The Kerry-voting states actually do have higher average IQ

[FUCK THE POLICE]

But it wasn't by as much as in the infamous hoax chart that went around the internet (a copy of which can be found here: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm ).

http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm

Which is derived from:

http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm

(ACT and SAT scores correlate with IQ very well, and it's the only widespread IQ type test that we have to measure with)



My ACT test score is ten points above the average Mississippians. ConservaPWNT! Also, taking into account that the average ACT test taker has an IQ 10 points above the average person, and it's not looking so good for my state.

 

[Cancel3]

First of all, the correlation between IQ and the SAT or ACT is tenuous at best. The ACT & SAT are college prep tests. They measure your education more than your intelligence.

There are lots of reasons why an intelligent person would not even take the SAT or ACT.

There are lots of very intelligent people who did not do well in school and wouldn't have tested well.

Thomas Edison was told he should find a career that would work well with his good natured personality, because his academics were weak.


Next, the testing of IQ has always been suspect. It measures analytical skils and reading comprehension. But creativity and pracyical knowledge didn't show up so easily. So if you specialize in mathematics or literature you will do well. If you are a gifted musician & painter, you may be as intelligent but you will not test as well.

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198yam.html


Also, a true IQ test usually costs thousands of dollars and can only be administered by a psychologist.




I also question just how many people in a given population would have been tested?

I can imagine that a larger portion of the population in, say Massachusetts would have been tested than in Mississippi. I have never had an IQ test. I took the ACT in 1978. What changes have there been on the test since then? And how do they factor those changes in?


Anytime these broad generalities are given credence I have to shake my head. By and large, I think they are meaningless.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

First of all, the correlation between IQ and the SAT or ACT is tenuous at best. The ACT & SAT are college prep tests. They measure your education more than your intelligence.

There are lots of reasons why an intelligent person would not even take the SAT or ACT.

There are lots of very intelligent people who did not do well in school and wouldn't have tested well.

Thomas Edison was told he should find a career that would work well with his good natured personality, because his academics were weak.


Next, the testing of IQ has always been suspect. It measures analytical skils and reading comprehension. But creativity and pracyical knowledge didn't show up so easily. So if you specialize in mathematics or literature you will do well. If you are a gifted musician & painter, you may be as intelligent but you will not test as well.

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198yam.html


Also, a true IQ test usually costs thousands of dollars and can only be administered by a psychologist.




I also question just how many people in a given population would have been tested?

I can imagine that a larger portion of the population in, say Massachusetts would have been tested than in Mississippi. I have never had an IQ test. I took the ACT in 1978. What changes have there been on the test since then? And how do they factor those changes in?


Anytime these broad generalities are given credence I have to shake my head. By and large, I think they are meaningless.

Whoa OK.