Home » General Chat » Circular File » Politics
|
| Re: Politics |
Mon, 08 November 2004 04:44   |
|
 Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| Sinla wrote on Mon, 08 November 2004 09:04 |
Sorry if I offend anyone here and I really don't like to be too political, but I just had to show this one
(probably a lot of you have already seen this):
http://gertjan.kole.info/images/2004election_by_iq.png
It was to be expected... 
|
Though i agree to the "expected", keep three things in mind, first IQ tests are still not perfect and have a slight tendency to emphasize academic skills.
More important second, low IQ often means low social status, but Kerry was supposed to be the candidate for the "poor", so why he was unable to convince those he wanted to make politics for?
And third, as political problems(e.g. who is the better president, what is the better strategy on war on terror), are answerable by hard-proof science, intelligence does not guarantee, to make the better choices, e.g. a lot of theoretical and practical communist leaders were intelligent and were frustrated, that the "dumb" working class did not embrace communism happily all over the world. So the choice of the intelligent must not be the right choice, though of course in this case, there are very good reasons, why its the right choice.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Politics |
Mon, 08 November 2004 09:53 |
|
|
|
I would have thought that this can be put down to a "rural vs urban" thing, can't it ? Cities are full of knowledge workers (higher ave IQ), so states with more of their population in cities will have a higher IQ value. We already know that Kerry was more popular in the cities, whereas Bush's appeal was in the towns and country.
Of course, that's just my outsider (British) viewpoint.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Politics |
Wed, 10 November 2004 15:21 |
|
|
|
Don't automatically trust all sources as fair and accurate. A while back there was a claim of IQs of US presidents that was a complete hoax.
Here is a sample link with some other numbers:
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQstates.htm
http://www.sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
I can crank out all sorts of statistics to favour one side or another if wanted. Game of smoke and mirrors, sort of like magic show where you find 50 sets of numbers and only use the best for your case.
A while back yahoo had a story where republicans supposedly had more satisfied sex lives than democrats according to a survey.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Politics |
Thu, 11 November 2004 11:45 |
|
|
|
Added later but perhaps more interesting then the rest, a few thoughts on Albert Einstein and how people may have seen him as low IQ when young.
From (http://www.einstein-website.de/biography-e.htm):
Einstein's childhood was a normal one, except that to his family's irritation, he learnt to speak at a late age.
Einstein, being an average student, finished his studies with a diploma degree in July 1900
http://wa.essortment.com/biographyofein_rwdi.htm
His first headmaster reported that young Einstein would never amount to anything.
young Einstein was ‘ a lazy dog who never bothered about mathematics at all.’
I find it intersting that some are sure the current US president is dumb, based on logic that would also label Einstein dumb. Einstein left some famous religious quotes. I don't know whether Mr. Bush is smart or not so smart, what is motivations really are, etc. For all I know Mr. Bush could be an athiest who presents an image that grabs a certain religious demographic, just as his competition grabs a certain skin color demographic.
Also interesting that both Bush and Kerry openly admit to being part of Yale "Skull & Crossbones" secret society, though some news conspiracy sources only mention Bush with "Skull & Crossbones".
| Quote: |
Which could be rephrased to say that they start with lower expectations.
|
An assumption. Another that only partially explains the numbers that were is that dems are more commonly women and reps men and men tend to say more satisfied.
Game with assumptions/explainations is they are often only given when you DON'T like the data.
So for example, if someone wants monkey/ape man bones to be a big find he will not mention possibillity that humans made tools and fire and hunted or kept monkeys as pets. (As well, A skull + a few bones from one, plus tiny fragments of 7 others may may be represented as 8 specimens found in such a way that impression of 8 somewhat complete sets of bones were found).
An assumption/possibl
...
[Updated on: Thu, 11 November 2004 12:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Politics |
Fri, 12 November 2004 05:50 |
|
| mazda |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK | |
|
| multilis wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 16:45 |
| Quote: |
The problem with surveys is that people confuse them with statistics
|
Most statistics are based on surveys/partial data
|
Not at all. I can quote some statistics on the likelihood of winning the lottery.
That has nothing to do with surveys or partial data, but simple mathematics.
If you then did a survey of people who buy lottery tickets and asked them how often they had won then you would get a (considerably) different answer.
QED.
I stand by my original statement.
| Quote: |
For example the claimed IQ by state was likely not a measure of all people in each state. And measuring IQ is done by asking a limited number of questions, a small biased survey of a person's knowledge/problem solving/wisdom.
|
I'm very surprised at the quoted variations in IQ by state.
When they do such things in the UK you don't even get that much variation from town to town, which is a much smaller sample size.
That suggests the quoted State figures were based on small sample sizes.
p.s. Ideally, an IQ test would not rely on a persons knowledge.
| Quote: |
IQ measurements favour those who are used to being asked those sort of questions in that sort of manner, those who spend more time in school. A person who has practice understanding and solving tests with written pattern questions will do better on that part of IQ test.
|
Agree. Although I reckon that the learning curve is a lot different depending on your intelligence (which is probably a reasonable definition of what intelligence is in the first place).
| Quote: |
A different sort of IQ test might be throwing people in a wilderness and see which figure out how to survive, do basic tasks such as make fire and tools from scratch. Suddenly the rural areas may seem to have a higher IQ than the urban.
|
You seem to be implying that the rural areas would already have some basic understanding (a head start) of how to make fire / tools / grow food.
That is not related to IQ, but I can see the point.
People in cities "might" be m
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Politics |
Fri, 12 November 2004 16:57 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm very surprised at the quoted variations in IQ by state
|
As far as I could tell from web sites, one I posted a link to way back, these numbers are wrong, a fraud or flawed, though somewhat accurate in ranking the states in order.
| Quote: |
You seem to be implying that the rural areas would already have some basic understanding (a head start) of how to make fire / tools / grow food.
That is not related to IQ
|
In the example I give, most people both in rural and urban would not know how to build a fire without matches, find food, etc in a wilderness (no help from civilization). Such would require experimenting and figuring out. But rural would likely have a head start.
I disagree with your 'this is not related to IQ'. A herd of sheep that warmed themselves by gathering wood and building a fire would be called 'amazingly intelligent'.
If you look at the questions on an "IQ test", much is also about basic understanding (a head start) on how to answer a test question that practice helps.
I used to do well on school 'math contests' which are like the math component of an IQ test. Practice with old math contests improved rank on current one.
| Quote: |
Not at all. I can quote some statistics on the likelihood of winning the lottery.
That has nothing to do with surveys or partial data, but simple mathematics
|
According to the word usage I am used to that would be described as mathamatical probabillity rather than statistics. Statistics would be samples of actual winning numbers and chosen numbers to see if there were some extra factors involved.
www.m-w.com - statistics 2a : a quantity (as the mean of a sample) that is computed from a sample; specifically : ESTIMATE 3b b : a random variable that takes on the possible values of a statistic
...
[Updated on: Fri, 12 November 2004 17:14] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: Politics |
Wed, 15 December 2004 19:43 |
|
| goober |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 175
Registered: December 2003
Location: +10 | |
|
| Staz wrote on Wed, 15 December 2004 12:36 |
However, someone with a higher IQ is likely to be more intelligent (using the term in a manner that the average person would relate to) than someone with a lower IQ. That is it's point.
Like every other generalisation, it is not always accurate. But being a generalisation does not make it useless.
|
At a purely anecdotal level, my IQ is apparently in the top 5% or better or something. My brother's is average. I'm academic. He can do almost anything with his hands. So who, of the two of us, is the more intelligent?
Had an IQ test been used with it's original intent with my brother, it may be that it would have been instrumental in diagnosing his problems with the written word. He has an astigmatism. It pains him to read. It wasn't discovered until after he'd finished school.
As a measure of particular kinds of intelligence/learning esteemed by society as a whole, IQ is fine. But it is still only a measure of how well you can do an IQ test. Does it tell you how well you can use this "intelligence" outside an IQ test? Does it make me a better Stars! player for instance? Or does IQ measure the kind of mindset that is more likely to enjoy Stars! Hence, I'll be better at it than others who don't score so well on their IQ's. A combination of both, perhaps?
It's certainly useful to argue over 
Goober.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Politics |
Thu, 16 December 2004 04:17 |
|
|
|
| goober wrote on Thu, 16 December 2004 00:43 |
At a purely anecdotal level, my IQ is apparently in the top 5% or better or something. My brother's is average. I'm academic. He can do almost anything with his hands. So who, of the two of us, is the more intelligent?
|
I'd say you are the more intelligent, but he is the more practical. I don't see a conflict there.
| Quote: |
Had an IQ test been used with it's original intent with my brother, it may be that it would have been instrumental in diagnosing his problems with the written word. He has an astigmatism. It pains him to read. It wasn't discovered until after he'd finished school.
|
I think that's just a failure of the educational system, rather than anything to do with IQ or intelligence. And don't get me started on education or we'll be at it for years 
| Quote: |
As a measure of particular kinds of intelligence/learning esteemed by society as a whole, IQ is fine. But it is still only a measure of how well you can do an IQ test.
|
It's slightly more than that. It provides an adequate measure of a person's ability to understand complex problems and to work through a logical process to find a solution. In a lot of situations this is important.
| Quote: |
Does it tell you how well you can use this "intelligence" outside an IQ test? Does it make me a better Stars! player for instance? Or does IQ measure the kind of mindset that is more likely to enjoy Stars! Hence, I'll be better at it than others who don't score so well on their IQ's. A combination of both, perhaps?
|
I would say that Stars! players with higher IQs are likely to perform better than those with low IQs, all else being equal. But that is largely because the game mechanics are now so well understood that players who can understand them can take advantage of that.
Back in the early days of the game you would probably find that there was less of a correlation because more was done by "gut feel" and general experience.
| Quote: |
It's certainly useful to argue over
|
[j
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 17:56:30 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
and ruins, dead people and destroyed economy in some poor country. 
I fortunatelly live in one wheres no much to destroy or to kill also we are allied with US so it seems to be not too high in the list. 
Don't hate me cause I am a sheep...