Has anyone ever graphed the United States (all 50 of 'em) by estimated average I.Q.?

---

Request for Question Clarification by aht-ga on 25 Nov 2004 23:54 PST

ts:

You may find this a humourous sidebar to your question. I have not
been able to verify the source that this chart was based on, so it may
not be factual. I am posting this as a request for question
clarification to ask whether this is the sort of format you were
envisioning, or if you had something else in mind:

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

(scroll to the bottom)

Regards,

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

---

Request for Question Clarification by aht-ga on 25 Nov 2004 23:56 PST

Continuing on the trend of "is it for real, or a liberal hoax", you can check out:

http://www.thesodajerks.com/jerks/2004map.html

---

Request for Question Clarification by aht-ga on 26 Nov 2004 00:01 PST

As an additional point for clarification, based on the information I
have mentioned above I technically could say "Yes, someone has ever
graphed the United States (all 50 of them) by estimated average IQ"...
so can you clarify whether you require that the 'graph' be factual and
verifiable, and if so, what credentials would be needed for the source
of the data?

Thanks,

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

timespacette-ga:

I must admit that when I initially began researching an Answer to your
question, I was immediately distracted by the multitude of so-called
'IQ Map hoax' sites that seemed to sprout up as a result of the 2000
and 2004 US election results. Those sites I mention above in the
Requests for Clarification are typical. Ultimately, I found the
following site that has the most plausible and documented methodology
for arriving at its results:

http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

The numbers were derived from the SAT and ACT cumulative scores that
the author was able to compile for all 50 states, for the year 2000.
This is about as close as one will get to a "state average" IQ score,
since there is not standardized IQ test that is administered on a
mandatory basis to a significant portion of the population.

The search terms I used:

  iq map state


I hope that this helps!

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

---

Request for Answer Clarification by timespacette-ga on 26 Nov 2004 09:57 PST

hello aht, and thanks for  pursuing this!

that last site is the one I'd most like to see but I can't seem to open it!

I've tried various ways to get there; can you provide a work-around?

thanks.

ts

---

Clarification of Answer by aht-ga on 26 Nov 2004 14:47 PST

timespacette-ga:

Is it the sq.4mg.com site that you're having trouble accessing, or are
you referring to the sodajerks.com one? Just now, using a different
computer than the one where I did my initial research, I was able to
open the sq.4mg.com site with no problems; the sodajerks.com one takes
a long time to load, but it did eventually load. Which one did you
have the problem with?

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

Hi aht,

It worked this time! 

thanks for all your extensive help on this!

ts

Hiya again time...

I'm in Canada and although I am blonde as well as old;)...
I was told once that I was pretty smart ;)

Steph53

dear Steph,

 I also have Canadian roots, maybe that's why I rate all Canadians as
smarter than the average bear   :-)

ts

Have a look at the census bureau's educational attainment data:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html

timespacette-ga:

Glad that it worked for you, and thank you for the rating and the tip!

A comment about the maps on the sodajerk.com site, from one Canadian
to another... it's only funny because it is so believable... and
that's scary...

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

Regarding that thesodajerks.com link, and others like it...

The implication that people hold conservative political and/or
religious beliefs because they are stupid is becoming very tiresome
indeed.

I used to be a militant atheist whose political stance was very far
left of center, but I didn't assume that the individuals on the other
end of the spectrum believed as they did because they were morons.
Sure, I thought they were wrong. But it's quite possible to disagree
with people without insulting their intelligence.

Hello Pink,
   I figured this subject would get a rise out of someone, but given
your prior reluctance to engage on certain issues, I didn't expect it
to from you.  I am sorry . . . really sorry . . . that this came
across as an insult.  I had heard that there was a correlation between
the red and blue states and I.Q. and, to be honest, my personal
experience with Republican voters this time round (with a few
exceptions) actually supported this correlation (in the way that I
define intelligence).  The exceptions that I knew were all extremely
wealthy individuals who were by no means unintelligent; they were
simply greedy. They knew that Bush's foreign policy sucks, but they
just didn't want to let go of their 80, 000 to 100,000 dollar tax
breaks.
  I am far from being a 'militant athiest'; but the subject of belief
structures (whether religious or political) and why people adhere to
them has always fascinated me.  My neighbor told me that he voted for
Bush because he is 'a man of God'. This kind of statement never fails
to just floor me, and doubly so because I know that Bush & Co got to
the electorate, in a very large measure, through the churches. For me
it brings up all manner of huge, huge questions about the merging of
church and state, Christianity and the support of violence, what that
term 'a man of God' really means, and on and on . . . As I have
spouted before in other venues, what part of the Sermon on the Mount
do these people not understand?  To me this kind of disconnect IS
ignorance, and I have yet to have anyone be able to show me how it
could be otherwise.  God knows (and you know) . . . . . . . I've asked
. . .   :-)
  So here we are now in a cultural civil war. I and many, many others
(at least 49% to be exact) do not count ourselves in on Bush's
so-called 'mandate'. Rather than continue to try to ignore the
elephant that is grazing in the living room, I think it's high time we
addressed our differences. I agree with you that this does not mean
trying our best to insult each other's intelligence, and the above
sites as well as so much other lefty humor does just that, rather than
ask the real questions.  Again, I am sorry.  What's behind all this is
a desire to break through the wall of propriety and ask a real
question.
   The first real question is: who can handle it, and why or why not?
   I'll end by respectfully pointing out that, according to "the most
plausible and documented methodology", Oklahoma ranks two slots ahead
of Washington state in I.Q. . . . .

if you've read this far, thanks for putting up with my 'Babel' . . .
ts

>I had heard that there was a correlation between
>the red and blue states and I.Q. and, to be honest, my personal
>experience with Republican voters this time round (with a few
>exceptions) actually supported this correlation (in the way that I
>define intelligence). The exceptions that I knew were all extremely
>wealthy individuals who were by no means unintelligent; they were
>simply greedy. They knew that Bush's foreign policy sucks, but they
>just didn't want to let go of their 80, 000 to 100,000 dollar tax
>breaks.

I would like to think that I am neither stupid nor greedy. I earn less
than the United States minimum wage, so I'm certainly not one of your
stereotypical fat cats.

There are many millions of people very much like me. I hope more of
'em will cross your path. As the Vulcans say, "Infinite Diversity in
Infinite Combinations."

I hope at least one will cross my path who would be kind enough to
explain to me how they reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" and "Blessed
are the peacemakers" with a vote in support of the Republican agenda.

TS,

I once joked with a friend who intended moving house to a less
desirable suburb. I suggested that the average I.Q. of both suburbs
would increase as a result of his move.

Phil

that's good, Phil . . . :-)

again, Pink, I've never said or even implied that you were either
stupid or greedy, and I'm sorry that you're taking all this so
personally.   We all know that you are a brilliant researcher and a
compassionate commenter with a great sense of wit. I was only talking
about my own experience with people I've been in contact with. My
cousin, who I love dearly, is a banker in Los Angeles. He voted for
Bush because he knew the corporate interests would be served, certain
stocks would continue to rise, etc, etc. (not to mention that $80,000
tax break . . .) He has also been a devout member of a Christian
church all his life.  Okay, so I'll withdraw my conclusion that this
is called stupidity, but what, then, do we call it?

It's a serious disconnect of some kind; I've tried to address in a new question;
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=434964

ts

and another thing!

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations?

that's a nice abstract ideal to be touting . . . but what about actual
TOLERANCE of infinite diversity and combinations?  (take gays for
example) It's not exactly what Republicans are know for . . .

ts

How do you define intelligence, timespacette? (This is not sarcasm,
not name-calling, and not adversarial).

I wonder as well about the importance of 4 points plus or minus
regarding intelligence. On an aggregate scale, one point isn't exactly
important. I'd think you might have a more interesting viewpoint if
you asked a monetary question. That is, what is the average household
income per state? I wonder what color those states are? Florida, yes,
is Red. New York is Blue, California is Blue. Of course, there were a
lot of red states, period, but I'm guessing that the rich states voted
for Kerry, more often than not. What does that mean? If the rich
people are getting the benefits from President Bush, why wouldn't they
want to keep him in office? Conversely, if the poor people are not
getting the benefits as claimed, why would they want to keep him in
office?

I would define intelligence in a number of ways. Recognizing the
nature of conceptual thought is a good beginning, but that's probably
outside the scope of this particular discussion. If dogma is defined
as 'characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved
or unprovable principles', then striving to be non-dogmatic would be a
good basis for intelligence, tied in with an open mind and a curious
nature.

I really don't know what importance to attach to a ten point spread in
an I.Q. test.  I was just curious to see if the rumor had any basis in
truth.

"If the rich people are getting the benefits from President Bush, why
wouldn't they want to keep him in office?"    . . . . . perhaps
because they have a conscience?

"Conversely, if the poor people are not getting the benefits as
claimed, why would they want to keep him in office?"  . . . . . you
got me there!  I've spent the last four years trying to figure that
one out.

here are some possibilities:  

a) perhaps they don't realize they're not getting the promised benefits
b) maybe their family and social circle has always voted Republican
and so they do too
c) they personally identify with the conservative Christian movement
which George represents
d) above all else, they want legal abortion abolished and they know
George will do it for them
e) above all else, they want to stem the tide of legal gay marriage
f) their current job security is tied in with the well-being of a very
large corporation that is directly or indirectly supported by the
interests of the Republican party
g) they think war is 'cool' because they can't discern between a video
game and real life
h) they're xenophobic . . .  ?

your guess is as good as mine . . .

ts

Hmm. So one can't be religious (dogmatic) and be highly intelligent?

Wow. Or, rich people who voted against Bush have a conscience, implying...

hi crythias,

I've never said or implied that religious equals dogmatic, and I"ve
known many many people who were very religious and highly intelligent,
as intelligence is defined above (in my estimation).

right wing conservative fundamentalist Christian is in a class by
itself, I'm afraid . . .

Your comment: "rich people who voted against Bush have a conscience,
implying..."   . . . yes.

what do you think I am, a militant athiest?    ;-)

ts

I want to know about your view of intelligence of those who have a "an
authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable
principles" about John Kerry being a better President than George
Bush.

Because, as far as I can tell, until Senator Kerry actually becomes
President, any assertion is mere conjecture.

gosh, I guess you've had the final word on yet another pointless argument

put another knotch in your belt, crythias! 

feel better now?

It is said that, "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." 

I wonder what this IQ map would tell us if the IQ scores were shown
county by county. Or if we took the average IQ of those who voted for
Bush and those who voted for Kerry.