Beautiful.

-x-

is this real, though? Where does the data come from?

No idea. Don't really care. Just thought it was funny. There's a load of small print down the bottom of the page that might tell you more.

Someone else posted that earlier and then said it was a hoax based on a similar thing done last time.

Still, it's true, that's the main thing.

The page linked to from there comparing average income with who was voted for is quite extraordinary (and certainly backs up the IQ list): it seems that all the better off people in America were voting desperately to try to help their poorer fellow Americans, but the paupers responded with votes that say 'No! We don't want your help! We want to be made even poorer!' I think those lower IQ figures are probably too high if anything...

Paul

Florida voted approx. 60% for Bush and approx. 70% in favour of an increase in the minumum wage.

it's frightening to realize we're outnumbered by the idiots.

But the average IQ is always 100.

If your sample is infinitely large, maybe, but if you sample a collection of the stupid and the insane, you're unlikely to get 100.

No--by definition, it's always 100. If you sample three idiots, their average IQ will be 100. If you sample 500 Mensa members, their average IQ will be 100.

If you sample an entire state, the average IQ is (by definition) 100. But perhaps they're saying they've sampled the whole country and, while the average IQ of the country is (by definition) 100, the people in various states performed better or worse with that as a benchmark.

Yes but it's assumed that the IQ was taken over the entire country and the deviation in each direction correlates with those states who voted for whoever.

It annoys me too, but in this case I think it was justified.

I should make it clear that what I'm objecting to is the terminology. They should have said "the average score on IQ tests" rather than "average IQ."

It's one of my pet peeves.