#midwit

1. that it's basically become the conservative "chud" that is

2. used almost exclusively by conservative midwits.

The problem is, while chud[*] is a typical postmodern Leftist Dadaism nonce (in English: nonsense word), midwit itself has a valid definition. Mid means middle or median, average. Wit means intellect or intelligence.

(* chud was coined as a politically correct slur that was not an existing slur against existing groups, to become an existing slur against groups... Yeah, Orwell would laugh.)

The way rightoids use it, you'd think mid suddenly means "above average". Like the Mid in Midwest is barely accurate, but with the dyscalculic idiocy that comes from the fact that midwit is commonly defined as being in the 110-120, even 115-130 range.

The funny thing about this is that they, those who abuse midwit like leftists abuse incel, need not elevate Democrats' average IQ that far high. In fact, most of the jobs that come under rightwing fire -- social workers, teachers, education, administration -- bottom out on average IQ per college degree in this chart:

While I can't speak for the source, it passes my sniff test, generally speaking; most charts resemble this one.

So why say a midwit IQ is 110 to 125? (The numbers always differ, hence the inconstancy is reflected here.) I suppose it is to include Critical Theory, PolSci and Social Science; how many cons know such charts exist, would they even care about the facts, as they claim? The thing is, if you're including the high end of the bell curve you need also include the lower end down to 90. Unless this is some type of upper middle class, lower middle class hair-splitting?

I'd ask if these people are stupid, even anti-science, but they're just regurgitating what they've heard inside their bubble uncritically. In other words, midwittery*. When you're a stereotypical conservative, abusing midwit too loosely looks like what is expected of you: anti-intellectual ignorance.

(*These people mainly belong in 'the woke right'. All partisan politics/rhetoric is just projection.)

Are midwits the upper-middle class of IQ? As a metaphor I'd say that tracks: socially and in terms of hierarchy, they behave and exist at about the same areas. But upper-middle class people say they're "just middle class"; in this case midwits are damned for the same above-average distinction. But there's another 17% of the gen pop accounted for in that 'lower-midwit' class, educated but less so. Where would they majorly lean politically and socially?

With all that said:

To give a basic definition: a midwit is someone who scores from roughly 90 to 115 in most IQ tests which is 70% of the population; who follows convention; who, stereotypically, is good at swallowing slogans and spewing them back out a la Fun Facts, without capacity for original research, much less original conclusions, unless these can fit into a premolded worldview, ideology, religion, whatever I repeat myself.

A midwit asks "s-source?" or "v-verse?"; the orthodox types cite scientific studies or patristic screeds uncritically, ignorant to methodology or historiography. Speaking of past writers:

I can guarantee that most thinkers, writers etc. you follow religiously were midwits in their own time. The practices and motives of medieval scholars and modern scholars are almost indistinguishable from one another. You can't spell theology without "READ THEORY!!!"

In summary:

Are midwits just the upper-middle class of IQ? The way the term gets tossed about by rightoid midwits... perhaps. There should be a distinction made between upper and lower midwits; the former lead the latter, the mid leading the mid. But, I suppose, upper-midwit is not as punchy.

P.S.