Anyone take The Economist?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Just to be quite clear about the last couple pf posts - you are saying the article is GENUINE and smart people are NOT responsible for the mess we are in?

unless the research included statistics on the average IQ of voters as opposed to residents (or even people willing to respond/give their results to the researcher) your making quite a stretch with that conclusion...

'smart people' have not been responsible for our elected leaders for ages...18+ year olds capable of breathing have, and there will always be more of them than there are those of high IQ.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

...you are saying the article is GENUINE and smart people are NOT responsible for the mess we are in?

No, I think she's saying the article is genuine.

The second half of that is what _you_ said.

So how do you interpret the data?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Deuce 1]

The pomposity of this "smart people" shit absolutely kills me.

Smart people were responsible for committing the most horrendous atrocities the world has seen.

Not to many morons get to power, and then use it to commit genocide.

Or lobotomies.

Mengela was a genius. Let's see all you smarties claim him.

Ack. I am so sick of pretentious know-nothing smart people who would run everybody elses lives if they could. Because the dumb people need them to take care of them.

Yikes.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So how do you interpret the data?

I can't interpret that data. There just isn't enough data to interpret.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[livendive 8]

Apparently "The Economist" has been suckered. I do not believe "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" offers a breakdown of average IQ by US state. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised to learn that anyone has defensible data of that sort. Even if such data exists, I'm quite confident this is not it. Consider that the US average IQ is ~98, and the standard deviation is ~16. State lines are just not that discriminating.

Sorry to rain on the parade, I'd like to believe it myself. Oh well, you can still hang your hat on higher IQs loosely correlating with more liberal outlooks, just not quite this neatly.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,174]

Hey, it's not my parade. That's why I asked for confirmation and didn't just post it as a fact.

Do you have sure knowledge that The Economist data are bogus, or is it just a hunch?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Not to many morons get to power, and then use it to commit genocide.

Pol Pot with his anti-intellectual campaigns and Hilter come to mind. Let's not forget how effective the Cultural Revolution was in China.

But I'm just being persnickety, I've got an extraspecial disdain for IQ tests. The capability of a person is not something that can be reduced to one number...and a single number is not enough to describe what we are talking about when we are comparing two persons' abstract capabilities.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Consider that the US average IQ is ~98, and the standard deviation is ~16.

A standard deviation of 16?

Where did you come across this information?

Edit: Nevermind, found it on a couple of websites - not sure that it's correct, but at least there are others with that belief.

Also found this, it's a list that I suspect is similar to what was published in The Economist.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Consider that the US average IQ is ~98, and the standard deviation is ~16.

A standard deviation of 16?

Where did you come across this information?

Edit: Nevermind, found it on a couple of websites - not sure that it's correct, but at least there are others with that belief.

Also found this, it's a list that I suspect is similar to what was published in The Economist.

-
Jim

The "standard" population is defined to have an average IQ of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Real populations will be different.


Eisenhower was reported to be shocked and dismayed that half of all Americans had below average IQ.

I will not comment on the population of "Bush supporters".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The "standard" population is defined to have an average IQ of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Real populations will be different.

There is no IQ Test per se, there are dozens. IIRC Stanford-Binet version is the archetype with the 100/16 figures defined, and a handful of impersonators following suit. Some of them assign the number 100 to the median of some sample population. The SAT is an IQ test with a median calibrated between 800 and 1000 over the set of all takers in a year. edit: now I see they're going to make it median 1500 out of 2400 possible with the new essay section. Oh bother.

It's all shifty business tho.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kallend 2,174]

The data are not from IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which is what the Economist gives as the source.

Looks like its another hoax.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

There is no IQ Test per se, there are dozens. IIRC Stanford-Binet version is the archetype with the 100/16 figures defined, and a handful of impersonators following suit. Some of them assign the number 100 to the median of some sample population. The SAT is an IQ test with a median calibrated between 800 and 1000 over the set of all takers in a year. edit: now I see they're going to make it median 1500 out of 2400 possible with the new essay section. Oh bother.

It's all shifty business tho.

nathaniel

The SAT is not an IQ test. College universities have been using the SAT in place of IQ tests for quite some time. The SAT test is based on two things MATH and Verbal. The math that they test is very low level. (a little algebra, geometry, maybe a little trig). If my iq was based on the SAT math, I would probably be considered a genius since I would score near perfect on it.
On the verbal part I probably would have the same horrific score I got when I took it in high school. Does that mean that I am a verbal idiot? Does it mean my intelligence quotient verbally is extremely difficient? Lets see. I speak four languages. I think some verbal ability is required for that. I think there is clear explanation for the low verbal score. The test is geared toward people who grew up in middle America, speaking nothing but English, reading liberal books using big words that the general population needs to get a dictionary for. So I guess if you fit that description then this test can be an accurate judge of your capability to learn. Even then, maybe you just didn't give a crap in English class. Still, when presented with something you do care about, (pointing out John Kerry's endless contradictions, scope shifts, flip flopping and outright lies), then you might prove to be very smart and perceptive.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Do you have sure knowledge that The Economist data are bogus, or is it just a hunch?

Mostly a hunch, based on conversations in which both the originator of that table and I have been involved. Granted he never claimed that he got the numbers from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", but rather that he got the idea to include a column of mean income for each state from that book (the original had such a column). He claimed the IQ data to be from Ravens APM tests, but has not provided a source for that data. Subsequent publications have kind of screwed it up and attributed the data to the book. Anyhow, given the nature of the data, and the fact that it so perfectly supports his normal perspective, I'm inclined to believe he made those numbers up.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

You make some good points. I do however believe that treatment of the SAT as an IQ test has become fairly well accepted. That doesn't make it right, as it has a significant cultural bias and tests more memorization than cognitive ability, but the practice has not been limited to college campuses. For example, SATs taken before 1994 still count as qualifying exams for Mensa membership. (Those taken after 1/31/94 "no longer correlate with an IQ test")

That said, verbal acuity is a valid parameter to include when trying to define someone's IQ. Unfortunately it's also the one most difficult to guage in an unbiased manner. You speaking four languages is testimony to your ability to understand the processes of communication, but not necessarily the nuances. The best analogy I can think of is woodworking. Imagine a framer who can visualize walls, angles, joists, trusses, etc the first time through and then frame a house without all the mistakes someone else might make. It just comes naturally to him. On the other hand imagine a man who handcrafts furniture. He might not be able to build a house like the other guy, but he can take blocks and dowels etc and make something that is both functional and visually appealing. Both men are craftsmen in their own right, but at different things. It would be unreasonable to expect either of them to immediately excel at the other's work.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

The pomposity of this "smart people" shit absolutely kills me.

Smart people were responsible for committing the most horrendous atrocities the world has seen.

Not to many morons get to power, and then use it to commit genocide.

Or lobotomies.

Mengela was a genius. Let's see all you smarties claim him.

Ack. I am so sick of pretentious know-nothing smart people who would run everybody elses lives if they could. Because the dumb people need them to take care of them.

Yikes.

Pet peeve much? Pomposity is not a prerequisite of intelligence. A profoundly gifted person is only slightly more likely to run a country than a person with profound mental retardation. Both represent extremely small percentages of a population and are unlikely to desire such a position. Additionally, the skills that make a successful politician do not require that a person be gifted at all, much less highly, extremely, or profoundly gifted. That's not to say that intelligent people haven't done some horrible things, but so have morons. The vast majority of horrible things that have been done in the world have been accomplished by persons with an IQ that is within two standard deviations of the mean, i.e. neither gifted nor retarded.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[bvsdjumper 0]

For what it's worth here is the 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

Steve Sailer seems to have done a lot of research into this exact data and calls it a hoax:

http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139
He calls THIS the original hoaxer (fixes his link).

I wasn't able to find a ranking of states by IQ.

I did find Morgan Quitno Press's 2002 SMARTEST STATE AWARD

Correlated with who won the electoral:

GORE 1 Connecticut
GORE 2 Vermont
BUSH 3 Montana
GORE 4 New Jersey
GORE 5 Maine
GORE 6 Wisconsin
GORE 7 Massachusetts
BUSH 8 Wyoming
BUSH 9 Indiana
GORE 10 Rhode Island
GORE 11 Iowa
GORE 12 Minnesota
BUSH 13 Nebraska
BUSH 14 Kansas
GORE 15 Pennsylvania
BUSH 16 Texas
BUSH 17 Utah
BUSH 18 West Virginia
BUSH 19 New Hampshire
GORE 20 Michigan
BUSH 21 North Dakota
BUSH 22 Idaho
GORE 23 Oregon
BUSH 24 North Carolina
BUSH 25 Alaska
GORE 26 New York
BUSH 27 Colorado
BUSH 28 Kentucky
GORE 29 California
GORE 30 Maryland
BUSH 31 Missouri
BUSH 32 Oklahoma
GORE 33 Illinois
BUSH 34 South Dakota
GORE 35 Washington
BUSH 36 South Carolina
BUSH 37 Virginia
BUSH 38 Arkansas
BUSH 39 Tennessee
BUSH 40 Georgia
BUSH 41 Alabama
BUSH 41 Ohio
GORE 43 Delaware
BUSH 44 Arizona
GORE 45 Hawaii
BUSH 46 Nevada
BUSH 47 Florida
BUSH 48 Mississippi
GORE 49 Louisiana
GORE 50 New Mexico

Of coarse it refers to two years after the election, but I couldn't find anything for 2000.

--Art

Sky-div'ing (ski'div'ing) n. A modern sport that involves parties, bragging, sexual excesses, the imbibing of large quantities of beer, and, on rare occasions, parachuting from aircraft.

[Deuce 1]

Yes, it's a pet peeve. And it probably has more to do with the folks who percieve themselves as smart, than those who may actually be smart.

For the record, I have no idea what my IQ is.

The folks who detest the current administration can catalog plenty or legitimate reasons for their opinions. But saying only stupid people voted for it is a new kind of low. "You voted for Bush? See this chart? You are a moron"

The response of "I didn't say it, the Economist did!" is a copout. Repeating it is saying it. I have six-year-olds, and they have gotten past that nonsense.

[billvon 3,131]

>But saying only stupid people voted for it is a new kind of low. "You
>voted for Bush? See this chart? You are a moron"

Yep. I seem to recall a very silly chart someone posted that showed how most of the rural areas of the US voted for Bush, and used that as an argument as to how Bush was more popular. As if how much empty space there was around a person matters when it comes to votes.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The SAT is not an IQ test. College universities have been using the SAT in place of IQ tests for quite some time.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck! There is no standard to which IQ tests are held...there is no difference to me between what it is and how people use it. Calling it an IQ test isn't a measure of prestige; it has negative connotations IMO.

Quote

The test is geared toward people who grew up in middle America, speaking nothing but English, reading liberal books using big words that the general population needs to get a dictionary for.

And every other IQ test is subject to exactly this type of flaw: one number is never enough to measure the worth of a person. It sounds like we are in hostile agreement =).

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>But saying only stupid people voted for it is a new kind of low. "You
>voted for Bush? See this chart? You are a moron"

Yep. I seem to recall a very silly chart someone posted that showed how most of the rural areas of the US voted for Bush, and used that as an argument as to how Bush was more popular. As if how much empty space there was around a person matters when it comes to votes.

That would be me, and it wasn't so much meant as a popularity rating as it was meant to be a "mindset". The further away you get from cities, the more conservative, it gets. It further illustrated that the "hot-beds" of democratic party only remain in the very largest of US cities and their growth is not as fast as other areas of the country.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Deuce 1]

I think I'm missing the point, Bill. Perhaps I am validating the original point of this thread. The USA Today red and blue votes by counties thing, right? How does that compare with stating that Gore voters are intellectually superior to Bush voters?

I gotta go get on my bike and ride down to Perris now. Maybe I'll see you this weekend.

Laters.

[billvon 3,131]

I think that claiming that "only smart people vote for Gore" is as silly as stating "lots of land area votes for Bush." In the end, neither matters - it's how many people (or more accurately, how many states) vote for which candidate.