Support NeoGAF

[CrimsonSkies]

There's a whole lot of factors that go into the development of determing IQ of the average person in a given state. The high minority / immigration populations in the South-East and South-West cause a drag on those numbers. Not because the people are not capable, simply because the educational opportunities are not on par. Now things are changing in both areas for the better in this regard. Getting past that, who determines what the IQ of a state is? Where do these figures come from? What's the standard?

Whatever happened to the Democratic Party that was for the little guy? Do you honestly think that John and Sally in Georgia really want to vote for a party that offers them what you did this election cycle? A liberal from the North-East who has a record like he did? Seems to me like your leaders and a lot of the posters here are elitist pricks who have themselves been brainwashed to believe the tripe they spew on forums such as this. Bill Clinton would have won this election, and thus suddenly these people you call idiots wouldn't be so bad would they? Sad life to feel the need to tear down half your countries population to make your own flawed positions seem right.

 

[Dilbert]

Seems to me like your leaders and a lot of the posters here are elitist pricks who have themselves been brainwashed to believe the tripe they spew on forums such as this.

Hey, speaking of brainwashed...

 

[fart]

i don't know how stupid the people of america are, but i do know the people of gaf are often pretty freaking dumb.

the problem with reason is how often it's not in the majority interest.

 

[Zaptruder]

There's a whole lot of factors that go into the development of determing IQ of the average person in a given state. The high minority / immigration populations in the South-East and South-West cause a drag on those numbers. Not because the people are not capable, simply because the educational opportunities are not on par. Now things are changing in both areas for the better in this regard. Getting past that, who determines what the IQ of a state is? Where do these figures come from? What's the standard?

Whatever happened to the Democratic Party that was for the little guy? Do you honestly think that John and Sally in Georgia really want to vote for a party that offers them what you did this election cycle? A liberal from the North-East who has a record like he did? Seems to me like your leaders and a lot of the posters here are elitist pricks who have themselves been brainwashed to believe the tripe they spew on forums such as this. Bill Clinton would have won this election, and thus suddenly these people you call idiots wouldn't be so bad would they? Sad life to feel the need to tear down half your countries population to make your own flawed positions seem right.

No. Those people would've still been as poorly educated regardless of who they voted for. But they probably would've voted for a president, that in concert with other a continuing history of appropriate choice presidents would've helped raise the level of education, in a qualitative sense, in those areas (as well as many others).

And shit. Spewing out crap like "elitist pricks who have themselves been brainwashed"... so what is it? Are we stupid or are we too smart for our own goods? I think it's simply a case of you spouting shit before you think.

As for determining IQ, I'd imagine they'd do it like they do most polls of such a nature; give out tests to the people that will take them and extrapolate the data from that sample to within acceptable margins of errors.
Standard IQ has been accepted as 100; although in recent history, this figure has been trending up around the world, simply because education is getting better.
Although there's a large host of problems with IQ tests, it's been accepted as a relatively accurate predictor (one of the most accurate easily accessible predictors) of education level; which in itself can be a predictor for alot of other stuff.

As for what was been offered; what was percieved as offered and what was actually offered are often a far cry from each other. Unfortunately for Kerry, the general perception of what was offered fell far short of what could've been offered. OTOH the reverse is most likely true for Bush.

I wouldn't be willing to call anyone that voted for Bush stupid... unless I had met them in one form or another and ascertained for myself their personal quality, just like I wouldn't be willing to call anyone that voted for kerry smart unless I had met them.

Having 'met' you and hearing the diatribe you spew, that constantly takes offense at what hasn't been said, while dishing out baseless attacks, I can safely say you *are* stupid (by relative standards).

 

[brooklyngooner]

Whatever happened to the Democratic Party that was for the little guy? Do you honestly think that John and Sally in Georgia really want to vote for a party that offers them what you did this election cycle? A liberal from the North-East who has a record like he did? Seems to me like your leaders and a lot of the posters here are elitist pricks who have themselves been brainwashed to believe the tripe they spew on forums such as this. Bill Clinton would have won this election, and thus suddenly these people you call idiots wouldn't be so bad would they? Sad life to feel the need to tear down half your countries population to make your own flawed positions seem right.

What is with this constantly misused term "elitist?" What is elitist about John Kerry? He can string a sentence together without mispronouncing and choking on every third word? Being for equal rights and tolerance, not government theism, makes certain people on this forum elitist?

In addition, you do realize that W was educated at an "elitist" Northeast prep school and at Yale, right?

 

[enjoy bell woods]

What is with this constantly misused term "elitist?" What is elitist about John Kerry? He can string a sentence together without mispronouncing and choking on every third word? Being for equal rights and tolerance, not government theism, makes certain people on this forum elitist?

In addition, you do realize that W was educated at an "elitist" Northeast prep school and at Yale, right?

Yeah, but he graduated with a 2.5, like the rest of us yokels!!!!!

 

[AirBrian]

All this intelligence/elitist bullshit is really obnoxious. If Democrats are more intelligent, maybe they would look past the political rhetoric and realize that Democratic politicians are just as corporately owned as Republicans. They would not vote for either, but rather for a third party. We have three branches of government for a reason, yet we have only two political parties. This country isn't going anywhere until our political system gets an overhaul. A third party could easily be the answer.

And look at the voting trends from 2000 and compare this year's. The Black vote was practically the same, the female vote was practically the same, the male vote was practically the same, and the young/college vote was practically the same. The only major demographic that changed was the Hispanic vote. IIRC, 65% voted for Gore, but only 55% voted for Kerry. The Hispanic vote is about 10% of the voter population, so that makes up about 1% -- a 2% swing. Guess what, Bush won by 3.5%.

So do Hispanics have less intelligence? Bush's border/alien policies are much more important to them than the environment, terror, Iraq, deficit, etc. They care about being able to work in this country and being able to feed their family. This, IMO was the difference in the election.

 

[soundwave05]

The majority of Hispanics voted for Kerry I believe.

That wasn't Kerry's problem.

Although some neocons, like Pat Buchanan and others do seem to be annoyed by Bush's lax immigration policies.

 

[Zaptruder]

They care about being able to work in this country and being able to feed their family. This, IMO was the difference in the election.

If this was the case, then the stronger economic policies of the democrats (Bush administration has shown extremely poor fiscal conservativeness... something the republicans are normally strong in) would've won the day.

As has been said before, the key issue for most of Bush's voters has been about morals; religious, extending to issues on stem cell research as well as gay marriage.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

guys, it's not about education. it's about what people want to believe in. simple as that.

 

[AirBrian]

The majority of Hispanics voted for Kerry I believe.

That wasn't Kerry's problem.

Although some neocons, like Pat Buchanan and others do seem to be annoyed by Bush's lax immigration policies.

Oops, meant to say Bush got 45%, not Kerry.

 

[Zaptruder]

guys, it's not about education. it's about what people want to believe in. simple as that.

Education helps develop critical thinking skills, which in turn allow people to reassess what they believe in... in a critical fashion. So yes, education can help shape beliefs.

 

[AirBrian]

If this was the case, then the stronger economic policies of the democrats (Bush administration has shown extremely poor fiscal conservativeness... something the republicans are normally strong in) would've won the day.

As has been said before, the key issue for most of Bush's voters has been about morals; religious, extending to issues on stem cell research as well as gay marriage.

I don't agree. Bush's completely lax border policy makes it much easier for illegal immigrants to come here. Bush's immigration policy "practically" (I'm using the word loosely here) gives them a free pass by the naturalization process. I think it was a major factor in this election.

Now I would agree that next election, the typical "Democratic" policies will be a factor.

 

[Zaptruder]

I don't agree. Bush's completely lax border policy makes it much easier for illegal immigrants to come here. Bush's immigration policy "practically" (I'm using the word loosely here) gives them a free pass by the naturalization process. I think it was a major factor in this election.

Now I would agree that next election, the typical "Democratic" policies will be a factor.

I see you're talking about hispanics... while I'm talking about the majority of Bush voters. (which can also account for some of the minorty voters)

 

[GG-Duo]

And look at the voting trends from 2000 and compare this year's. The Black vote was practically the same, the female vote was practically the same, the male vote was practically the same, and the young/college vote was practically the same. The only major demographic that changed was the Hispanic vote. IIRC, 65% voted for Gore, but only 55% voted for Kerry. The Hispanic vote is about 10% of the voter population, so that makes up about 1% -- a 2% swing. Guess what, Bush won by 3.5%.

wait, what?

 

[aaaaa0]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY INCOME          BUSH	KERRY  	
TOTAL                   2004	2004 	

Under $15,000 (8%)      36% 	63% 	
$15-30,000 (15%)        42% 	57% 
$30-50,000 (22%)        49% 	50%
$50-75,000 (23%)        56% 	43% 
$75-100,000 (14%)       55% 	45% 
$100-150,000 (11%)      57% 	42% 
$150-200,000 (4%)       58% 	42%  
$200,000 or More (3%)   63% 	35% 

VOTE BY EDUCATION       BUSH	KERRY
TOTAL                   2004 	2004 

No High School (4%)     49% 	50% 
H.S. Graduate (22%)     52% 	47% 
Some College (32%)      54% 	46%
College Graduate (26%)  52% 	46% 
Postgrad Study (16%)    44% 	55%

This data demonstrates the following (please note it is based on CNN exit poll data, its accuracy is dependent on how well the exit polls were run):

The majority of people who earn more than $50,000 a year vote Bush.

The Democrats only get a majority for people who earn under $50,000 a year.

The majority of people who have passed high school and have up to a College Degree vote Bush.

The Democrats only get a majority for people who never graduated from high school, or have post graduate study.

 

[soundwave05]

I think you gotta understand also -- terrorism was a huge issue.

I don't think people felt like voting Kerry would mean laxer policies on terrorists, but I think there might have been the feeling that changing course now would look like a sign of weakness, kinda like being the first to blink.

 

[StoOgE]

If you would kindly direct your attention to the middle of Texas.. Its like an Oasis in the middle of a desert of idiots. I cant believe this is the state that produced LBJ

Poland.. never forget.

 

[Zaptruder]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY INCOME          BUSH	KERRY  	
TOTAL                   2004	2004 	

Under $15,000 (8%)      36% 	63% 	
$15-30,000 (15%)        42% 	57% 
$30-50,000 (22%)        49% 	50%
$50-75,000 (23%)        56% 	43% 
$75-100,000 (14%)       55% 	45% 
$100-150,000 (11%)      57% 	42% 
$150-200,000 (4%)       58% 	42%  
$200,000 or More (3%)   63% 	35% 

VOTE BY EDUCATION       BUSH	KERRY
TOTAL                   2004 	2004 

No High School (4%)     49% 	50% 
H.S. Graduate (22%)     52% 	47% 
Some College (32%)      54% 	46%
College Graduate (26%)  52% 	46% 
Postgrad Study (16%)    44% 	55%

This data demonstrates the following (please note it is based on CNN exit poll data, its accuracy is dependent on how well the exit polls were run):

The majority of people who earn more than $50,000 a year vote Bush.

The Democrats only get a majority for people who earn under $50,000 a year.

The majority of people who have passed high school and have up to a College Degree vote Bush.

The Democrats only get a majority for people who never graduated from high school, or have post graduate study.

Ok. I'll have a shot at trying to figure this one out, having been so vocal on the IQ front before.

I guess for the higher earners, there's a strong financial/personal incentive to vote for Bush's taxcuts.

That pairs off pretty well with the college graduate data.

In addition, college graduates don't all graduate from courses that heavily focus on critical thinking, as well as courses that focus on information that has high social critiquing relevancy.

Moreover, alot of people, college graduate or not don't take time to examine the social issues in terms of critical effect and what not; or that they may examine it from more personal points of view; whether "it agrees with my views (which are often heavily colored by my morality, as dictated by religion)", or whether "it helps me out in a fiscal manner."

So while I still believe deep critical thinking about social issues (as well as raising the level of informativeness) can be a determining factor as to who you vote for, it is alluded to by the data above that education isn't a pure reflection of those critical thinking skills, and that many other factors (such as religion) serve to muddy the effect it has on ultimately who votes for what.

Finally, even with critical examination of political issues and high informativeness on all issues... it's definetly no guarantee of a liberal vote; both sides have their smart people that know what's going on.
I'll continue to maintain that in all likelihood that more of those people would vote liberal rather than republic.

 

[teh_pwn]

"Generalizing an entire area of the country as “Country Bumpkins” is not only asinine, it’s insulting. Oh sure, there are hicks, and rednecks that live in the south. I’m willing to bet you can find them in the north as well. Writing off that many people as a bunch of stupid hicks because a majority of them in the area disagree with you reeks of arrogance coupled with blindness. If you’ve ever been in the South, you know that’s not the way the entire area is. If you haven’t been down here, well then you truly are talking out of your ass."

Agreed.

I'm sick of people making these sorts of ridiculous claims.

Texas and Alabama have to largest research parks in the nation.

 

[Zaptruder]

Texas and Alabama have to largest research parks in the nation.

Well, some people in Texas and Alabama still voted for democrats.

 

[videogamer]

Texas and Alabama have to largest research parks in the nation.

Largest in terms of what? Not that it really matters. Research can be done in many different facilities instead one location.

 

[teh_pwn]

I don't know exactly what determines how it is largest.

I'm simply trying to make a counterpoint to the apparent belief that "conservative states are dumb because they don't agree with my beliefs." That's simply bullshit.

 

[videogamer]

I don't know exactly what determines how it is largest.

I'm simply trying to make a counterpoint to the apparent belief that "conservative states are dumb because they don't agree with my beliefs." That's simply bullshit.

Apparently you need to back it up with more than that. The other posters have apparently posted links and data in this and other threads... a comment on research parks isn't on the same level.

Anyways, I blame it on their belief that somehow they can impose their religious beliefs on others. So many of them act like there is no such thing as a church-state wall. The "Christian Nation" idea has been beaten throughly on this forum.

 

[Xenon]

17 Reasons Not To Slit Your Wrists by Michael Moore

1. Double Cheeseburgers
2. Pizza
3. Egg, meat, and cheese...and meat and cheese!
4. Wendy's Frosty
5. Kerry lost but I won!!!!
6. Walker Brother's Pancakes
7. Big tits(not mine)
8. Mutten
9. Egg McMuffin(fuck McGriddle)
10. They want to believe
11. Gravy
12. One word, sequel.
13. Krispy Kremes
14. Liquid meat in a sno-cone
15. A nice pork sandwich served in a dirty ash-tray
16. Cream filling


and finally

17. I can not profit off my own death, duh.

 

[StoOgE]

The largest research university in the State of Texas also happens to be in the middle of a county that went 70% for Kerry. I wont say that the rest of the state is dumb.. but I would go so far to guess that more rural areas are less informed, if you operate a farm or a ranch you are likely working 10-12 hour days and have other things to do than sit around and watch cable news all night long. Hell, most Bush supporters think he supports the Kyoto accords.

 

[Phoenix]

You guys debating this foolishness about IQ playing such a major part in determining who is democrat/republican and how they are gooing to vote are missing key issues. On any given Sunday any person in this country is a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or republican. It all depends on how you feel about certain issues. For me - I think preventive warfare is a sack of bullshit beyond reproach, so there was nothing else that need to be said by either party for me to know how I was voting. I have a set of friends (husband/wife pair) who have 2 kids and one has a masters and the other has a Ph.D. The gay marriage issue was critical for them and they voted for Bush.

You could campaign on an issue such as banning violent video games and its going to split the country because people believe different things on the issue. THose that take that as a deciding issue will vote one way or the other - potentially outside their traditional voting box. All of this crap about critical reasoning skills is just that - crap. I would venture to guess by some of the comments I've seen here about '4000 uncounted votes, Diebold voting machines, time to move to Canada, etc' that there may be people in those rural areas with superior critical thinking skills.

Everyone wants to complain but I can all but guarantee that not a single person complaining has taken a step to do ANYTHING to improve their community, advocate their beliefs, start a letter writing campaign, etc since the end of the election.

Its all about what you believe and the republican party was able to get in touch with a lot of people who believed the same thing they did (in this case).

If you're going to pursue this line of discussion, at least get some constructive actions OUT of it so that you can actually effect change.

 

[fart]

...and phoenix loses it

 

[Zaptruder]

You guys debating this foolishness about IQ playing such a major part in determining who is democrat/republican and how they are gooing to vote are missing key issues. On any given Sunday any person in this country is a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or republican. It all depends on how you feel about certain issues. For me - I think preventive warfare is a sack of bullshit beyond reproach, so there was nothing else that need to be said by either party for me to know how I was voting. I have a set of friends (husband/wife pair) who have 2 kids and one has a masters and the other has a Ph.D. The gay marriage issue was critical for them and they voted for Bush.

You could campaign on an issue such as banning violent video games and its going to split the country because people believe different things on the issue. THose that take that as a deciding issue will vote one way or the other - potentially outside their traditional voting box. All of this crap about critical reasoning skills is just that - crap. I would venture to guess by some of the comments I've seen here about '4000 uncounted votes, Diebold voting machines, time to move to Canada, etc' that there may be people in those rural areas with superior critical thinking skills.

Everyone wants to complain but I can all but guarantee that not a single person complaining has taken a step to do ANYTHING to improve their community, advocate their beliefs, start a letter writing campaign, etc since the end of the election.

Its all about what you believe and the republican party was able to get in touch with a lot of people who believed the same thing they did (in this case).

If you're going to pursue this line of discussion, at least get some constructive actions OUT of it so that you can actually effect change.

I tried. It got flamebaited and locked down.

 

[Phoenix]

I tried. It got flamebaited and locked down.

You don't have to do it here - that's the point. If you feel strongly enough that change is necessary, its time to let that idea leave the GAF nest and go out into the real world and actually mean/becoming something. Otherwise this all just becomes pointless banter that will go away in a couple of months.

I think some of you guys actually have good points and they deserve to become points of activism IN the political process. People WILL listen to you if you go to them and tell them your story. They may not agree, but they will remember that you talked to them and it will have an impact on what they do.

I mean look at Michael Moore.... he is NOBODY! Anyone of you could be doing the same thing! If you feed the cause is just, get it out there.

 

[Zaptruder]

All of this crap about critical reasoning skills is just that - crap.

No no. I believe the point about critical reasoning skills is that people with it will be more likely to take time to personally avail themselves of information on all the issues that confront them as well as critically assessing that information and the media.

If the Phd holder you anecdotally cited had looked a bit deeper than going on the notion of a feeling, he'd have seen Kerry himself didn't put out much support for gay marriage; rather the assumption came from the people.

Yes, it would be nice if we could get of our asses and spread information, but even if we do so, we're likely only preaching to the choir anyway; if you don't want to avail yourself of the truths that lie before you, then you simply don't.

But as I've already said; the issues *are* complex and even if a person does take the time to make themselves aware of issues and think clearly about them doesn't mean we're saying those people are guaranteed to vote liberal. It just means they're more likely to; assuming that on some level people are still good compassionate people (and I'm not saying a good compassionate critically reasoned person would definetly vote liberal. again just more likely).

 

[Pfucata]

Statistics 101: The mean without standard deviation tells you very little. For all we know, the 95% confidence interval would show no statistical difference between those states. Without standard deviation, how do we know those IQ numbers aren't completely made up (you can't believe everything you read on the internet).
---
You should all read, Aleksandr L. Solzhenitsyn's "Words of Warning to America ." Solzhenitsyn won the 1970 Nobel Prize winner in literature for the Gulag Archipelago. The above link goes to a speech he gave in 1975. It's better to read it in the Annals of America (a 20-volume collection of primary source materials put out by Encyclopaedia Britannica -- almost every US library will have copy), but the URL is there in case you're lazy, but I don't know if that's the full unedited text or not.

 

[aaaaa0]

... snip CNN election data ...

You guys debating this foolishness about IQ playing such a major part in determining who is democrat/republican and how they are gooing to vote are missing key issues.

+1 Phoenix.

 

[teh_pwn]

"Apparently you need to back it up with more than that. The other posters have apparently posted links and data in this and other threads... a comment on research parks isn't on the same level."

I agree it's not on the same level, but I'm not going to take any of those statistics for granted. Can the source be trusted? Was the IQ test performed on a fair amount of people on both sides (the only accurate way would to test all)? Is the IQ test an accurate way of testing all forms of intelligence, or does it sway towards linguistics or science?

I think it's self evident that these kinds of statistics are political bullshit.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes, it would be nice if we could get of our asses and spread information, but even if we do so, we're likely only preaching to the choir anyway;

There were nearly 60 million votes for Bush... that ain't preaching to the choir

 

[Zaptruder]

There were nearly 60 million votes for Bush... that ain't preaching to the choir

I meant, the things we'd have to say, would likely only be heard by the people that want to listen to it (and most probably agree with it).

 

[Phoenix]

I meant, the things we'd have to say, would likely only be heard by the people that want to listen to it (and most probably agree with it).

I think you'd be surprised. It took me several months to beat into peoples heads that only the states have the right to govern marriage and that US codes already defined marriage for federal cases.

 

[Dan]

I think you'd be surprised. It took me several months to beat into peoples heads that only the states have the right to govern marriage and that US codes already defined marriage for federal cases.

This is somewhat off-topic, but along the same lines of people being ignorant to basic law, I've been extremely surprised at how many people I've spoken to don't acknowledge marriage as a legal institution. They think of it as solely a religious ceremony, and just by reminding them that the government issues marriage licenses and that it's a legal institution, that gets people thinking about their stances on things like the gay marriage bans.

Sometimes it just takes a different line of reasoning to reach the people outside of the "choir" and without trying, it'll never happen at all.