Posted on 11/24/2004 11:06:21 AM PST by politicalmerc
This is a very interesting table that shows the break down of voters by IQ, race, and who they voted for. You will notices the weighted average of the votes shows that the average IQ of a Bush Voter is 101.6 and that of a Kerry voter is 98.1.
I guess they lose by 3.5 million votes and are 3.5 IQ points dumber than "Bubba" in the red states!
Enjoy
Agreed. I notice that you waited until post 140 to post this.
Most big corporations donate to both parties. The reason they do this is not to contribute to the political process but, rather, to avoid being a victim of it. Corporations who don't cough up the dough tend to find themselves being made an example of by the infinite variety of regulatory agencies who can ruin them in a heartbeat.
Before he got his subpoena for anti-trust violations, Bill Gates didn't have a lobby in Washington because he didn't think he needed one. He has one now.
Apprehended Criminals.
But, even granting that, not all dishonesty is criminal, and there are types of dishonesty perpetrated by, say, academics, which are even encouraged as part of the discipline. Would you say that it's dishonest to make extravagant claims about the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate change in order to get a research grant from the taxpayers? I would. Or to take a matter closer to most people's experience: when a lawyer (someone to an almost statistical certainty "smarter" than the average bear) pleads a case before the plaintiffs bar alleging "birth trauma" has resulted in Cerebral Palsy--despite the fact that no medical researcher would validate such a claim, is he being dishonest? His rationalization is that everyone is entitled to the best legal representation. But of course it's nothing more than dishonesty.
Not to put to fine a point on it, and I understand you're fairly agreeable to my point of view. But the definition of honesty (or more generally, "good" morality) as being conduct that's non-criminal is way too low. We can do better. And I was simply saying that based on (an admittedly higher) standard than non-criminality, my own experience is that smart people are quite unethical. One of their facile rationalizations is that those rules are for "lesser people."
And that is also the implicit bigotry in posts of this kind. Smarter people are only by definition smarter. But they aren't better.
Why not? Regardless of what the Democrats would like people to believe, I don't think having a high income is anything to be ashamed of.
If you count the IQ of the dead people who voted for Kerry as zero, Kerry's numbers would be much lower.
I never thought of that. This is why the IQ of Free Republic is so much higher. You've made an excellent point!
Happy Thanksgiving, Joe.
I think you are right on all other points but I don't think this one has been proved. One way to do it would be to actually measure the IQ of Bush vs Kerry voters since we know that Democrats are generally dishonest.
I've said before that crime is caused by testosterone. And there is a lot of evidence that, other things being equal, people with greater testosterone levels tend to commit more crime. Men commit more crimes than women, younger people commit more crimes than older people, etc. I wonder if that could generalized to say that dishonesty is caused by testosterone.
But if there is a test for dishonesty, your theory could be easily verified by Bouchard's identical twin program.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with religion and nuture than intelligence.
Three posts back you got a counterexample.
I happen to know an estimate for mine because my wife is a school psychologist and gave me the latest Stanford-Binnett by way of practice before evaluating a high-school senior for gifted placement (she figured she'd need to use the questions that normally only show up in adult testing).
I say an estimate because it was her first time using the new S-B which could have produced inaccuracies either direction, and it was late at night, so my performance on the digit-span task was certainly depressed by fatigue. (Judging by her management of the manual, I think I topped out, or almost topped out on all the subtests except that one, and the speeded symbol translation task.)
If someone explicitly asks me, I'll divulge it, but otherwise not.
Consistently 145 here....
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious...I'll err on the side of serious.
Or, more accuately, the average score for people taking the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (the most commonly used IQ test in the US) is 100 and the SD is 15. This test is designed for English-speaking Americans, so it makes no sense to draw general conclusions about "human IQ" based on the typical scores on this one test.
There is no "world wide" IQ test. All tests are specific to cultures/language groups and normed for that culture.
The 100 is the average score (by design) on the Wechsler IQ test and the Stanford-Binet IQ test, 2 commonly-used tests in the US.
What next are they going to post a site that uses cranology to predict who votes Democrat and Republican?
You must be a damn snobby Mensan. (wink)
You are correct - and I have to say that it's nice to have your input concerning this subject. Many people don't know very much about assessment, and there's a lot of bad information floating around that unnecessarily confuses the issue.
Thanks!
"There is no way IQ information is easily obtained or even know by voters themselves. I've seen similar claims from the democrat side saying democrat voters have higher IQs. It's bogus."
I agree. Maybe they're taking an average of the results of that "Free IQ Test" that keeps popping up on various sites ;-)
Even if it were true that Dims had higher IQs (which I doubt), another thing this doesn't take into account is how well informed individuals/voters are. I would say that the Pubs are infinitely more well-informed than Dims - -Dims get their news/info (if and when they get it) from the MSM press and alphabet channels on TV (plus CNN) - -basically the same info and slant on all of these. Pubs get theirs from FOX, various other sources, FReepers, etc. No doubt in my mind we use many more resources plus have much more in-depth, well-rounded discussions about topics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.