May 06, 2004

• I am not sure who this is supposed to serve. It seems like elitist sniping of those 'stupid republicans' without any interest in anything but being a jerk. I think people hate liberals because so many some can be so amazingly insulting. If Kerry is going to win in 2004 he will need a number of these 'stupid states' to do it. Maybe its not wise to go around bashing them.
• I'm making plans to move to Mississippi and bathe in the glory of being the most intelligent person. It's a shame no one already there will appreciate my inherent superiority.
• Consider the source.
• Not to start a partisan flame-war here, but it amazes me how uninformed many people are about the general situation -- WMDs, the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda link, etc. Reminds me of an NPR story I heard awhile back about polling (tried to find a link, but couldn't): During the 1984 elections, a Chicago paper polled people on specific issues of the day -- the economy, foreign policy, etc. -- without mentioning the candidates, and found that most of the respondents agreed with Mondale on the issues. But to the last question, who they would vote for, an overwhelming majority said Reagan. Now, before someone gets huffy, I'm not saying this is an exclusively conservative phenomenon -- Lord knows neither party has a monopoly on idiocy or ignorance. But you non-Americans want to know why we occasionally delve into the inexplicable? There's one answer: not enough of us take the time to read.
• Elitist: What a conservative calls someone who is smarter then they are ...
• Thank you for that extraordinary link from such an unbiased source. You, sir, are a credit to intellectually honest liberals everywhere.
• Does anybody honestly believe that this was posted as a straight, objective news story? It's a wiseass joke, people, nothing more. Laugh at it or don't, but let's not get too upset over a bit of fluff.
• *laughs* *feels guilty about laughing, because it's biased and toffy-nosed* *laughs some more*
• middleclasstool, I hope your sense of humor is again invoked when conservatives on here start posting lame ad hominem links the front page.
• This has probably been done to death, but it'd be more interesting to show voting patterns crossed with geography AND income levels. One of the things democracts are loath to address, but need to, is how the Republican party manages to hang on to the poor conservative vote (even though their platforms are often focused towards helping the weathly and middle classes) through the use of moral smoke-screens like gay marriage, etc.
• Me too. Provided of course that they are, like the link above, jokes. Ad hominem? Some of the funniest jokes in life are ad hominem. Ever read any Wilde? Dorothy Parker? Ad hominem: for argument, bad; for humor, good. To review: If you know it's a joke and you think it's funny, you have a sense of humor. If you know it's a joke and you don't think it's funny, you have a sense of humor. If you don't know it's a joke, and you take it seriously, you need a nap.
• Middleclasstool, it's worth noting that the results you describe aren't necessarily proof of ignorance among voters. Many people make their decision of whom to vote for based more on their opinions of the candidate's character than on the candidate's positions.
• Though the pattern is a bit striking, this chart was posted to be somewhat amusing. What isn't amusing is the study linked below. A significant percentage of Americans are factually incorrect about very important issues. These include whether we found WMDs in Iraq, Iraq's ties to 9/11, and Iraq's ties to al Queda and terrorism in general. There are no political forces that are actively working to keep people ignorant of basic facts regarding national or world events. Business forces, maybe. But business and politics are two completely separate worlds. Like religion and politics, only more involved in money.
• Um... isn't it an ad hominem attack to say that this information is invalid because the source is biased? Does anyone want to refute the data they present? It's not particularly meaningful, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. However, I think that the fact that support for the president is strongly correlated with how many factually incorrect things you believe is an interesting situation, and seems awfully revealing. And yes, that link is from the same site, but the study was done by PIPA, so point the ad hominem stuff at them.
• I agree with Ethereal Bligh/kmellis that it's really very unlikely that IQ varies this much by state, and I say that knowing what it's like to live in a Red state (and having been confirmed by the CSMonitor as a Liberal). Also, this is not a good post, in my opinion. If we're going to do politics here, let's not take it this low.
• If it's a joke, it's very weakly presented, and on a very strident site. Poor choice for a post. The editorializing in the FPP doesn't help much. Would one of you native English-speakers please translate the following line? A significant percentage of Americans are factually incorrect about very important issues.
• link from BoingBoing and accordingly These statistics are from the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. The column on the right has some pretty inflammatory implications. Are you disagreeing with the book rustcellar? I haven't read it, just wondering what looks wrong to you about the list. goetter: "Lots of people are wrong about the war in Iraq"? Statistics may be "lies, damn lies, and statistics", then you've got your interpretations, and then your facts. Over here, there's the subjective and the objective. /Raising_Arizona Arguments can't be won, there's no such thing as an objective viewpoint, statistics can say anything, and violence creates violence.
• toffy-nosed *?*
• More on the author of the source. Dig his explanation of "race differences in IQ."
• this quote from four panels over on MeFi was pretty good: Further, there are many left wing zealots with a devastating lack of intellect (anyone been to a political march recently?) and many intelligent right wing figures (Newt Gingrich.) on preview: thanks goetter that's buzzer enough for me. The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. Not the inherent bias of the test itself of course. Don't speak chinese? -10. Can't clean a fish? -10. Don't know which are my favorite socks? *tsk* *tsk* . . -10.
• p_b: Well I'm a little skeptical about any book that takes IQ that seriously. But I wasn't really trying to pass judgment on the authors or their work: I just find it incredible that Miss'ians have 85 IQs on average, if Conn'ers have 113. Are we saying it's genetic? Are Mississipians destined to lie that close to retardation, on average? I know (being one) that Southerners are less enlightened, on average, and perhaps less educated, but are we really supposed to believe that that screws up their basic rational processes? As stupid as it seems to me to vote for Bush, I can't help thinking that the people who do so are either a) just misinformed or b) over-indoctrinated, rather than simply too stupid to make rational decisions. On the other hand, to take a less inflammatory and controversial measure, I think Republicans should be deeply ashamed that conservatism varies inversely with level of education, and we all know that that's true. Blame liberal college culture? Possibly, but that doesn't answer it all. On Preview: Goetter's link shows that this guy is clearly a racist eugenicist, and therefore I feel justified in passing judgment on his work as utterly bogus.
• On Post: pete_best: And so do you. Good good.
• Jesus Christ, goetter. That's one scary page. He makes the authors of The Bell Curve look like Gandhi. "It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment. ..My book Dygenics showed that the eugenicists were right in their belief that modern populations have been deteriorating genetically in respect of health, intelligence and the personality trait of conscientiousness...My book Eugenics considers what measures could be taken to rectify this and discusses the genetic future of mankind." Anybody willing to defend this guy now?
• goetter, you get a prize for showing us to be (on average and statistically) better detectives than the MeFites over yonder on this same topic.
• SideDish -- sorry, should have been toffee-nosed
• As stupid as it seems to me to vote for Bush, I can't help thinking that the people who do so are either a) just misinformed or b) over-indoctrinated, rather than simply too stupid to make rational decisions. Is it impossible to consider the idea that smart, informed people can have different, even diametrically opposed, opinions on politics and the issues? rustcellar, I understand where you're coming from, but both sides need to realize that just because someone doesn't think the way you (or I) do does not necessarily make them retarded. We all tend to take our views and put them into a box inside our brains labelled "Correct" while taking the differing views of others and tucking them neatly into a box labelled "Incorrect." It's uncomfortable to consider the possibility that one might be wrong, and easy to avoid when there are so many people out there with vested interests in confirming those tendencies and leveraging them. But, as was gratifyingly shown here, people on both sides of an argument serve themselves and each other best when they keep an open mind and think critically about what information they receive. It's easy to let panderers tell you you're smart and moral, but it leads (as we see so often) to entrenched partisanship and ideology - and worse, it precludes critical thinking. No one loses when they get the best information they can, debates reasonably, and finally makes up their own mind - based on the facts, not on convenient prejudice and the flattery of ideologues.
• I thought this was silly. It made me laugh because I am as anti-George W. Bush as one gets, but I did not take it seriously. Just as I laughed at a lot of the comments that were made in the MeFi thread (surprisingly light-hearted at last reading with lines such as: "In your face Colorado." heh.) I think arguing about its merits or about who is more righter because of it is giving it more credit than it's worth.
• One of the interesting and contradictory things about something like this is: if we forget all doubt and presume this is true, then the fact that he is stating this difference at all is a very right wing thing to do. Not only are the poor republicans like to throw away all their social welfare, but the democrats want to eliminate the creation of an environment where could be most successful!
• Well put, Fes. But don't expect everyone to come around. Some people just get too much joy out of assuming everyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot. And seeing this stupid thread implode was deeply satisfying. "But he's making the funny, you morons." "He's a eugenicist who argues for the extirpation of entire races." *crickets chirping*
• rustcellar, I understand where you're coming from, but both sides need to realize that just because someone doesn't think the way you (or I) do does not necessarily make them retarded. Exactly, and I regret that I wasn't clearer on that point. The post seems to imply that those who vote Republican do so because they're retarded, and that bothers me to no end. I said above that it makes more sense to me to say that they are either "a) misinformed or b) overindoctrinated", but I will expand on that and say that all of us, myself included, hold the views we do because of a) the facts we are exposed to/choose to expose ourselves to and b) our upbringing and environment. To attribute contrary views to something deep and irreversible (like IQ) is completely unhelpful, when we all know quite well where political views come from. Having made several serious shifts in my opinions in my (short) life, I know it has a lot to do with the information I take in and the opinions I hear from those I like or respect. I'm still curious where these numbers come from. Did he just make them up? Maybe they are, in fact, correct—Lord knows I'm in no position to controvert them with different evidence. But even if Georgians average IQ 90, they vote the way they do (I'm sure) not because of weaker intellects ("you're simply not good enough to understand our politics") but for the same reasons any of us votes the way we do.
• If we're all done here, I'll lock up. *walks down the hall, whistling*
• ... so laughing at the joke that dumb people voted for Bush (while old, unsubstantiated and easy, granted) means we support all the views of the guy who made the joke? We get that you're a conservative who's tired of liberals being, well liberals, leviathan. You being this upset about this thread is just as bad as swallowing the information. I am the liberalist liberal that ever liberalled, and I agree with what Fes said wholeheartedly. And I laughed at the stupid joke.
• It was a joke? damn.... I need a nap
• toffee-nosed! BWHAAAAA HA HA! *easily amused*
• Liberal liberals and the liberal libbering that they libber.
• Liberal liberals and the libations they liberate.
• I viagra that as a resident of an 87 IQ state I financing admit that most of earn money in your spare time posts are just cobbled together from random stop spam now I get in my email.
• Yes, Pez, but you're overarbitrating the nonsequitus dog banana trash heap fiscal policy monkey nipples of the 18th century colonies' baby poo.
• Republicans are retarded! Republicans are retarded! La la la la laa laa! *snicker, snicker. Runs and hides!
• On a serious note, if these IQ averages are accurate, which I can't imagine, don't they seem frighteningly low? These numbers just can't be true. Please, God, tell me this isn't true.
• eeewwww... here's all those yanks - kibitzing politics and state egos. /departs hastily to find more benign territories.
• Darshon, it's obvious you haven't been paying attention to the helium people gargling in my eyeballs. Each has his very own Jesuit nipple clamp affixed firmly to the collective card catalogue pathos. DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR ALL OF YOU??!! Your very fibulas are at stake here. Yabba Dabba Doo cuts the ramshackle piddle lumber every day, and all the feetbuckets in the WORLD won't change that!
• I am shocked, simply shocked... I do not believe that ~50% of all Americans have a below-average IQ. Lies!!!
• Geez, i feel..., for a second I though you were Dizzy!
• Maybe this isn't the best time to mention it, but I've gotta give a shout out to Hidalgo for best comment on the subject...... well, it cracked ME up, anyway
• and all this time I thought "toffee-nosed" meant "brown-noser". Dang. That's what i get for listening to Python i guess. Bush is a weenie. /relight
• Um....I don't think that the crazy "Wealth of Nations" guy is the author, as the page talked about getting the info from his book - but now says, opps, it wasn't from there.