I clicked that link but the text is too small to read.
Click again on the table?
sigh
All of those IQ scores fall well within the “normal” range, I’m sure. Yes, it looks like Connecticut and Mississippi are the outliners, but the other 58 scores are in the normal range. Unless you can somehow show that the variation within one standard deviation from the mean is important, this really meaningless.
Anybody who’d think that a few points’ difference in IQ reflects a significant distinction in intelligence—especially when it’s not even controlled for differences in education and so forth—is most likely not the sharpest tool in the shed themself. Sorry.
Internet Explorer automatically shrinks it to fit it in your browser. Try clicking the little button that comes up in the lower right to enlarge it, and/or right click it to save it to your dekstop, then open it.
As for the question, IQ isn’t valid and even if it was, I don’t think that have a reliable state average on record. On the other hand, in my mental estimation of where states are at collectively in intelligence, engagement, literacy, etc., that looks about right.
Mm, think you’ll find that if you can bear to treat IQ as the independent variable and voting choice as the dependent variable, your analysis kinda misses the point.
You’re missing the point too. Sorry.
For those having trouble reading the chart, it lists three columns: the names of the states, the “average IQ” of the residents of that state, and whether the state went for Bush or Kerry.
Shockingly, the states at the top of the list all went for Kerry; those at the bottom went for Bush.
At the bottom of the chart, the following text appears:
The list claims that the “average IQ” of Connecticut is 113; Massachusetts and New Jersey are each said to be 111. They occupy the first three positions on the list. Virginia, my home state, is allegedly 100, tied with two other states at #17.
Mississippi is dead last in this list; apprently the “average IQ” of the residents there is 85.
Is the OP proposing that this be treated seriously? Or, to put it another way – Waccoe, is YOUR IQ such that this all looks pretty reliable to you?
Those figures, showing the “blue states” have higher average IQs than the “red states,” are attributed to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (Praeger Publishers, 2002). But there’s some doubt as to whether IQ really is a valid measure of personal intelligence. I started a GD thread on that issue recently – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277940. Certainly there’s no significant genetic difference between the red states and the blue states. If the red states have lower IQs, I would attribute that to inferior educational systems.
Well, this is actually a hoax.
In any case, I got curious and checked out SAT scores by state and it seems that there is some level of truth to the original hoax.
One problem with comparing SAT scores across states is that,
besides that SATs are not considered to measure intelligence,
the level of participation across states is different.
For example, in New Jersey 85% of seniors took the SAT,
while in Kansas 9% only took the SAT. One might say that
the 9% in Kansas were the 9% brightest students of Kansas,
so that would bring the mean up for Kansas, since the 85%
in New Jersey must have included some not very bright
students who would bring the mean down.
So, for a “fair” comparison, I compared the averages of
SATs in states where the participation was 50% or more,
with the assumption that with 50% of seniors, you are getting
a wide spectrum of students.
Results below:
Rank State Participation SAT Voted for
1 Washington 0.56 1062 Gore
2 Oregon 0.57 1053 Gore
3 NewHampshire 0.75 1043 Bush
4 Massachusetts 0.82 1038 Gore
5 Alaska 0.55 1036 Bush
6 Vermont 0.70 1027 Gore
7 Connecticut 0.84 1026 Gore
8 Virginia 0.71 1024 Bush
9 Maryland 0.68 1024 Gore
10 California 0.54 1018 Gore
11 NewJersey 0.85 1016 Gore
12 NewYork 0.82 1006 Gore
13 RhodeIsland 0.74 1006 Gore
14 Maine 0.70 1004 Gore
15 Indiana 0.63 1004 Bush
16 Delaware 0.73 1002 Gore
17 Pennsylvania 0.73 1002 Gore
18 Hawaii 0.54 1002 Gore
19 NorthCarolina 0.68 1001 Bush
20 Florida 0.61 996 Bush
21 Texas 0.57 993 Bush
22 SouthCarolina 0.59 989 Bush
23 Georgia 0.66 984 Bush
24 Dist.ofColumbia 0.77 958 Gore
So, there is some similarity with the IQ hoax.
(mean rank for Gore: 10.9, mean rank for Bush: 15.1)
The IQs on that table are the average IQs for those who took IQ tests, by state. They are not the average IQs of those who voted for or against any particular candidate.
Correct link
Actually the “Dumb Republican” is a false and a hurtfull stereotype. However I believe that people perpetuating it are not to blame as they are just commiting a simple logical phallacy. I think John Stuart Mill put it best when he said:
“Conservatives (republicans) are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are Conservative (republican).” (In a letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington, March 1866) 
If they have lower IQ’s, who cares why that is the case?
Who cares if it is because of genes or an inferior educational system?
“Your new boss has a low IQ, but that’s OK because he has a low IQ due to an inferior educational system, not due to bad genes”
Dang it. I was hoping Waccoe would come back to defend his story before we revealed that we knew it was a hoax.
Ah, well…
Well, I’m only raising the question Bricker. IQ is a bit of a flawed concept in many ways. Nevertheless, IQ tests exist and it accords with my dodgy preconceptions (as a Brit) that the classic Republican states might easily score lower in such a test - whatever it’s measuring, really. It all fits with my inner sense that my family’s future would have been in more intelligent (not necessarily better) hands if the key state had somehow been Massachussets rather than Ohio. You tell me.
My point is that the variation in intelligence scores is so small that drawing a correlation between them and how a particular state voted in Nov. 2nd election is foolhardy.
I think, if you can bear to do it, you need to take your stats course over again.
As others have pointed out, your correlation chart is a hoax, too. Do you honestly expect us to believe falsified data?
OK, I’ll tell you. It’s a hoax. The numbers in your chart never appeared in “IQ and the Wealth of Nations,” the tests were never conducted, and they thus don’t show what you thought they showed.
Moreover, I would argue that the willingness to believe such a chart uncritically - to the extent that you’d post it here in what amounts to at least some form of approbation - is not indicative of a mind that is able to think critically.
Mmmmkay?
The same trend will be found if you look at per-capita state GNP.