IQ and Voting

Javierdude22: Funny article in this weeks Economist.

It's hardly a methodologically correct conclusion, but funny nonetheless. Apparently states that voted for Bush in majority have significantly lower IQ's than states that voted for Gore.

Cincinnati tops the list with an average of 113 voting for Gore, versus Missisipi with 85 and voting for Bush. Also Utah and Idaho have 87, Wyoming 89, and Alabama, Oklahoma, Montana, and Louisiana have 90 and voted for Bush.

NJ, MS, NY, RI, Hawaii, Maryland, NH, Illnois, and Delawarev all stay far above the 100 and voted for Gore.

I find it pretty weird by the way that there can be such a difference between states in average IQ. Of course it correlates with the prestige and quantity of universities, but still, that much?

And an IQ of below 80 means 'backwarded' right? hm...

Btw, don't mean to offend anyone who voted for Bush..

THANK YOU, Javier! :D I love such statistics backing up my thinking!

Luke

I've lived in Virginia since 1959 and I've yet to be tested for my IQ in this state.

I dare say the same probably applies to the majority of U.S. voters. How the hell can this fargin' bastitch fool so many ice-holes with his 'stats'; where'd he get the boils to state this as fact anyhow?

Certainly he didn't get them from the majority. <_<

Pecker

I'm certainly suspicious of the methodology as well. I'm certain the difference isn't that pronounced.

Furthermore, IQ is a suspect measurement as well -- many IQ tests still in use date from 75-80 years ago and have a pronounced class bias today. Given the difference in educational and economic status between Cincinnati and Mississippi (why are they comparing a city with a state anyway?), any IQ comparison between the two is likely to be skewed.

That said, there are valid studies out there that show that people with a college degree are more likely to vote against an incumbent than people without -- that (apparently) the more you know, the more dissatisfied you are with how the current government is doing.

Javierdude22: My fault...I meant Connecticut..

Of course the methodology is highly debatable...but I can see the humour in it (from my point of view). I do wonder why a prestigious magazine like the Economist would print it though...

Javier

Only someone with an IQ less than 70 would think Cincinnati was a state.

Aww, dammit, I'm from Cincinnati and was getting all puffed up thinking we were smart! lol. Although I do not put much credence on IQ tests (being a Psych major, I've taken over 20 of them), I'm sure the stats they would be using would just be from the ones taken in grade schools, which many states give. The illusion that IQ tests can accurately measure a person's intellectual potential is preposterous, more often they measure education, if anything at all. That being said, I don't think ol' George W is a thinking man's president. Hilarious topic!

What about the people who wont vote? I think only someone who thinks "a little too much" would realise the whole futility of the idea.

Javierdude22: They have the IQ of the average wintertemperature in Minnesota...

in centigrades...

Well said, javierdude! People who don't vote, nomatter their intellectualized ideas, have no right to bitch about the system. Our government is far from perfect, certainly, but if I didn't feel it was the best thing going, I am free to move to wherever I think it's better (notice, I'm still here). I think not voting is just an elitist way of not taking responsibility, or even more likely- being lazy.

Hey! I don't vote, but if you wanted to check my posts, I'm probably one of the least bitchiest people here.

After all, do I really think that "party y" is going to get into power?

I find it more amusing that the people that voted for Bush/Blair etc start moaning so badly when they voted for him, at least my conscious is clear on that point.

Maybe all this voter apathy is because, at the end of the day, the UK and Us are two-party systems, so what's the point if you wanted a new angle? The far right are seen as millitants, the far left are seen as loons, the communists and the "pro government zombies" are probably phone tapped. Everyone in the middle is blanked.

It's not like in India where people can vote and go YES, I'M MAKING A DIFFERENCE! It'd be more like, "So, I hate this liar, I'll replace him with another?" WTF is that? Do I need to care so much about the personalities, sex lives and backgrounds of the candidates? Do I need to know that "yes, they will lower taxes" and then start crying like a sliced pig when he double-crosses?

Reminds me of an advert where one man keeps moaning about something and the other just answers "politics," yes, the reason I'm single and looking for a job 25 miles away from home is due to some dickhead passing a bill for a law that doesn't effect me. NOT!

I ain't blaming the system, as far as I'm concerned, one vote either way doesn't matter.

Of course, I wont argue the laziness point. After all, I do not contribute to society. :P

Of course, there is another point of view about not voting: if God wanted us to vote, He'd give us real candidates. That said, I do vote. Often it's a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Well, IQ was one of those reifications. The degree of reification is obvious with the case of one Charles Spearman, who argued for a g factor, short for "generic intelligence". No neurologist could find a process responsible for g, so Spearman said that it must be a vitalistic force.

ORCABOMBER, not voting AND not bitching makes you a true concientious objector, in my humble opinion, which is one of our rights here in this country. I just happen to have a big mouth, and want my voice to be heard, however faintly that may be. I sometimes vote for independant runners, knowing they have no chance, just in hopes of their gaining some small momentum. It is true that our last few elections have been the lesser of two evils, but sometimes (like now) the evil looms large enough for me to want to do what I can to prevent it. As for generic intelligence, I don't want to believe in the idea that one person is superior to another on the basis of a God-given gift. I want to think that each person's ideals contribute to the greater good of the whole in a civilized society. Utopian philosophy? You bet, also one of my rights as a free American.

You have a big mouth? *Refuses to mention silly jokes*

I've been thinking heavily over this sort of matter, I'm not American, I'm from the 51st State (aka UK) and I have thought about what my "value" on a whole is. And frankly, I'm greed motivated but without stomping on other people. As far as voting goes, you have a perfectly valid and just reason for why you would, I see no fault with that at all. For me, I tend to feel that 'lies and damned lies' are part of the whole game.

UK politics really disgusts me the way they argue issues, it's like a bunch of gorillas or small children moaning and groaning over issues that may/may not effect me.

I thought I consider, is say I voted for the next Gandhi, all it takes it the other million right wing people (who are in the majority) to vote against and I might as well have not.

It doesn't mean that I don't have any views, you could possibly trace most of them through LPSG if you were that bored, more along the lines that either people in power can work it out themselves, or (more likely), they're too stupid to notice.

Either way...whatever.

As a sidepoint, I would say that my stance is closer to http://www.voterapathyparty.tk/
Altough they've gone through a "spoof gothic" stage.