more on those election results...
-
OK, never mind. Finally had time to catch up on my soapbox reading for the day. :rolleyes: You realize those numbers are absolute bullshit dont' you? Any IQ test that results in an entire state not getting 100 is a seriously flawed test. Besides, if it were valid Mississippi and Utah would not be the same. People in Utah are fairly well educated in basic learning and probably have a fairly high average IQ. The Mormon church pretty much ensures it. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Any IQ test that results in an entire state not getting 100 is a seriously flawed test. err, :confused: why should IQ should be normalized to the population of a single state ? IQ isn't defined as a by-state measurement. for comparison, SATs and ACTs aren't normailized by state. the authors of that book actually normalized their data so that Britain is at 100 - their book is about a worldwide IQ comparison. if you want to dig around,
"Lynn and Vanhanen" IQ datamakes a good Google search. there's a lot of discussion about their numbers. most of the complaints seem to be from countries that didn't fare well. :suss: Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer -
Stan Shannon wrote: Any IQ test that results in an entire state not getting 100 is a seriously flawed test. err, :confused: why should IQ should be normalized to the population of a single state ? IQ isn't defined as a by-state measurement. for comparison, SATs and ACTs aren't normailized by state. the authors of that book actually normalized their data so that Britain is at 100 - their book is about a worldwide IQ comparison. if you want to dig around,
"Lynn and Vanhanen" IQ datamakes a good Google search. there's a lot of discussion about their numbers. most of the complaints seem to be from countries that didn't fare well. :suss: Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailerChris Losinger wrote: the authors of that book actually normalized their data so that Britain is at 100 - their book is about a worldwide IQ comparison. Come on Chris. IQ test are heavily biased based on language and culture. A world wide test is meaningless. Those results are simply biased to the regions shown and show nothing other than that. Lets do one biased to the southern culture or Spanish population and see the results change. :doh: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the authors of that book actually normalized their data so that Britain is at 100 - their book is about a worldwide IQ comparison. Come on Chris. IQ test are heavily biased based on language and culture. A world wide test is meaningless. Those results are simply biased to the regions shown and show nothing other than that. Lets do one biased to the southern culture or Spanish population and see the results change. :doh: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: A world wide test is meaningless. yes, well, we're talking about the results from within the US in this topic, not the US vs. Gambia. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Lets do one biased to the southern culture or Spanish population and see the results change. Spanish: irrelevant, see above. southern culture: they've been doing IQ tests in the US for what, a century? now - if the test takers haven't come up with a way to make the poor states score the same as the wealthier states, maybe it's time to stop blaming the test ? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: A world wide test is meaningless. yes, well, we're talking about the results from within the US in this topic, not the US vs. Gambia. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Lets do one biased to the southern culture or Spanish population and see the results change. Spanish: irrelevant, see above. southern culture: they've been doing IQ tests in the US for what, a century? now - if the test takers haven't come up with a way to make the poor states score the same as the wealthier states, maybe it's time to stop blaming the test ? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: Spanish: irrelevant Sorry but you are proving you do not understand. 40% of the public school system my children go to is hispanic and by the way is in the US. So not irrelevent. Chris Losinger wrote: if the test takers haven't come up with a way to make the poor states score the same as the wealthier states Sorry again. They very well know how to make test that change the results. That variation has nothing to do with the wealth of the states. It has to do with culture. The US by the way has many cultural variations. Last time I look wealth had nothing to do with intelligence. Humm, maybe I should change my mind here? You keep saying the wealthy support Bush, right? :cool: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Spanish: irrelevant Sorry but you are proving you do not understand. 40% of the public school system my children go to is hispanic and by the way is in the US. So not irrelevent. Chris Losinger wrote: if the test takers haven't come up with a way to make the poor states score the same as the wealthier states Sorry again. They very well know how to make test that change the results. That variation has nothing to do with the wealth of the states. It has to do with culture. The US by the way has many cultural variations. Last time I look wealth had nothing to do with intelligence. Humm, maybe I should change my mind here? You keep saying the wealthy support Bush, right? :cool: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Sorry but you are proving you do not understand. ...or that you weren't clear in what you wrote. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: They very well know how to make test that change the results. and they don't because.... ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: That variation has nothing to do with the wealth of the states. It has to do with culture. and the test takers have a vested interest in making the southern states come up lower ? prove it. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US by the way has many cultural variations. you mean like the large immigrant populations in NY and CA ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Last time I look wealth had nothing to do with intelligence. i believe the wealth of the parents can affect the intelligence of the child (as well as, and in concert with, the education of the child). i don't believe my large bank balance is an indicator of my high IQ. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: You keep saying the wealthy support Bush, right? nope. don't think i've ever said that. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Sorry but you are proving you do not understand. ...or that you weren't clear in what you wrote. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: They very well know how to make test that change the results. and they don't because.... ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: That variation has nothing to do with the wealth of the states. It has to do with culture. and the test takers have a vested interest in making the southern states come up lower ? prove it. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The US by the way has many cultural variations. you mean like the large immigrant populations in NY and CA ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Last time I look wealth had nothing to do with intelligence. i believe the wealth of the parents can affect the intelligence of the child (as well as, and in concert with, the education of the child). i don't believe my large bank balance is an indicator of my high IQ. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: You keep saying the wealthy support Bush, right? nope. don't think i've ever said that. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: or that you weren't clear in what you wrote. Or that I knew up front you will always twist interpretations for you own benefit. So any continuation is pointless. Good night. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: or that you weren't clear in what you wrote. Or that I knew up front you will always twist interpretations for you own benefit. So any continuation is pointless. Good night. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
yeah, reading "Spanish population" as anything but "population of Spain" in a paragraph that talks about "a world wide test" is twisting. bah. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Brit was wondering what the numbers would look like including the percentages that each candidate won by. here they are, including the percentage victory. (+Bush% = Bush% - Gore %). results from this site.
State Win +Bush% IQ
MISSISSIPPI Bush 17.21096968 85
IDAHO Bush 41.69698091 87
UTAH Bush 43.45101086 87
SOUTH CAROLINA Bush 16.32421214 89
WYOMING Bush 41.96461128 89
ALABAMA Bush 15.21388384 90
LOUISIANA Bush 7.878491933 90
MONTANA Bush 27.31272396 90
OKLAHOMA Bush 22.16134244 90
SOUTH DAKOTA Bush 23.22942514 90
ARKANSAS Bush 5.601379021 92
GEORGIA Bush 11.96750725 92
KENTUCKY Bush 15.45523053 92
NEW MEXICO Gore -0.063852059 92
NORTH DAKOTA Bush 29.45479314 92
TEXAS Bush 21.9125403 92
NORTH CAROLINA Bush 12.92799396 93
WEST VIRGINIA Bush 6.483852082 93
ARIZONA Bush 6.565198334 94
INDIANA Bush 16.00956507 94
TENNESSEE Bush 3.92573357 94
NEBRASKA Bush 30.3584896 95
KANSAS Bush 21.83381493 96
ALASKA Bush 35.87389713 98
FLORIDA Bush 0.009218816 98
MISSOURI Bush 3.423897314 98
COLORADO Bush 8.971839887 99
IOWA Gore -0.325558375 99
MICHIGAN Gore -5.269212963 99
NEVADA Bush 3.713676999 99
OHIO Bush 3.677444441 99
OREGON Gore -0.471783971 99
MAINE Gore -5.495683082 100
VIRGINIA Bush 8.294472612 100
WISCONSIN Gore -0.230136606 100
CALIFORNIA Gore -12.40598 101
PENNSYLVANIA Gore -4.296957434 101
MINNESOTA Gore -2.572823952 102
VERMONT Gore -10.88070179 102
WASHINGTON Gore -5.889542019 102
DELEWARE Gore -13.48012957 103
ILLINOIS Gore -12.36002063 104
MARYLAND Gore -16.8656506 105
NEW HAMPSHIRE Bush 1.33560039 105
HAWAII Gore -19.65459256 106
RHODE ISLAND Gore -31.29823214 107
NEW YORK Gore -26.17577047 109
MASSACHUSETTS Gore -29.57868752 111
NEW JERSEY Gore -16.42281883 111
CONNECTICUT Gore -18.54854572 113IMO, it's not exactly clear that lower IQ means stronger Bush #s. but, when Bush carried a "low IQ" state, he often did it with a large perce
Yeah, these statistics are crap. Hopefully if you have taken a college psychology class, you'd know there is no definate correlation between a high IQ score and actual intelligence. And two, there's no statistic on the average IQ of the people who voted, so how is this state-by-state IQ score statistic even relevant? :shrug: My two cents. EDIT: Meant to say 'psychology class'.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
Brit was wondering what the numbers would look like including the percentages that each candidate won by. here they are, including the percentage victory. (+Bush% = Bush% - Gore %). results from this site.
State Win +Bush% IQ
MISSISSIPPI Bush 17.21096968 85
IDAHO Bush 41.69698091 87
UTAH Bush 43.45101086 87
SOUTH CAROLINA Bush 16.32421214 89
WYOMING Bush 41.96461128 89
ALABAMA Bush 15.21388384 90
LOUISIANA Bush 7.878491933 90
MONTANA Bush 27.31272396 90
OKLAHOMA Bush 22.16134244 90
SOUTH DAKOTA Bush 23.22942514 90
ARKANSAS Bush 5.601379021 92
GEORGIA Bush 11.96750725 92
KENTUCKY Bush 15.45523053 92
NEW MEXICO Gore -0.063852059 92
NORTH DAKOTA Bush 29.45479314 92
TEXAS Bush 21.9125403 92
NORTH CAROLINA Bush 12.92799396 93
WEST VIRGINIA Bush 6.483852082 93
ARIZONA Bush 6.565198334 94
INDIANA Bush 16.00956507 94
TENNESSEE Bush 3.92573357 94
NEBRASKA Bush 30.3584896 95
KANSAS Bush 21.83381493 96
ALASKA Bush 35.87389713 98
FLORIDA Bush 0.009218816 98
MISSOURI Bush 3.423897314 98
COLORADO Bush 8.971839887 99
IOWA Gore -0.325558375 99
MICHIGAN Gore -5.269212963 99
NEVADA Bush 3.713676999 99
OHIO Bush 3.677444441 99
OREGON Gore -0.471783971 99
MAINE Gore -5.495683082 100
VIRGINIA Bush 8.294472612 100
WISCONSIN Gore -0.230136606 100
CALIFORNIA Gore -12.40598 101
PENNSYLVANIA Gore -4.296957434 101
MINNESOTA Gore -2.572823952 102
VERMONT Gore -10.88070179 102
WASHINGTON Gore -5.889542019 102
DELEWARE Gore -13.48012957 103
ILLINOIS Gore -12.36002063 104
MARYLAND Gore -16.8656506 105
NEW HAMPSHIRE Bush 1.33560039 105
HAWAII Gore -19.65459256 106
RHODE ISLAND Gore -31.29823214 107
NEW YORK Gore -26.17577047 109
MASSACHUSETTS Gore -29.57868752 111
NEW JERSEY Gore -16.42281883 111
CONNECTICUT Gore -18.54854572 113IMO, it's not exactly clear that lower IQ means stronger Bush #s. but, when Bush carried a "low IQ" state, he often did it with a large perce
-
Yeah, these statistics are crap. Hopefully if you have taken a college psychology class, you'd know there is no definate correlation between a high IQ score and actual intelligence. And two, there's no statistic on the average IQ of the people who voted, so how is this state-by-state IQ score statistic even relevant? :shrug: My two cents. EDIT: Meant to say 'psychology class'.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: you'd know there is no definate correlation between a high IQ score and actual intelligence. oh really? how do you measure "actual intelligence" ? is there a test somewhere ? nssone wrote: And two, there's no statistic on the average IQ of the people who voted, so how is this state-by-state IQ score statistic even relevant? you can assume voting is a sample of at least 50% of the adult population (based on voter turnout records). therefore, any randomized sample of the adult population is going to include roughly 50% voters. that's a pretty good matchup, IMO. and, i don't know how big their IQ samples were. if they were simply statewide averages from some other source, then the matchups will be pretty damn good. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
I am from Kentucky. Yet I see Tennessee as having a higher IQ than Kentucky. Everyone knows *that's* wrong! :-D "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
Kentucky has better bourbon - enjoying some now. maybe that explains some of it :) Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Brit was wondering what the numbers would look like including the percentages that each candidate won by. here they are, including the percentage victory. (+Bush% = Bush% - Gore %). results from this site.
State Win +Bush% IQ
MISSISSIPPI Bush 17.21096968 85
IDAHO Bush 41.69698091 87
UTAH Bush 43.45101086 87
SOUTH CAROLINA Bush 16.32421214 89
WYOMING Bush 41.96461128 89
ALABAMA Bush 15.21388384 90
LOUISIANA Bush 7.878491933 90
MONTANA Bush 27.31272396 90
OKLAHOMA Bush 22.16134244 90
SOUTH DAKOTA Bush 23.22942514 90
ARKANSAS Bush 5.601379021 92
GEORGIA Bush 11.96750725 92
KENTUCKY Bush 15.45523053 92
NEW MEXICO Gore -0.063852059 92
NORTH DAKOTA Bush 29.45479314 92
TEXAS Bush 21.9125403 92
NORTH CAROLINA Bush 12.92799396 93
WEST VIRGINIA Bush 6.483852082 93
ARIZONA Bush 6.565198334 94
INDIANA Bush 16.00956507 94
TENNESSEE Bush 3.92573357 94
NEBRASKA Bush 30.3584896 95
KANSAS Bush 21.83381493 96
ALASKA Bush 35.87389713 98
FLORIDA Bush 0.009218816 98
MISSOURI Bush 3.423897314 98
COLORADO Bush 8.971839887 99
IOWA Gore -0.325558375 99
MICHIGAN Gore -5.269212963 99
NEVADA Bush 3.713676999 99
OHIO Bush 3.677444441 99
OREGON Gore -0.471783971 99
MAINE Gore -5.495683082 100
VIRGINIA Bush 8.294472612 100
WISCONSIN Gore -0.230136606 100
CALIFORNIA Gore -12.40598 101
PENNSYLVANIA Gore -4.296957434 101
MINNESOTA Gore -2.572823952 102
VERMONT Gore -10.88070179 102
WASHINGTON Gore -5.889542019 102
DELEWARE Gore -13.48012957 103
ILLINOIS Gore -12.36002063 104
MARYLAND Gore -16.8656506 105
NEW HAMPSHIRE Bush 1.33560039 105
HAWAII Gore -19.65459256 106
RHODE ISLAND Gore -31.29823214 107
NEW YORK Gore -26.17577047 109
MASSACHUSETTS Gore -29.57868752 111
NEW JERSEY Gore -16.42281883 111
CONNECTICUT Gore -18.54854572 113IMO, it's not exactly clear that lower IQ means stronger Bush #s. but, when Bush carried a "low IQ" state, he often did it with a large perce
Geez, Chris. You could've at least given us a scatter plot of the data[^]. ;) (Let me know if that image doesn't show up. Speaking of which, this image does not show up in Mozilla. It should work fine in IE.) ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion
-
Geez, Chris. You could've at least given us a scatter plot of the data[^]. ;) (Let me know if that image doesn't show up. Speaking of which, this image does not show up in Mozilla. It should work fine in IE.) ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion
:) interesting. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Any IQ test that results in an entire state not getting 100 is a seriously flawed test. err, :confused: why should IQ should be normalized to the population of a single state ? IQ isn't defined as a by-state measurement. for comparison, SATs and ACTs aren't normailized by state. the authors of that book actually normalized their data so that Britain is at 100 - their book is about a worldwide IQ comparison. if you want to dig around,
"Lynn and Vanhanen" IQ datamakes a good Google search. there's a lot of discussion about their numbers. most of the complaints seem to be from countries that didn't fare well. :suss: Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailerChris Losinger wrote: err, why should IQ should be normalized to the population of a single state ? IQ isn't defined as a by-state measurement. I think there is something about the concept of what IQ tests measure that you, and the authors of the book, do not understand or are misusing for politcal purposes. By definition, IQ tests represents an attempt to ascertain the average human intelligence. Unlike SAT and ACTs, IQ tests do not measure intellectual acheivement or education or any thing of the sort. Their purpose is to measure the inherent potential of an average human being to learn and function intellectually. For example, the average IQ of the entire state of Utah would, be definition, have to be about 100, just as that of England or anywhere else. If you gave the people of Utah an IQ test and they scored 87 and the people of Maine scored 110 than you would have to ask yoursefl why. The state of Utah and the state of Maine were settled by almost exactly the same racial and ethnic population, exactly the same basic gene pool. Their ability to learn and perform intellectual tasks should be about equal. If your test results indicate such a large difference than it is measuring cultural differences and not intellectual ones. Indicating that the test itself is rife with cultural bias. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: err, why should IQ should be normalized to the population of a single state ? IQ isn't defined as a by-state measurement. I think there is something about the concept of what IQ tests measure that you, and the authors of the book, do not understand or are misusing for politcal purposes. By definition, IQ tests represents an attempt to ascertain the average human intelligence. Unlike SAT and ACTs, IQ tests do not measure intellectual acheivement or education or any thing of the sort. Their purpose is to measure the inherent potential of an average human being to learn and function intellectually. For example, the average IQ of the entire state of Utah would, be definition, have to be about 100, just as that of England or anywhere else. If you gave the people of Utah an IQ test and they scored 87 and the people of Maine scored 110 than you would have to ask yoursefl why. The state of Utah and the state of Maine were settled by almost exactly the same racial and ethnic population, exactly the same basic gene pool. Their ability to learn and perform intellectual tasks should be about equal. If your test results indicate such a large difference than it is measuring cultural differences and not intellectual ones. Indicating that the test itself is rife with cultural bias. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: For example, the average IQ of the entire state of Utah would, be definition, have to be about 100, just as that of England or anywhere else. not exactly true. if you limit your study to Utah only, then yes, you should normalize the scores to make the average = 100. but if your study is worldwide, it makes no sense to normalize all sub-groups to 100, too. Stan Shannon wrote: If you gave the people of Utah an IQ test and they scored 87 and the people of Maine scored 110 than you would have to ask yoursefl why. indeed. it's such a good question that you could even write a book about it. Stan Shannon wrote: The state of Utah and the state of Maine were settled by almost exactly the same racial and ethnic population, exactly the same basic gene pool. Their ability to learn and perform intellectual tasks should be about equal. as far as the genetic side of it goes, i agree. but, as i've said numerous other times in these threads, i don't believe intelligence is 100% genetic. it's pretty well-accepted that two children may be born with the same potential intelligence (as determined by their genes), but that each child's early development profoundly shapes how that potential is realized - and most of that is potential developed within the first two or three years. relative wealth can (but doesn't necessarily) create a better place for a child to develop in - as can a bunch of other things, like a supportive family, having enough to eat, having a family that values learning and intelligence, a lifestyle that doesn't involve being hit in the head with a rock, not having to work in a factory all day, etc.. Stan Shannon wrote: If your test results indicate such a large difference than it is measuring cultural differences and not intellectual ones. Indicating that the test itself is rife with cultural bias. not necessarily. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Stan Shannon wrote: For example, the average IQ of the entire state of Utah would, be definition, have to be about 100, just as that of England or anywhere else. not exactly true. if you limit your study to Utah only, then yes, you should normalize the scores to make the average = 100. but if your study is worldwide, it makes no sense to normalize all sub-groups to 100, too. Stan Shannon wrote: If you gave the people of Utah an IQ test and they scored 87 and the people of Maine scored 110 than you would have to ask yoursefl why. indeed. it's such a good question that you could even write a book about it. Stan Shannon wrote: The state of Utah and the state of Maine were settled by almost exactly the same racial and ethnic population, exactly the same basic gene pool. Their ability to learn and perform intellectual tasks should be about equal. as far as the genetic side of it goes, i agree. but, as i've said numerous other times in these threads, i don't believe intelligence is 100% genetic. it's pretty well-accepted that two children may be born with the same potential intelligence (as determined by their genes), but that each child's early development profoundly shapes how that potential is realized - and most of that is potential developed within the first two or three years. relative wealth can (but doesn't necessarily) create a better place for a child to develop in - as can a bunch of other things, like a supportive family, having enough to eat, having a family that values learning and intelligence, a lifestyle that doesn't involve being hit in the head with a rock, not having to work in a factory all day, etc.. Stan Shannon wrote: If your test results indicate such a large difference than it is measuring cultural differences and not intellectual ones. Indicating that the test itself is rife with cultural bias. not necessarily. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: as far as the genetic side of it goes, i agree. but, as i've said numerous other times in these threads, i don't believe intelligence is 100% genetic. it's pretty well-accepted that two children may be born with the same potential intelligence (as determined by their genes), but that each child's early development profoundly shapes how that potential is realized - and most of that is potential developed within the first two or three years. relative wealth can (but doesn't necessarily) create a better place for a child to develop in - as can a bunch of other things, like a supportive family, having enough to eat, having a family that values learning and intelligence, a lifestyle that doesn't involve being hit in the head with a rock, not having to work in a factory all day, etc.. But what environmental factors could exist that could account for such differences between Utah and any state in New England? The life style is virtually identical, family income, houseing, ethnicity. Virtually any factor you could name is the same. So what would make IQ in Utah so low? The answer is that it isn't that low. The test is obviously flawed. It may be measuring differneces in education but even that is a stretch as the same basic educational resources are readily available in Utah as elsewhere. If you wanted to write a book about it the book would have to be about the justification for applying such obviously flawed testing methodlogies. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: as far as the genetic side of it goes, i agree. but, as i've said numerous other times in these threads, i don't believe intelligence is 100% genetic. it's pretty well-accepted that two children may be born with the same potential intelligence (as determined by their genes), but that each child's early development profoundly shapes how that potential is realized - and most of that is potential developed within the first two or three years. relative wealth can (but doesn't necessarily) create a better place for a child to develop in - as can a bunch of other things, like a supportive family, having enough to eat, having a family that values learning and intelligence, a lifestyle that doesn't involve being hit in the head with a rock, not having to work in a factory all day, etc.. But what environmental factors could exist that could account for such differences between Utah and any state in New England? The life style is virtually identical, family income, houseing, ethnicity. Virtually any factor you could name is the same. So what would make IQ in Utah so low? The answer is that it isn't that low. The test is obviously flawed. It may be measuring differneces in education but even that is a stretch as the same basic educational resources are readily available in Utah as elsewhere. If you wanted to write a book about it the book would have to be about the justification for applying such obviously flawed testing methodlogies. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: But what environmental factors could exist that could account for such differences between Utah and any state in New England? maybe kids in Utah eat more lead paint, or get more mercury in their diets, or their mothers didn't get the same pre-natal care, or maybe Mormonism causes brain damage... lots of things could be different. that would probably make a good research project for an enterprising young PhD candidate. Stan Shannon wrote: The test is obviously flawed. well, i guess that's one hypothesis. can you prove it? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer