Fun with Statistics

UPDATE: Constant Readers Phil and Slartibartfast took all the fun out of this by revealing that this data has (have?) been thoroughly debunked (see here and here), thus rendering this little more than petty partisan wishful thinking. Feel free to consider this an open thread then in which to get out any snarky comments you've been holding back (bearing in mind the posting rules).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lots of important and tragic events happening today, but I just had to pass along this tidbit I was emailed by an ultraliberal friend. Feel free to snark back accordingly:

/snark on/

The following list was created by combining Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices of Average IQ with each state's election results from the 2000 presidential election (There's an easier to read chart here. --Ed.)

State Avg. IQ and who they voted for in 2000
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 Bush
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

Note to Republicans: This chart is not as bad as it looks. The correlation of electoral ! votes to IQ is a loose one. There are many variable that are obviously not included. Connecticut, for example, probably has a significantly higher rating now that George Bush lives in Texas

/snark off/

Comments

[Phil]

"Did you ever get the feeling you'd been cheated?"

-- John Lydon

[Phil]

By the way, you know how to win a lot of votes for your party's candidate? Tell the people who didn't vote for your party last time that they're stupid. Always, always a winning strategy. Let me know how it works out for you.

P.S. I didn't vote for Bush. Always feel like I have to add that little disclaimer when I criticize this kind of silliness.

[Slartibartfast]

Edward, you really need to check out Snopes (or the equivalent) before you post stuff like this.

[Edward]

Holy hoax busting Batman! Yes, Phil, it is silliness. It was simply too silly not to share. Although I get a sense now that it's been around and debunked for quite some time (sloppy on my part not to check that, I'll admit).

Although, I don't think your source is totally nonpartisan or remotely well-balanced:

Well, it's a HOAX.

I own "IQ and the Wealth of Nations." I read it extremely carefully. I've written a lengthy review of the book: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm. As the title suggests, it's about the average IQs of nations, not states. There's nothing in it about IQs by states.

Also, anyone familiar with the topic would quickly recognize the fallaciousness of the data. The 113 figure for Connecticut is way too high. That's about what Connecticut would be if it was all-Jewish. It's not. The 87 for Utah is a joke.

Somebody probably got the idea from Lynn & Vanhanen's book and made up some numbers by starting with the income table (that's why the correlation with IQ is so high). The goal, obviously, was to make Democrats feel superior.

The funny thing is that this hoax will be the first time that any liberals will have ever heard of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which is probably the most important book published in this century.

Given the haughty tone and self-important texture of this hoax-busting diatribe, I'd say the chart (fake or not) at least struck a nerve.

What I find really interesting about his ongoing obsession with this chart is the "Honest data on smarts by state" he provides of 8th grade math and 8th grade reading scores. Unless 8th graders are allowed to vote in some states or there's any data on whether smarter people move from their home state or not, this data reveals nothing. (And no, I'm not saying that because Gore looses to Bush in this data, he actually edges out Bush in both).

Still, this guy has a photo of himself with Margaret Thatcher on his blog. Does anything scream "killjoy" any more loudly than that?

[Edward]

you really need to check out Snopes (or the equivalent) before you post stuff like this.

Yup, Slarti. You're right. I should.

What I get for blogging uncaffienatedly. I could just delete the post, but that seems dishonest. I'm actually just procrastinating to avoid blogging about Iraq or gas prices or what have you. I think I need a vacation.

[JimPortlandOR]

The Pacific Northwest is really nice at this time of the year (and the Rose Festival in Portland this week and next).....

This is the kind of hoax I love. One that reinforces my prejudices in a healthy way. Who can argue that MS is the birthplace of dumb?

Another possible revealing metric: number of churches per 100,000 population. Haven't seen a study of this, but Metro Portland is blissfully free of church clutter, compared to, say, Mobile. Fewer churches = more blue, etc.

A good project for someone with clearly too much time on their hands.

[Slartibartfast]

Agreed. And, to be fair, Googling "IQ average by state" (sans quotes) reveals that this meme has acquired a fairly large following, so I imagine the pull to cabbage-patch on this was fairly strong.

Not that that actually means anything, given that the data didn't come from where it was supposed to have come from. Even the book it's supposed to have been referenced to is a bit flawed in the data area. These flaws are acknowledged, though.

[Jadegold]

While it's apparent this email is a hoax, some of the explanations of why it's a hoax aren't much better. Specifically, the iSteve debunking which relies on some pretty sketchy speculation and some outright WAGs.

Plainly, the fact that various state IQ averages are clearly fabricated is enough to doom this urban hoax. In fact, even if the IQ data were semi-accurate, not enough is known to support a correlation that passes the smell test.

Besides, IQ is only a relative measure of intelligence--and is really only an indication of potential as opposed to raw intelligence.

A better metric vis a vis Gore v Bush is a comparison of who won those states which received more in federal spending than they contributed in federal taxes.

[Edward]

I've seen something about that question (who won those states which received more in federal spending than they contributed in federal taxes) on Kos, I believe, Jadegold...again it favors those who voted for Gore, no?

At least Georgia ended up looking much more hypocritical than Massachusetts, if I recall correctly.

[Slartibartfast]

...thus rendering this little more than petty partisan wishful thinking.

Hmmm...I find that my wishful thinking runs the other way, sometimes.

/snark

[crionna]

Edward/Jadegold

Serious question. If we assume that progressive taxes are fair (i.e. those who earn the most, pay the most and rarely receive the same percentage of services compared to taxes paid that those who earn the least do) why is it not fair that those states in which those people reside receive less in federal funding than others?

[Edward]

I don't have a problem with that Crionna. But then I don't have a problem with a progressive tax either.

[crionna]

Neither do I Edward. I think it was Von that made a very good argument for the progressive tax early in OW history, can't find it though now.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't have a problem with that Crionna. But then I don't have a problem with a progressive tax either.

Now the purpose of the "hypocrisy" comment completely escapes me.

[Edward]

I'm confused Slarti...spending too much brain power on the art question.

Can I get back to this?

[kenB]

Now the purpose of the "hypocrisy" comment completely escapes me.

I believe the charge stems from the idea that the typical Bush supporter is for "smaller government" and thinks that most of the income redistribution goes to the big cities.

To the extent that this is true, I'd simply call it "ironic"; perhaps the charge of hypocrisy could be levelled at politicians who capitalize on this misconception.

[Slartibartfast]

...and thinks that...

Mandatory mind-reading penalty.

[kenB]

On whom is the penalty to be assessed? I was simply attempting to explain the charge, not subscribing to it.

[Edward]

Slarti has a quota. He needs to hand out X number of mind-reading penalties each month or have his VRWC membership revoked. ;P

Ken's right. My original thinking about hypocrisy was the politicians who capitalize on the both the idea that small government is good (and especially argue for "fairer" taxes for all Americans, even as they bring home the bacon (pork) to their state in disproportionate percentages.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, ken, you're either going to take a penalty for mind-reading Republicans, or for mind-reading the nameless, faceless others who hold the idea you described. And I'll take a penalty for failing to read and comprehend; it's only fair.

[sidereal]

I think it's noble that the red-staters are advocating the reduction of something on which they clearly rely, as a matter of principle.

[kenB]

Well, I still disagree (I thought I hedged and framed my statements adequately), but I know better than to argue with the refs -- I'll just lodge a formal complaint after it's over.

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's noble that the red-staters are advocating the reduction of something on which they clearly rely, as a matter of principle.

At the risk of cross-threading this whole blog, think of it as a sort of voluntary conservation of resources.