. got turned into "this cheese is burning me" so I changed it to 'haha'. How is that any better? This -IS- the internet. The home of L O L. There some joke I'm missing here?

User avatar
muteKi
Angry is too weak a term. Try "Fluffy".
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 am UTC
Location: William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby muteKi » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:57 am UTC

Well, as technology becomes more advanced it's easy for people to appear to have become much more stupid than they really have overall; see for example notalwaysright.com which has a lot of examples of what are largely just poorly informed people along with many who feel they should be entitled to things that are often physical impossibilities.

Keep in mind, for example, that it isn't particularly difficult to use a remote control but it is quite a different thing to build it, whereas sharpening a stone and tying it to a stick is fairly simple and easy to understand on a basic level.

Hence it seems that people are becoming stupider when instead the amount of knowledge and cognitive ability required to function well with modern technology has increased at a much higher rate. I'd call this the "Dilbert Effect" because it's related to the opening anecdote to Scott Adams' Dilbert Principle book. I highly recommend reading the opening paragraphs of the introduction if you can, because it basically says everything that I could on the subject: yes, even I am prone to faulty thinking occasionally.

The matter of what is known as the tragedy of the commons is not an entirely unreasonable one (and so the concept put forth in the film is an attractive one), but I see no reason to believe that intelligence has more to do with hereditary factors than environment in all but the most extreme cases. Especially due to the fact that public education is widespread and college can be paid for with the help of grants, scholarships, and loans.

Another matter that goes against the concept of the film from what little I know about it is that, as suggested elsewhere, the birth rates in most industrialized nations are decreasing, and are in fact lower than 2.0, implying a general decrease in the population. If the fear of the film is that of an uncontrollably large and unsustainable consumerist society spawned from the modern developed world, it seems largely unlikely. Most population growth is in the underdeveloped world where even basic needs are hard to find and the larger population growth seems to be for the sake of, from an evolutionary standpoint, beating the odds of the conditions over any concern about resources themselves -- having a large population increases the odds of survival of any of them assuming that they can all get enough resources and is thus a competitive advantage on the larger scales.

Of course if intelligence was entirely hereditary then obviously the easiest solution for the people with the smarts to increase their hold on the population would be to breed as much as possible as well and use their higher intelligence and skill set to make it more difficult for the general population to get the resources necessary for survival. Perhaps growing all crops in greenhouses locked with combination locks that only the smart people know how to use? If things are as bad as the movie would suggest, none of the general population would even consider trying to open the lock!

You'll note that as a result this shows that high intelligence with no form of large-scale social concern -- I mean, this would be where the smart people would rather just kill morons than try to educate them -- is indeed quite dangerous for society. Any attempts to justify it as a serious solution are no better than any other despotic tyrrany and no different from any other "inside looking out" scenario (i.e., snobbery).

Hence, yes, a certain level of social conciousness or "niceness" is more important than high intelligence in terms of maintaining a sustainable society, which is fairly self-evident, really. :P

Plus, I find it refreshing that the comic assumes its readers are intelligent enough to investigate and judge the arguments themselves.


To me, this implies that anyone who'd simply accept what a 90-minute commercial film is putting forth without considering for a minute whether any current real-world data supports the trends they suggest is, in fact, the problem! (Haha, reminds me of those 9/11 conspiracy videos with what would charitably be referred to as questionable science and reporting.)
Image

bencoder
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:29 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby bencoder » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:00 am UTC

It's a shame Randall can get all that quite spot on and then screw up so much on the climate change thing.

edit:

To me, this implies that anyone who'd simply accept what a 90-minute commercial film is putting forth without considering for a minute whether any current real-world data supports the trends they suggest is, in fact, the problem! (Haha, reminds me of those 9/11 conspiracy videos with what would charitably be referred to as questionable science and reporting.)

There's another film in the same vein as these.. it's called "an inconvenient truth"... and it's just as much nonsense
Last edited by bencoder on Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

arkaneivories
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:34 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby arkaneivories » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Hat Theory:
Black Hatguy - Cynical, destructive, critical
White Hatguy - Optimistic, not destructive (so far), critical

Randall probably realized that it wouldn't be fitting for (black) Hatguy's character to argue this point, thus white Hatguy. Although he could just be testing his fanbase to see what kind of reasoning and symbolism they come up with after a change he bemusedly left in.

And to respond to most everyone else in this post, I agree, goddamn Luke Wilson and Mike Judge for misleading us so! It was irresponsible of them to call their film a "scientifically accurate representation of our future". The nerve.

User avatar
6453893
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby 6453893 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:05 am UTC

bencoder wrote:It's a shame Randall can get all that quite spot on and then screw up so much on the climate change thing.

edit:

To me, this implies that anyone who'd simply accept what a 90-minute commercial film is putting forth without considering for a minute whether any current real-world data supports the trends they suggest is, in fact, the problem! (Haha, reminds me of those 9/11 conspiracy videos with what would charitably be referred to as questionable science and reporting.)

There's another film in the same vein as these.. it's called "an inconvenient truth"... and it's just as much nonsense


I was opposed to the breeding license idea, but now I am on the fence.

Azkyroth
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:35 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Azkyroth » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:07 am UTC

bencoder wrote:It's a shame Randall can get all that quite spot on and then screw up so much on the climate change thing.
(....)
There's another film in the same vein as these.. it's called "an inconvenient truth"... and it's just as much nonsense


[Citation needed]

User avatar
Max2009
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:20 pm UTC
Location: Where?
Contact:

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Max2009 » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:10 am UTC

First of all, I like White Hat Guy even more than Black Hat Guy. He's like the antithesis for stupidity and arrogance (reminds me a little of Obviousman, only wittier). What would happen if the two Hats had a face off? I wouldn't know where to place my money.

On another note, I have a theory:
The past few comics point to the fact the Randall got seriously dumped by a girl, and he didn't see it coming. Now we find out the reason WHY she dumped him, he's obsessed with himself and the superiority of Geekkind. (Like Mankind, only smarter).
Cogito ergo surf - I think therefore I network

Registered Linux user #481826 Get Counted! http://counter.li.org

Image

Gero
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:29 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Gero » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:13 am UTC

Cap'n Refsmmat wrote:Wikipedia says that education is negatively correlated with number of children, but White Hat Man's main point seems to be about IQ and education rates in general, not birth rates. Wikipedia does report 3 IQ point gain per decade, and I'd imagine education is growing similarly well.

So how does one account for less-educated people having lots of kids, but the population ending up more educated in the end? Most of their kids end up more educated than the parents?


I live in Africa. Our birth rate is high, our education rate is low, and most of our people are moving out of their comfortable huts in the bush to live in shacks made of scrap near cities. Our president is famous for showering to prevent aids. Would you like to run that by me again?

Come to think of it, how stupid does the voters of America have to be to elect the little Bush, the stupidest one of them all, as the leader? Twice!

I think there's something wrong with the metrics....

On the hat topic. That argument makes me wonder if it isn't a pith helmet. Looks a bit Albert Schweitzer or something.
Imagine that. Pith Helmet Guy. :D hehe

User avatar
muteKi
Angry is too weak a term. Try "Fluffy".
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 am UTC
Location: William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby muteKi » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:18 am UTC

Azkyroth wrote:
bencoder wrote:It's a shame Randall can get all that quite spot on and then screw up so much on the climate change thing.
(....)
There's another film in the same vein as these.. it's called "an inconvenient truth"... and it's just as much nonsense


[Citation needed]


Though I believe that global warming has large anthropogenic factors -- or at the very least that it's in our best interest to assume it to be the case anyway -- I will say that from what I recall a number of charts and graphs were scaled in such a way to be potentially misleading. It has been quite some time since I saw the film, in any case, so I could be misremembering. Certainly it was alarmist; whether or not that was an appropriate tone for the film may be best saved for another topic, though.
Image

bencoder
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:29 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby bencoder » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:21 am UTC

Azkyroth wrote:[Citation needed]

this really is more suitable for somewhere else, but if you insist:

The inconvenient truth film is easy to cite against - the main dataset used to back up his evidence (the graphs of about the last 800000 years, IIRC, showing temperature increases with CO2) has been shown that the CO2 levels changed about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. reference - I uploaded it here so you don't need to register.

Regarding the climate being screwed, that's a bit more difficult to directly cite against because it's very unspecific and I don't really want to get into a reference and graph argument here, so I'll leave it for another time, I expect there are climate change/global warming posts somewhere else on this forum that I can add to.

User avatar
verbingthenoun
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:05 am UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby verbingthenoun » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:23 am UTC

Woo, signed up just to post in this thread. I can't believe it asked me if I was born after this date in 1996; I feel old.

Anyway, the reason people appear to be getting stupider is because people are actually getting more educated. Especially in the US, a college education is almost guaranteed to anyone who wants one (if we consider 2-year colleges and similar options). So what this means is:

- a smaller number of illiterate people
- less of a class divide in terms of education level; in other words, people who are socialized with the 'upper' class can be going to school along with people socialized with the working class -- but since social attitudes have yet to catch up, we may perceive the behavior split along social strata to be a split in intelligence
- you* are going to college with people who might have been denied an education before due to poverty and therefore have been unable to afford some of the resources you have
- you are going to college with people who may not have been considered 'college material' in previous generations and would probably have just inherited family businesses

These are also trends in the US:
- less vocational education
- people of a wider range of intelligence having access to technology
- the belief that people with mental disabilities should receive as high a quality of education as possible with the ideal eventual outcome being steady employment and 'normal' life rather than being confined to an institution
- the end of segregation (so again, more people have access to an education; I am not trying to suggest that there is a racial divide in intelligence, only that more schools have sprung up in response to the increase in the population with access to higher education)
- widely available free access to information via the Internet
- widely available free access to MISinformation via the Internet, making people that much more likely to believe that 'we eat 8 spiders in our sleep every year' and 'a duck's quack doesn't echo' or other such false 'facts', which may make them appear stupid
- widely available free access to publishing anything you want via the Internet; the Internet is not peer reviewed and does not filter out misinformation

So in other words, there is no more stupidity than there was before, there is just more stupidity where you can see it. I agree that today's comic had a pompous tone and should have provided more factual information, but overall the message is correct.

*I'm using the general 'you' here, not trying to make this a dialogue with any particular poster.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Waylah » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:35 am UTC

I was brought up in a religion that actively discourages people from gaining higher education. (education past high school, apart from short-courses designed purely for gaining skills for employment)
It makes me sad to think about it. Learning is ... beautiful. Why crush that?

User avatar
muteKi
Angry is too weak a term. Try "Fluffy".
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 am UTC
Location: William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby muteKi » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:36 am UTC

verbingthenoun wrote:So in other words, there is no more stupidity than there was before, there is just more stupidity where you can see it. I agree that today's comic had a pompous tone and should have provided more factual information, but overall the message is correct.


This bit especially reminds me of back when I was looking into information on correlations between increases in violence in real life and reports of or depictions of violence in the media for a school report. In the 90s the rates of violent crime were generally decreasing in the US, but unless you looked at the figures you wouldn't realize it, especially with the increases in communications technology becoming so large -- the newly-formed 24 hour news channels had to report on stuff, after all.

Hence also during the 90s especially in the wake of killings on several public school campuses there was a lot of attention focused on people worried about the increase of violence in society, and along with it large scale crackdowns of violence in entertainment.
Image

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby markfiend » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:40 am UTC

Esn wrote:I registered just to reply to this... it seems that the comic, at least as it relates to Britain, is actually wrong, as British IQ levels have been declining for 30 years:

Link removed. Cause, you know. It perpetuates hate and cuntery.

The BNP is not a reliable source.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "Idiocracy" Discussion

Postby Hawknc » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:44 am UTC

Given that they blame third world immigration for the supposed drop in IQ, I'd say that's an understatement (and nothing less than par for the course for the BNP).


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlitzGirl, Google [Bot] and 46 guests