IQ and Politics - Do lower income, lower IQ voters, Elect our Leaders? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-02-2006, 11:49 AM

Questions....does this seem accurate to you....it does, to me. If you disagree, please post why....

Does this data provide an explanation about the state that the country is in, to a large degree, a smaller degree, or not at all?

Quote:

http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm
1. Support on this chart's data from http://www.isteve.com/04NovA.htm - a major hoax exposing site:

"The State IQ hoax claiming that Democratic states have much higher IQs (Connecticut = 113) than Republican states (Utah = 87) flared up again, with just one website publishing the fictitious table reporting 540,000 hits.. This time, however, lots of people immediately linked to my debunking from last May, providing iSteve.com with its busiest day ever on 11/5/04.

By the way, this page makes a good faith attempt to estimate average IQs by state from SAT and ACT scores. The methodology is far from bulletproof, but the author's results sound not too implausible: his estimates range from an average of 94 in Mississippi and South Carolina to 104 in New Hampshire. If you can think of a better way to do it, send the author an email."

<a href="http://sq.4mg.com/usingSQ.htm">Sloan responds to questions on IQ and SQ:</a>

I included the states with highest populations, and seperately, states with highest and lowest average IQ and income. Comments in the following quote box, are mine -host

Quote:

http://sq.4mg.com/weighting.htm
New Hampshire 104 $34,702 Kerry
Massachusetts 103 $39,185 Kerry
Connecticut...102 $43,173 Kerry
Illinois......102 $33,590 Kerry
Vermont.......102 $30,740 Kerry
New York......101 $36,574 Kerry
Michigan......101 $30,439 Kerry
New Jersey....100 $40,427 Kerry
California....100 $33,749 Kerry
Maine.........100 $28,831 Kerry
Deleware.......99 $32,810 Kerry
Hawaii.........99 $30,913 Kerry

DC.............95 $48,342 Kerry

No state carried by the Kerry vote in 2004 had income below $28,831 or average IQ below 99.
DC is an interesting exception. 19 state carried by Bush in 2004 had average income below $28,831, an IQ average of 97 or lower, or both.

Colorado......102 $34,238 Bush
Montana.......102 $25,920 Bush
Alaska........101 $33,568 Bush
Ohio..........101 $29,944 Bush
Utah..........101 $24,977 Bush
Virginia......100 $33,671 Bush
Floria........ 98 $30,446 Bush
Texas......... 97 $28,372 Bush
South Carol... 94 $26,132 Bush
Mississippi... 94 $23,448 Bush
10 states, plus DC, had IQ levels of 97 or lower. Among them, (excluding DC) Georgia had the highest per capita, 2003 income, $29,442.
All ten of these states, (DC voted for Kerry) were carried by Bush in 2004.

flstf · 11-02-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

No state carried by the Kerry vote in 2004 had income below $28,831 or average IQ below 99.

I guess the poor underclass did not think voting for Democrats was in their best interest in those states.

ratbastid · 11-02-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I guess the poor underclass did not think voting for Democrats was in their best interest in those states.

Little did they know!

Willravel · 11-02-2006, 12:21 PM

Is it possible that the reason Bush got so many votes isn't as dependant on voter fraud, lies and deciet, etc? Is it possible that dumb people just vote for a dumb representative? Is that the brilliant strategy? I find this more frightening than anything....

Quote:

"In a democracy where the majority are fools, a fool will always lead."
-Willravel, 2006

/coined phrase

stevo · 11-02-2006, 12:46 PM

Just imagine if only land owners could vote. man that sure would solve a lot of problems.

Willravel · 11-02-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Just imagine if only land owners could vote. man that sure would solve a lot of problems.

No one is suggesting disinfranchising anyone. As a matter of fact, more people should vote. The point is that we should have more educated masses. The point is that voting is a responsibility, and part of voting responsibly is doing your homework, and part of doing your homework is being able to even do homework.

It's my right to vote by the flip of a coin, but is that really the way our country wants to be lead?

stevo · 11-02-2006, 12:58 PM

I wasn't joking.

Jinn · 11-02-2006, 01:16 PM

A well known fact by civil lawyers is that the average intelligence of a civil jury is an EIGHTH GRADE EDUCATION.

When you accept that the majority of your country, society, and government are absolute idiots - you stop being surprised by voting results.

Seaver · 11-02-2006, 01:27 PM

Funny the only "resource" I found through 30min of searching their site is a link to the census bureau that goes no where.

Ustwo · 11-02-2006, 01:31 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Quote:

The IQ numbers were originally attributed to the book 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations,' though they do not appear in the current edition. The tests and data were administered via the Raven's APT, and The Test Agency, one of the UK's leading publishers and distributors of psychometric tests. This data has been published in the Economist and the St. Petersburg Times, though this does not mean it should be taken as fact.

Origins: Some pranks are so good they keep working over and over again.

Back in November 2002, someone (using the name Robert Calvert) created and posted to a USENET newsgroup a phony chart which purportedly showed the average IQ per state in the U.S., along with the average income and a column indicating how that state voted in the 2000 presidential election. The gag was that all the states that voted for Vice-President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election were clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while all the states that voted for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush were clustered at the bottom.

The chart's creator claimed to have been inspired by the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations and to have drawn his IQ data from the Ravens APM, but — save for the average income per state numbers, which were valid but outdated figures taken from the 1994 World Almanac — the chart was completely bogus. (The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices is not really a general intelligence test, nor do its publishers offer state-by-state test results data.) Nonetheless, a number of news publications (including the staid Economist) were taken in by the hoax — some mistakenly citing the information as having come from the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, or even IQ and the Wealth of States — and published portions of the chart, and discussed it as if it were valid. (A similar hoax about presidential IQs produced similar media-fooling results back in 2001.)

Now, someone has dusted off the same chart and (omitting the economic data) applied it to the 2004 presidential election, keeping the primary gag intact: the "blue" (i.e., Democratic states) are all clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while the "red" (i.e., Republican) states are clustered at the bottom. Same hoax, different year. If 2008 produces another close presidential election as 2000 and 2004 did, expect to see this same joke again four years from now.

Last updated: 12 November 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Just imagine if only land owners could vote. man that sure would solve a lot of problems.

Ironicly I was thinking the same thing today.

Oh btw living in Illinois the richest counties I'm aware of voted for Bush and tend to vote straight Republican. No idea where this would be going as voting and IQ is not a state wide thing. I'd be happy, no elated if those who didn't graduate highschool were not allowed to vote, and it wouldn't be because Democrats would win

Oh and I found this
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

Which uses ACT/SAT scores, shows there isn't a really big difference, and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!

And beats hosts edited version.

Also since it doesn't say WHO is voting, its only by state, and states which have large urban centers tend to go to the Democrats, you have to wonder if anything really being measured here?

In other words, host give me a break, your side ain't smarter.

Ahhhh finally here someone did my homework for me.... I knew someone would understand.

First, the 'IQ' gap.

Quote:

A casual glance at the chart reveals two things: first, that the IQ differences between the states are actually quite small; and second, that there really isn't such a noticeable difference between the "blue" and "red" states after all. Kerry does seem to have a slight advantage, as the handful of states at the top of the chart are in his camp. But how great is the difference really?

It's easy enough to figure out. Since electoral votes are based on population (the more people that live in a state, the more electoral votes it has), one merely has to multiply each state's average IQ by its electoral vote count, then add up the totals in each candidate's column, and divide by each candidate's electoral vote total. The results will be a highly accurate average IQ of the voters for each side.

And without further ado, here are the results (feel free to do the computations yourself to confirm them, if you choose to):

Kerry voters: IQ 100.96 ~> 101
Bush voters: IQ 98.73 ~> 99

Kerry supporters have an average IQ of just under 101; and Bush supporters have an IQ of just under 99. For simplicity's sake, we'll round them both up to 101 and 99.

So, the evidence seems to show that the average Kerry voter has an IQ of 101, while the average Bush voter has an IQ of 99. While this 2-point difference may appear significant to partisan advocates, in truth the difference between 99 and 101 is negligable, so statistically insignificant as to be meaningless. If the average IQ is 100, it is not possible to tell the difference between someone who is 1 point above average and someone else who is 1 point below average. In fact, in casual conversation, you couldn't distinguish between someone with an IQ of 95 from someone with an IQ of 105.

This result alone is enough to show that there is in fact essentially no difference in intelligence between Bush voters and Kerry voters. But further analysis reveals something even more startling -- and a bit controversial.

To the above may I say 'duh'

Now for the grim reality to the democrats....

Quote:

One of the reasons standardized tests are so controversial and so disliked is that certain minority groups tend to score lower than average on them. I'm not here to defend these tests, or to theorize why these groups score lower on average (and there are many convincing and reasonable explanations); I'm merely pointing out a well-known and universally acknowledged fact. Specifically, that Native Americans, Hispanics, and African-Americans tend to score slightly lower on the SAT.

Why bring up this uncomfortable fact? Well, look at the map above again. In particular, look at New Mexico, Texas, and Mississippi, as examples. All three of these states went for Bush to varying degrees. But certain counties within each state voted for Kerry. In New Mexico, as the map reveals, the northern areas went for Kerry. Yet northern New Mexico is where most of the Native American reservations are. Thus, Native Americans tended to favor Kerry. Now look at Texas; the state went almost entirely for Bush, except for the area along the Mexican border, which has a high concentration of Hispanics. Thus, it seems that Kerry got a lot of Hispanic votes. Now on to Mississippi: mostly Bush, except for the counties that border on the Mississippi River -- counties which are majority African-American. (The same principle applies to many other states as well.)

It doesn't take a genius to see where this is heading. IF you accept the validity of IQ (which Kerry supporters unearthed to support their "Bush voters are dumb" thesis), and IF IQ can be accurately approximated from SAT results (as most statisticians believe), and IF you acknowledge that certain minority groups, for whatever sociological and economic reasons (poverty, language barriers, cultural differences), score slightly lower than average on SAT tests, THEN you can come to only one conclusion: that those residents of "red" states that are voting for Kerry are the ones with the lower-than-average IQs. Which means that the higher-IQ residents of many "red" states are the ones voting for Bush.

(I would like to repeat here that I personally do not ascribe to the validity of IQ tests, nor of standardized tests in general. I only use this data in order to rebut the false conclusion derived from it. Kerry supporters have dug this hole themselves, and now must suffer the consequences of their folly.)

The end result of this county-by-county analysis is that the tiny apparent IQ advantage held by Kerry voters is wiped out, if not reversed. By casting aspersions on southern and western states with high African-American and Native American populations, calling the people who live there "dumb" for voting for Bush, and attempting to prove it by dragging out statistics, the Kerry camp is flirting with behavior that borders on the offensive. Their accusations only highlight the fact that, even in pro-Bush states, it is those voters who are Kerry supporters that are the ones which account for the states' low test rankings.

CONCLUSION
a. There is no discernible intelligence difference between Bush voters and Kerry voters.
b. Kerry supporters who insist that Bush voters are "dumb," and who point out as evidence state-by-state IQ scores, are engaging in behavior that could be construed as racially inflammatory.

http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/

host this was an easy one, add more links next time so I don't bother reading it.

Elphaba · 11-02-2006, 04:16 PM

Thank you, ustwo, for the resource effort made. I was going to post about the Bell Curve and that large numbers will fall within the mean, plus or minus one standard deviation. IQ's of 101 or 99 are statistically identical. I wasn't willing to "prove" my post, however.

NCB · 11-02-2006, 04:25 PM

People who vote for a living tend to vote Democrat. People who work hard and make their own way tend to vote GOP.

filtherton · 11-02-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

People who vote for a living tend to vote Democrat. People who work hard and make their own way tend to vote GOP.

People who rape sedated puppies tend to vote gop. People who don't believe that all minorities are homosexual communists tend to vote democrat.

Perhaps we could all benefit from reading the things we plan on posting aloud, perhaps to other people so that we can avoid making broad sweeping statements that have no basis in reality.

ratbastid · 11-02-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

People who vote for a living tend to vote Democrat. People who work hard and make their own way tend to vote GOP.

Let's see about that on Tuesday, shall we?

Even in our good old red-state North Carolina, 8 out of 12 congressional races are very likely to go Democrat--including some rural, traditionally conservative districts. I think this indicates that this year's election isn't about traditional demographics. It's a referendum on the failed policies of the administration and the congress that failed to rein them in. You don't have to be a liberal to disapprove of what's been going on the last couple years.

Interestingly, the exceptions are the district that contains non-metro Mecklenburg County (the county where Charlotte is located), non-metro Guilford County (the county where Greensboro is located), and the 3rd District (which is most of the coast), and one district in the mountains (the 10th--Lenoir is the biggest town there). I'm not surprised by the 3rd or 10th, but the areas immediately surrounding two of the state's largest cities are STRONGLY for their republican congressman--in some cases by 40 points or more. I find that puzzling. I'm willing to shrug and let it be a coincidence, unless anybody has a theory about it.

EDIT: Just figured it out. There aren't actually elections in all those districts. Silly me.

By the way, NCB, you're most likely stuck with Brad Miller for another six years. Good thing too--Vernon Robinson's a total sleazeball. He's run a DIRTY campaign. He sent out this vicious letter implying, among other things, that Miller is gay. He actually push-polled me yesterday in his own voice. Totally shameless.

NCB · 11-02-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

By the way, NCB, you're most likely stuck with Brad Miller for another six years. Good thing too--Vernon Robinson's a total sleazeball. He's run a DIRTY campaign. He sent out this vicious letter implying, among other things, that Miller is gay. He actually push-polled me yesterday in his own voice. Totally shameless.

Robinson is great. You may not like him, but he doesnt hide from the tough questions. Miller is a complete pussy who wont answer to his constituents in a district that he literally drew up for himself.

Also, youre counting your chicken well before they hatch. Taylor will keep his seat, as will Walter Jones. Robin Hayes has a tougher road, but I think that he'll keep his seat too. If you like, we could come up with some small avatar bet. Care to make it interesting?

jorgelito · 11-02-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Robinson is great. You may not like him, but he doesnt hide from the tough questions. Miller is a complete pussy who wont answer to his constituents in a district that he literally drew up for himself.

Also, youre counting your chicken well before they hatch. Taylor will keep his seat, as will Walter Jones. Robin Hayes has a tougher road, but I think that he'll keep his seat too. If you like, we could come up with some small avatar bet. Care to make it interesting?

You know, this might be a good idea, have some good-ol' fashioned fun. It might reduce tensions in the Politics Forum a little bit and lighten things up too.

Lay down some background info so those of us not in your district have some idea and I'll make a side bet with anyone who's interested. This could be fun. What do you say TFP?

1010011010 · 11-02-2006, 05:46 PM

Bush Co. makes a lot of reassuring noises from its mouths, but generally doesn't actually say anything. It talks about "Victory in Iraq". Though I listen to NPR for about two hours every day while commuting, I have never heard the conditions for "Victory" defined.

But it sounds good. Most of the reassuring noises that have no meaning make for great sound bites. To people who actually listen critically to politicians (I'm not sure why anyone bothers, regardless of affiliation) get so caught up in the emptiness of the rhetoric that they fail to notice how smoothly it's delivered.

Bush is an excellent speech reader backed by even better speech writers. He sounds like he's saying simple straightforward things that are easy for people who aren't really listening to understand. Well reasoned and multi-faceted opinions do not survive television concision or the spin of being dubbed "waffling". Many people pick candidates based on a handful of largely irrelevant cultural issues... play to those issues and otherwise avoid muttering anything substantive and they'll keep voting for you.

This is why Bush won. No one wants to be invited to think about their position on stem cells. Kerry launched on how current stem cell research lines are contaminated with mouse cells. What voters did he win over with that one? I don't even remember what Bush said, probably because he didn't actually say anything... just made reassuring noises that sounded like a point being made.

Ustwo · 11-02-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

Bush Co. makes a lot of reassuring noises from its mouths, but generally doesn't actually say anything. It talks about "Victory in Iraq". Though I listen to NPR for about two hours every day while commuting, I have never heard the conditions for "Victory" defined.

But it sounds good. Most of the reassuring noises that have no meaning make for great sound bites. To people who actually listen critically to politicians (I'm not sure why anyone bothers, regardless of affiliation) get so caught up in the emptiness of the rhetoric that they fail to notice how smoothly it's delivered.

Bush is an excellent speech reader backed by even better speech writers. He sounds like he's saying simple straightforward things that are easy for people who aren't really listening to understand. Well reasoned and multi-faceted opinions do not survive television concision or the spin of being dubbed "waffling". Many people pick candidates based on a handful of largely irrelevant cultural issues... play to those issues and otherwise avoid muttering anything substantive and they'll keep voting for you.

This is why Bush won. No one wants to be invited to think about their position on stem cells. Kerry launched on how current stem cell research lines are contaminated with mouse cells. What voters did he win over with that one? I don't even remember what Bush said, probably because he didn't actually say anything... just made reassuring noises that sounded like a point being made.

Yes I voted for Bush, twice, because of his easy listening reassuring noises. You sure summed that up nicely.

NCB · 11-02-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

You know, this might be a good idea, have some good-ol' fashioned fun. It might reduce tensions in the Politics Forum a little bit and lighten things up too.

Lay down some background info so those of us not in your district have some idea and I'll make a side bet with anyone who's interested. This could be fun. What do you say TFP?

EDIT: The truth is even sadder then the original post. Nothing to see here. Move along

Seaver · 11-02-2006, 06:36 PM

Can we stop this whole "only stupid people vote for Bush" already? It was old in 2000, it's simply retarded now. The majority of people vote Republican because they felt it was better than the alternative.

Don't assume you're more intelligent than everyone else simply because you feel differently politically.

Willravel · 11-02-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Can we stop this whole "only stupid people vote for Bush" already? It was old in 2000, it's simply retarded now. The majority of people vote Republican because they felt it was better than the alternative.

Don't assume you're more intelligent than everyone else simply because you feel differently politically.

There is no assumption in the data.

I am curious, though, as to why someone would vote for a bumbling idiot. I know that I am significantly smarter than George W. Bush will ever be (as a paleologist is smarter than a brontosaurus), but I'd never run for President because I don't think I am capable enough to do the best job in that position. There are amazing demands made on the President every day, and when a monkey is left to make those decisions it's no wonder that problems arise. I realize that Gore was boring, not that bright, and riding the Clinton coat tails, and Kerry was pretty weak, and not a strong candiadte, but were they so bad that you would vote for the halfwit?

djtestudo · 11-02-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There is no assumption in the data.

I am curious, though, as to why someone would vote for a bumbling idiot. I know that I am significantly smarter than George W. Bush will ever be (as a paleologist is smarter than a brontosaurus), but I'd never run for President because I don't think I am capable enough to do the best job in that position. There are amazing demands made on the President every day, and when a monkey is left to make those decisions it's no wonder that problems arise. I realize that Gore was boring, not that bright, and riding the Clinton coat tails, and Kerry was pretty weak, and not a strong candiadte, but were they so bad that you would vote for the halfwit?

Sometimes the obvious half-wit is better then the guy you don't think has any wits despite acting otherwise (see: Gore, Al and Kerry, John).

Willravel · 11-02-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Sometimes the obvious half-wit is better then the guy you don't think has any wits despite acting otherwise (see: Gore, Al and Kerry, John).

With the benifit of hinsight, I'm sure you've changed your mind. There is no way that Gore or Kerry would have us in the mess we're in now. Please tell me everyone is actually learning from their mistakes. Flip flippong from a mistake to the right decision is a good thing.

Seaver · 11-02-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

There is no assumption in the data.

I've yet to see any legitimate data. As I stated the "link" provided as a "resource" does not work. They could have easily just made everything up.

Besides, any "point" that people who vote for Bush are rednecks are easily negated by pointing out the inner-city vote-farms which the Dems set up.

Willravel · 11-02-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I've yet to see any legitimate data. As I stated the "link" provided as a "resource" does not work. They could have easily just made everything up.

Besides, any "point" that people who vote for Bush are rednecks are easily negated by pointing out the inner-city vote-farms which the Dems set up.

I'm "sorry" you "don't" think the data "is" legitimate. I'll "see" if I "can" find another source online"."

Elphaba · 11-02-2006, 08:49 PM

Once again, IQ's of 99 and 101 have NO statistical difference. There is no argument to be had here, unless that is the purpose of the OP and posters.

xxSquirtxx · 11-02-2006, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Once again, IQ's of 99 and 101 have NO statistical difference. There is no argument to be had here, unless that is the purpose of the OP and posters.

Haven't you figured out by now? That's irrelevant when you want to trash conservatives.

djtestudo · 11-02-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

With the benifit of hinsight, I'm sure you've changed your mind. There is no way that Gore or Kerry would have us in the mess we're in now. Please tell me everyone is actually learning from their mistakes. Flip flippong from a mistake to the right decision is a good thing.

There is a reason for hindsight always being 20/20, but even so I don't think it's true in this case.

I wouldn't trust Al Gore to have done anything post-9/11, and we would likely still be in the same position in Iraq with Kerry, since I cannot see a Republican Congress voting to do anything else with the war other then fight it out.

Willravel · 11-02-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

I wouldn't trust Al Gore to have done anything post-9/11, and we would likely still be in the same position in Iraq with Kerry, since I cannot see a Republican Congress voting to do anything else with the war other then fight it out.

Do you really think Al Gore would have attacked Iraq? No way, Jose. That automatically means that we wouldn't have anywhere near as much debt, global terrorism would be less, a lot less dead soldiers, better relationships with our allies, and better approval presidental ratings. Also, Gore could pronounce "terrorism" instead of "terrsm" (i.e., he woulnd't make ridiculous verbal blunders day after day). Gore woulnd't have demoted Clinton's top terrorism expert, therefore 9/11 would have been less likely. It's guesswork, but I think it's a reasonable prediction.

As far as not doing anything post-9/11....what did we do? We attacked Afghanistan, now it's run by opium growing warlords (producing a vast majorty of the worlds opiates) and it's less stable than it was under the Taliban, if that's possible. We didn't go into Saudi Arabia; where the suspected 9/11 terrorists were born, raised, and trained; where the financing for 9/11 came from; one of the largest supporters of terrorism in the world. We still don't have any idea where Osama is.

Ustwo · 11-02-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm "sorry" you "don't" think the data "is" legitimate. I'll "see" if I "can" find another source online"."

This isn't a 9/11 thread will, try looking at the data provided objectively and logically.

I 'debunked' this myth in my spare time between seeing patients. Its obvious, its clear, and you are twisting it to make it fit your world view.

host · 11-03-2006, 12:42 AM

Let's examine your "debunking" claim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Ironicly I was thinking the same thing today.

Oh btw living in Illinois the richest counties I'm aware of voted for Bush and tend to vote straight Republican. No idea where this would be going as voting and IQ is not a state wide thing. I'd be happy, no elated if those who didn't graduate highschool were not allowed to vote, and it wouldn't be because Democrats would win

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh and I found this
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

Which uses ACT/SAT scores, shows there isn't a really big difference, and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!

And beats hosts edited version.

Also since it doesn't say WHO is voting, its only by state, and states which have large urban centers tend to go to the Democrats, you have to wonder if anything really being measured here?

In other words, host give me a break, your side ain't smarter.

Ahhhh finally here someone did my homework for me.... I knew someone would understand.

First, the 'IQ' gap.

To the above may I say 'duh'

Now for the grim reality to the democrats....

http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/

host this was an easy one, add more links next time so I don't bother reading it.

Your "snopes.com" article is irrelevant, since:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh and I found this
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

Which uses ACT/SAT scores, shows there isn't a really big difference, and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!

And beats hosts edited version.

[1} What you "found", was the first link that I posted in the OP, pointing to the principle citation (and influence) for the creation of the OP.
What do you mean, "you found it?"

[2}The reason that I prominently posted the link that "you found",
was because, the first thing that the linked page did, was display the identical subject and argument against it, that your long, snopes.com, linked cut and past made....

I posted the link to avoid what you did, anyway;
You attempted to confuse the info at Van Sloan's sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm , by "linking" it with the snopes.com described, debunked IQ/Voting data and table.

[3} At the bottom of the page at the link that "you found",
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm, is a link in big, bokd letters:
<h3>Go to: <a href="http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm">Calculating state IQ's from SAT and ACT scores</a></h3>
The link above displays a page that lists IQ data by state. and at the bottom, the adjustments to address your concerns, are explained:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo}
.....Which uses ACT/SAT scores, shows there isn't a really big difference, and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!

And beats hosts edited version.[/quote

Also since it doesn't say WHO is voting, its only by state, and states which have large urban centers tend to go to the Democrats, you have to wonder if anything really being measured here?

In other words, host give me a break, your side ain't smarter.

Quote:

<a href="http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm">Calculating state IQ's from SAT and ACT scores</a>
Left side of chart is from http://christianparty.net/actstates.htm

ACT to SAT conversion from http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbse...l/stat00f.html

* IQ from the SAT - IQ estimator at http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

** IQ from the SAT webpage http://sq.4mg.com/SATstates.htm

<h3>Estimated IQ for all citizens of a state is normally set 10 points less than the IQ of ACT test takers, to make a national average of 100 IQ.</h3> This difference is proportionally reduced when over 60% of high school grads take the ACT. The same reduction was made for SAT test takers. Note that the average IQ here for all states is about 100, which is slightly larger than America's 98 IQ in the IQ comparison of nations.

Viewer comment on the above paragraph: So, we have a 10 point reduction taken across the board with no scientific data to back the reduction. What about certain states with unusually high numbers of professionals due to local universities or white collar level jobs? Both of which could be attracted to the state from other locations, thus further skewing the results of the ACT test takers as it cannot take into account movement of people. Or a state with a large number of military bases where the average member is not college educated. There are SO many other potential factors that can skew statistics. And non of this makes an attempt to gage common sense or what is known as practical understanding. (From http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...howtopic=11028 posted Nov 3 2004, 10:13 AM by Foredeck Shuffle)

Sloan responds to above comment: Each of the viewer's comments could affect the average state IQ numbers. But until better data becomes available, I believe this page presents the best state IQ information available anywhere. Two points: (1) The10 point reduction produces state IQ's that average the expected 100 , and (2) The higher income professionals attracted to selected states tend to raise high SAT scoring children in those new states.

This page is NOT a hoax, unlike the unverified state IQ's designed to show that Democrats were smarter.

....Ustwo..... I cannot see where you "debunked" anything....... 
In addition to the two points that the "State IQ" site's author, Sloan made, in the sentences just preceding my closing comments...( please review what you've posted that refutes Sloan's claim that his "page presents the best state IQ information available anywhere"), you've ignored the more dramatic 2003, per capita income differences of the two groups of 2004 voters.

Now that your concerns:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....Which uses ACT/SAT scores, shows there isn't a really big difference, and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!

...have been addressed by Van Sloan, what argument can you make to persuasively counter his fomula for determining state IQ averages? Is there more authoritative data, or a more impressive formula to determine state IQ,
that you can point to, for us?

Are the flaws in Sloan's method or his data, or his research on the relationships between SAT and ACT test scores, and IQ?

....and, to Ustwo, and Seaver:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Funny the only "resource" I found through 30min of searching their site is a link to the census bureau that goes no where.

Seaver....here is a link to the page at the "dead" census.gov link:
http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html

...the last point in Ustwo's "debunking" effort, was anticipated on the page from the this prominent link, displayed in the OP:

Quote:

http://sq.4mg.com/weighting.htm

(Near the bottom of the page:)
.....As you can see, after weighting each state for population, there is a much stronger correlation between IQ of a state's population and voting democratic than your analysis suggests.

Since it appears that you want your site to show as accurate representation of the data as possible, I thought you'd be interested in this.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Doug Waage

Seaver obviously found his way to the page in the preceding quote box, the link Seaver described as,.... "link to the census bureau that goes no where."....is displayed on that page. The calculations of Doug Waage, that impressed Van Sloan enough to create an entire page for...at the preceding link....also impressed me enough to author a new thread about.
So....why do you, Ustwo, ignore it, and instead, post this?:

Quote:

http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/
host this was an easy one, add more links next time so I don't bother reading it.

Since the first link in the thread OP was to Sloan's display of the matrial covered in your snope.com linked material, and making clear that his data and methodology had corrected the flaws in that 2004 internet hoax, why did you lead your "debunking" with the snopes.com article?

In summary....Ustwo, all of the major points that you made in your "debunking" post, were addressed....before you raised them:
1.) The 2004 "internet hoax" described in the first link in this thread OP

2.) "and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!"

3.)"Also since it doesn't say WHO is voting, its only by state, and states which have large urban centers tend to go to the Democrats, you have to wonder if anything really being measured here?"

4.)"Ahhhh finally here someone did my homework for me.... I knew someone would understand.

First, the 'IQ' gap."

"It's easy enough to figure out. Since electoral votes are based on population (the more people that live in a state, the more electoral votes it has), one merely has to multiply each state's average IQ by its electoral vote count, then add up the totals in each candidate's column, and divide by each candidate's electoral vote total. The results will be a highly accurate average IQ of the voters for each side."
host asks: didn't the core quote box....in the thread OP, the one with the list of more than 20 states...already provide <a href="http://sq.4mg.com/weighting.htm">States IQ chart - weighted by population</a>....and doesn't that weighting provide a clearer measure of IQ average, by state, than an "electoral vote", weighting?

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 05:09 AM

host look at the county map and refute that, otherwise dont' waste my time, you didn't address either the 101 - 99 IQ 'margin' or the county map. I have to go play doctor now and you can play internet pundit.

Now I see why the left has such a hard time figuring out 9/11, and the mechanics behind it, they are confused by numbers and what they really mean.

ratbastid · 11-03-2006, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now I see why the left has such a hard time figuring out 9/11, and the mechanics behind it,

Easy there. We're not the ones who think Iraq was involved.

Willravel · 11-03-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This isn't a 9/11 thread will, try looking at the data provided objectively and logically.

I 'debunked' this myth in my spare time between seeing patients. Its obvious, its clear, and you are twisting it to make it fit your world view.

You didn't debunk anything. You brought up points that had already been addressed, then did a victory dance.

Also, just becuase you can't grasp the simple physics behind 9/11 doesn't mean you can bring it up in every single thread. This thread isn't called "what really happened on 9/11", so either stop flaming and threadjacking and/or move into the appropriate thread.

Seaver · 11-03-2006, 08:53 AM

http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html

How this is is supposed to be a resource is equivilant to me making a website of www.uglyduck.com/us.gov.html and claiming that it is the US Government's website. The "link" which is attempted to be hidden in that follows as... http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html unfortunately, as I said before, it does not work. Therefore this is by definition unsupported documentation, which justly gets thrown out of any argument.

This is the part of the "link" which it supposably is part of. It leads no where. I can put census.gov somewhere in a URL link and it will go no where in the census bureau.

When I see it there maybe I'll believe, until then try forging information some other way.

seretogis · 11-03-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html

How this is is supposed to be a resource is equivilant to me making a website of www.uglyduck.com/us.gov.html and claiming that it is the US Government's website. The "link" which is attempted to be hidden in that follows as... http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html unfortunately, as I said before, it does not work. Therefore this is by definition unsupported documentation, which justly gets thrown out of any argument.

This is the part of the "link" which it supposably is part of. It leads no where. I can put census.gov somewhere in a URL link and it will go no where in the census bureau.

When I see it there maybe I'll believe, until then try forging information some other way.

This is silliness. The web archive at archive.org is completely legitimate as it archives previously live web pages. Instead of attacking the source, perhaps attack the fact that the data has been removed for some reason.

dc_dux · 11-03-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Originally Posted by Seaver
http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html

How this is is supposed to be a resource is equivilant to me making a website of www.uglyduck.com/us.gov.html and claiming that it is the US Government's website. The "link" which is attempted to be hidden in that follows as... http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html unfortunately, as I said before, it does not work. Therefore this is by definition unsupported documentation, which justly gets thrown out of any argument.

This is the part of the "link" which it supposably is part of. It leads no where. I can put census.gov somewhere in a URL link and it will go no where in the census bureau.

When I see it there maybe I'll believe, until then try forging information some other way.

This is silliness. The web archive at archive.org is completely legitimate as it archives previously live web pages. Instead of attacking the source, perhaps attack the fact that the data has been removed for some reason.

I agree with the silliness...both the question raised in the OP and the reactionary comment by Seaver,re: the link "which is attempted to be hidden".

The link doesnt work because Census Dept moved the Statistcal Abstract of the US from www.census.gov/statab/www to http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

Seaver · 11-03-2006, 01:55 PM

Sorry Sertogis, in my opinion it is as legitimate as Wikipedia. While it may be good for quick referencing, it is only as good as the source who delivers it. Being that the source is quite litterally attempting to paint the stupid brush on his opponents I'd say there's reason to question it.

And I've yet to see any data on the census website which delivers any sembilance of SAT/ACT scores, while there are plenty of graduation rates/etc which are similar I've yet to see anything which supports said thesis.

Elphaba · 11-03-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host look at the county map and refute that, otherwise dont' waste my time, you didn't address either the 101 - 99 IQ 'margin' or the county map. I have to go play doctor now and you can play internet pundit.

Ustwo, do you read Time magazine? Your map is a distortion, using a winner-take-all approach. I'm certain you must know that every state is actually a blend of both dems and reps, with most states being fairly evenly divided. This month's Time displays that version of the "map" and is far more accurate representation of the popular vote, vs. your Electoral College map.

Nice catch, host.

flstf · 11-04-2006, 08:44 AM

I don't know which party has the voters with the lowest IQ but from the negative campaign commercials I have seen it is apparent that they must think we are all pretty stupid.

11-02-2006, 12:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Just imagine if only land owners could vote. man that sure would solve a lot of problems. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-02-2006, 12:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I wasn't joking. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-02-2006, 01:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	A well known fact by civil lawyers is that the average intelligence of a civil jury is an EIGHTH GRADE EDUCATION. When you accept that the majority of your country, society, and government are absolute idiots - you stop being surprised by voting results. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

11-02-2006, 01:27 PM	#9 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Funny the only "resource" I found through 30min of searching their site is a link to the census bureau that goes no where. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-02-2006, 05:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	Bush Co. makes a lot of reassuring noises from its mouths, but generally doesn't actually say anything. It talks about "Victory in Iraq". Though I listen to NPR for about two hours every day while commuting, I have never heard the conditions for "Victory" defined. But it sounds good. Most of the reassuring noises that have no meaning make for great sound bites. To people who actually listen critically to politicians (I'm not sure why anyone bothers, regardless of affiliation) get so caught up in the emptiness of the rhetoric that they fail to notice how smoothly it's delivered. Bush is an excellent speech reader backed by even better speech writers. He sounds like he's saying simple straightforward things that are easy for people who aren't really listening to understand. Well reasoned and multi-faceted opinions do not survive television concision or the spin of being dubbed "waffling". Many people pick candidates based on a handful of largely irrelevant cultural issues... play to those issues and otherwise avoid muttering anything substantive and they'll keep voting for you. This is why Bush won. No one wants to be invited to think about their position on stem cells. Kerry launched on how current stem cell research lines are contaminated with mouse cells. What voters did he win over with that one? I don't even remember what Bush said, probably because he didn't actually say anything... just made reassuring noises that sounded like a point being made. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

11-02-2006, 04:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, ustwo, for the resource effort made. I was going to post about the Bell Curve and that large numbers will fall within the mean, plus or minus one standard deviation. IQ's of 101 or 99 are statistically identical. I wasn't willing to "prove" my post, however.

11-02-2006, 06:36 PM	#20 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Can we stop this whole "only stupid people vote for Bush" already? It was old in 2000, it's simply retarded now. The majority of people vote Republican because they felt it was better than the alternative. Don't assume you're more intelligent than everyone else simply because you feel differently politically. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-02-2006, 08:49 PM	#26 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Once again, IQ's of 99 and 101 have NO statistical difference. There is no argument to be had here, unless that is the purpose of the OP and posters.

11-03-2006, 05:09 AM	#32 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	host look at the county map and refute that, otherwise dont' waste my time, you didn't address either the 101 - 99 IQ 'margin' or the county map. I have to go play doctor now and you can play internet pundit. Now I see why the left has such a hard time figuring out 9/11, and the mechanics behind it, they are confused by numbers and what they really mean. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-03-2006, 08:53 AM	#35 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html How this is is supposed to be a resource is equivilant to me making a website of www.uglyduck.com/us.gov.html and claiming that it is the US Government's website. The "link" which is attempted to be hidden in that follows as... http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html unfortunately, as I said before, it does not work. Therefore this is by definition unsupported documentation, which justly gets thrown out of any argument. This is the part of the "link" which it supposably is part of. It leads no where. I can put census.gov somewhere in a URL link and it will go no where in the census bureau. When I see it there maybe I'll believe, until then try forging information some other way. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas Last edited by Seaver; 11-03-2006 at 08:56 AM..

11-03-2006, 01:55 PM	#38 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Sorry Sertogis, in my opinion it is as legitimate as Wikipedia. While it may be good for quick referencing, it is only as good as the source who delivers it. Being that the source is quite litterally attempting to paint the stupid brush on his opponents I'd say there's reason to question it. And I've yet to see any data on the census website which delivers any sembilance of SAT/ACT scores, while there are plenty of graduation rates/etc which are similar I've yet to see anything which supports said thesis. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-04-2006, 08:44 AM	#40 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't know which party has the voters with the lowest IQ but from the negative campaign commercials I have seen it is apparent that they must think we are all pretty stupid.