IQ correlation w/ 2000 voting

This I think explains it all:

source: http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm

This chart is derived from taking the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices of average IQ by state (Source:IQ and the Wealth of Nations) then simply applying that state's election results from the 2000 presidential election.

1.      Connecticut      113      Gore
2.     Massachusetts     111     Gore
3.     New Jersey     111     Gore
4.     New York     109     Gore
5.     Rhode Island     107     Gore
6.     Hawaii     106     Gore
7.     Maryland     105     Gore
8.     New Hampshire     105     Bush
9.     Illinois     104     Gore
10.     Delaware     103     Gore
11.     Minnesota     102     Gore
12.     Vermont     102     Gore
13.     Washington     102     Gore
14.     California     101     Gore
15.     Pennsylvania     101     Gore
16.     Maine     100     Gore
17.     Virginia     100     Bush
18.     Wisconsin     100     Gore
19.     Colorado     99     Bush
20.     Iowa     99     Gore
21.     Michigan     99     Gore
22.     Nevada     99     Bush
23.     Ohio     99     Bush
24.     Oregon     99     Gore
25.     Alaska     98     Bush
26.     Florida     98     Gore
27.     Missouri     98     Bush
28.     Kansas     96     Bush
29.     Nebraska     95     Bush
30.     Arizona     94     Bush
31.     Indiana     94     Bush
32.     Tennessee     94     Bush
33.     North Carolina     93     Bush
34.     West Virginia     93     Bush
35.     Arkansas     92     Bush
36.     Georgia     92     Bush
37.     Kentucky     92     Bush
38.     New Mexico     92     Gore
39.     North Dakota     92     Bush
40.     Texas     92     Bush
41.     Alabama     90     Bush
42.     Louisiana     90     Bush
43.     Montana     90     Bush
44.     Oklahoma     90     Bush
45.     South Dakota     90     Bush
46.     South Carolina     89     Bush
47.     Wyoming     89     Bush
48.     Idaho     87     Bush
49.     Utah     87     Bush
50.     Mississippi     85     Bush

•  This is insulting

  There are smart people who live in red states. You look elitist and arrogant. You are relying on disrespectful stereotypes.

  by jiacinto on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:19:10 PM PDT

  •  aoeu

    There are facts and opinions.  He put forth facts, you put forth your opinion.  Here's my opinion: you're a troll.

    by TealVeal on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:24:55 PM PDT

    •  Why am I a troll

      because I don't share your opinions on every issue?

      by jiacinto on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:27:06 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        When you start spouting off ad hominems about people supporting rape then yeah I think you're a troll.  Now you're acting all persecuted, another hallmark of a troll.

        by TealVeal on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:28:53 PM PDT

      •  Please Read and Understand What Diarist Has Done

        Are you claiming that "the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices of average IQ by state" is elitist, arrogant, or guilty of stereotype?  That's where Groper is claiming he got the first two columns of information.  

        Groper's only conflated RAPM data with the election winner in each state.  It's really hard to understand why you feel that this comparison should elicit a response that suggests disrespect.  It is a common practice to report statistical coincidence and create hypotheses.

        Just what is it you find objectionable here?  Is  it his choice of source data, or do you feel that conflating RAPM information and voting trends is wrong?  If the latter, I'd be interested in knowing why ...

        by wystler on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:39:53 PM PDT

        •  Ignore him...

          He pulls this nonsense all the time.

          There is no sense arguing because the poster in questions is either just being provocative or has no sense to begin with.

          by Bob Johnson on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:41:30 PM PDT

          •  aoeu

            And he speaks for all catholics.  Don't forget that.

            by TealVeal on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:42:35 PM PDT

        •  Well yes

          I would say that - because IQ testing is bunk (for elitist arrogant reasons I might add).

          But I thought the diarist was just having some fun.

          by Armando on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:42:31 PM PDT

          •  I Understand re: IQ Scores

            The quality of the science of average IQ is poor, no doubt about it, but the lack of raising a reasonable argument (or even directly mentioning it) left me with what I'd assume is the same reaction others have had.  I noted the reviews of the book on Amazon, and admit lack of familiarity with the research, but the respondent's choice of words seemed to belie a different agenda ... pure trollishness.  

            I'd hoped that our little friend would have responded thoughtfully him-/herself.

            by wystler on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:51:26 PM PDT

        •  IQ

          The reason I find this objectionable is that IQ is hardly the only measure on intelligence and that these types of figures have been used to put down other people.

          by jiacinto on Tue May 04, 2004 at 08:04:19 PM PDT

    •  But did he actually put forth facts?

      Frankly, I'm a little bit suspicious. What's the source of these "state IQ" figures?

      by soultaco on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:27:20 PM PDT

      •  Whoops, never mind

        There is a source cited for the figures there now. I saw this article earlier and that wasn't there - must've been added later.

        by soultaco on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          the page gets it from here.

          by TealVeal on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:30:13 PM PDT

        •  why the troll ratings soultaco?

          soultaco, you keep giving me troll ratings for no reason. i tried to email you directly but the email bounced back. can we call a truce to the troll rating please? pete

          by nhpolling on Tue May 04, 2004 at 03:00:47 PM PDT

          •  nhpolling

            I troll rated you on posts involving arguments about the ratings system, which are pointless and very annoying coming from someone who is trigger-happy about giving out negative ratings themselves. Give it a rest on both counts, and I'll stop.

            by soultaco on Tue May 04, 2004 at 03:16:52 PM PDT

  •  get a grip

    there are times to be sensitive but you are just sad. he is not being elitist and stereotypical. just giving an observation. jeeeeeez.
    it is ur freedom to debate it without accusing at first some elitist behavior

    by upsavr on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:26:09 PM PDT

  •  Oh c'mon

    It's just a joke.  Take it easy.

    by Armando on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

  •  stereotype, scmereotype

    And there are dumb people who live in blue staes. I"m sure not every person who lives in a rural state is stupid, and I'm sure not all of them voted for Bush. But on average more informed and educated people tend to live in blue states with big cities (and big universities, and museums, etc).

    I know IQ isn't a reliable measure of intelligence. I just thought it was an interesting factoid. Relax. Grow a sense of humor. If there's anything I'm not, it's an elitist.

    by Groper on Wed May 05, 2004 at 06:18:41 AM PDT

•  So

  22 of the 23 states with the lowest composite IQ went for Bush, while 15 of the 16 highest went for Gore. Maybe there is something to the "I'll only vote for a candidate who's smarter than me" approach.

  by Superribbie on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:20:24 PM PDT

•  Rubbing salt in old wounds

  Florida     98     Gore

  Cute :)

  by maxomai on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:22:32 PM PDT

  •  Sorry...

    Florida did go Gore.  It wasn't the fault of the voters that their votes weren't counted.  And if the IQ were a bit higher, there might have been less confusion on the butterfly ballot.  We have 'em here in Illinois... and we went Gore.

    by ultrageek on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

•  Ok,

  This is not suprising to me.  But at least the South isn't dominating the bottom.  Woohoo!  Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota and New Mexico are below Georgia.

  by JenAtlanta on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:32:10 PM PDT

  •  Quit using big words like 'dominating'...

    Showoff...

    by Bob Johnson on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:35:16 PM PDT

  •  NOt the south, rural states

    The thing that really struck me about he chart was that rural states were all at teh bottom, and states with big cities were towards the top.

    by Groper on Wed May 05, 2004 at 06:21:21 AM PDT

•  This was discussed yesterday:

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/3/205615/0979

  I still call BS.  I call IQ a BS indicator of intelligence, and I also call BS on how one goes about measuring the "average" IQ of a state (or nation).  [Hint: it's not at all the same thing as the average of all the people who took IQ tests within that state].

  by Captain Obvious on Tue May 04, 2004 at 02:47:53 PM PDT

  •  Methodology

    I don't understand the methods used to compute a state's IQ so I can't defend it (although I happily emailed this to people I thought would get a laugh out of it.)  But I'm curious about your disdain for individual IQs.  Have you constructed or used IQ tests?

    by Lisa on Tue May 04, 2004 at 06:12:52 PM PDT

•  Bell Curve

  So I assume you agree with The Bell Curve's racist theory too?

  by jjayson on Tue May 04, 2004 at 03:10:36 PM PDT

  •  I believe the poster's tongue was firmly planted..

    ... in cheek.

    But I could be wrong.

    by Bob Johnson on Tue May 04, 2004 at 03:21:23 PM PDT

    •  And in that spirit

      ...in light of this data, those Bell Curve guys got some 'splainin to do....

      by cassandra m on Tue May 04, 2004 at 03:59:32 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    You hit the nail on the head there!

    by jiacinto on Tue May 04, 2004 at 08:06:08 PM PDT

•  red states are the welfare states

  tax money flows from blue to red for the most part.  Too bad we can't shrug a little.

  by HiD on Tue May 04, 2004 at 06:14:05 PM PDT