Was this thread on voter intelligence deleted? November 8, 2004 3:06 PM Subscribe
Hi,--
I could swear I saw a link in a thread on Mefi recently that debunke the supposed correlation between voter intelligence and voting preferences, with a link to a spreadsheet containing the actual correlation between the two. Except I can't find it now and I'm wondering if the thread got nuked or if it was tucked away in a thread of a different topic. Does anyone remember this?
I could swear I saw a link in a thread on Mefi recently that debunke the supposed correlation between voter intelligence and voting preferences, with a link to a spreadsheet containing the actual correlation between the two. Except I can't find it now and I'm wondering if the thread got nuked or if it was tucked away in a thread of a different topic. Does anyone remember this?
There's a little bit on it at Snopes, but no spreadsheets.
posted by ferociouskitty at 3:57 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by ferociouskitty at 3:57 PM on November 8, 2004
It's America. Being in a smarter state is like coming in sixth in a seven-person race.
posted by The God Complex at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2004
I don't remember seeing this on MeFi, but this page should address the substance of your question.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:04 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:04 PM on November 8, 2004
Yes it was a hoax regarding education, snopes has more info on it. This person using IQs claims it is true from their data for the 2004 election. Last week ini a Meta-Talk thread(or askme-filter), one member was putting together similar info, wonder if the same person?
One major point - Basing your info on this, seems poor. First how many would be truthful when giving their score. Then how many voters are accurately tested? The big problem with the IQ testing is that it must be done in your youth. So if you didn’t have it done then, it would be too late now for full factual static’s painting the truthful picture. I was never tested, so where would I fit in the equation? Honestly, this would tell me that “well to do children” voted for Kerry because tests cost money.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:05 PM on November 8, 2004
One major point - Basing your info on this, seems poor. First how many would be truthful when giving their score. Then how many voters are accurately tested? The big problem with the IQ testing is that it must be done in your youth. So if you didn’t have it done then, it would be too late now for full factual static’s painting the truthful picture. I was never tested, so where would I fit in the equation? Honestly, this would tell me that “well to do children” voted for Kerry because tests cost money.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:05 PM on November 8, 2004
Actually, I could have sworn that someone within a mefi thread linked to their own spreadsheet analysis of this. Maybe it was somewhere else, thanks.
posted by mecran01 at 4:07 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by mecran01 at 4:07 PM on November 8, 2004
mecranO1, last week?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:11 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by thomcatspike at 4:11 PM on November 8, 2004
Intelligence can simply make you better able to convince yourself of a truly stupid idea.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:15 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 4:15 PM on November 8, 2004
Yes, someone definitely did provide a spreadsheet, which I downloaded and checked out. I even color-coded the Presidential choices. I can email it to you if you want, mecran.
posted by cell divide at 4:30 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by cell divide at 4:30 PM on November 8, 2004
Here is the comment that links to the spreadsheet. I was arguing the veracity of this stuff with some friends, and this came to good use.
posted by apathy0o0 at 4:55 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by apathy0o0 at 4:55 PM on November 8, 2004
Not quite what you're looking for, but on a related note, Bush Supporters Less Informed About Their Candidate's Positions Than Kerry Supporters was the topic of this thread.
posted by soyjoy at 8:13 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by soyjoy at 8:13 PM on November 8, 2004
Intelligence can simply make you better able to convince yourself of a truly stupid idea.
If I needed to convince myself of a truly stupid idea, I'd make it a sacrament.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:23 PM on November 8, 2004
If I needed to convince myself of a truly stupid idea, I'd make it a sacrament.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:23 PM on November 8, 2004
Ok, but that other table that is supposed to debunk it doesn't really do a very good job, in that the smartest states still voted for Kerry, the dumbest for Bush. So..
posted by Hildago at 9:07 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by Hildago at 9:07 PM on November 8, 2004
However, another table also noted that certain racial groups which overwhelmingly voted democrat had below average IQ's, which seems to me to underscore the futility of this kind of endeavor...
posted by cohappy at 9:55 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by cohappy at 9:55 PM on November 8, 2004
It's statistics, and whatever you want to believe, that's what you'll find.
posted by justgary at 10:38 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by justgary at 10:38 PM on November 8, 2004
ask quonsar - he'll help you out.
posted by specialk420 at 11:00 PM on November 8, 2004
posted by specialk420 at 11:00 PM on November 8, 2004
It's statistics, and whatever you want to believe, that's what you'll find.
Yeah. Fuck just looking at them critically and deciding if the statistics used are any good; let's just throw 'em all out! Welcome to the faith-based community, gary.
posted by The God Complex at 12:32 AM on November 9, 2004
It's statistics, and whatever you want to believe, that's what you'll find.
Faith is fact and facts are faith. Upisdownism at its finest.
posted by jpoulos at 5:17 AM on November 9, 2004
Faith is fact and facts are faith. Upisdownism at its finest.
posted by jpoulos at 5:17 AM on November 9, 2004
remember kids, the data will admit to anything if tortured long enough.
posted by dabitch at 6:33 AM on November 9, 2004
posted by dabitch at 6:33 AM on November 9, 2004
Welcome to the faith-based community, gary.
I made that statement ouf of experience, and taking classes that showed how stats can be made to show just about anything, and even then are almost always biased.
I did not mean it in any political or sniping way. Really, are you always this angry?
This isn't in the blue. Go hate somewhere else.
(there's a the south sucks thread on the front page, you'd feel more at home there.)
posted by justgary at 8:39 AM on November 9, 2004
I made that statement ouf of experience, and taking classes that showed how stats can be made to show just about anything, and even then are almost always biased.
I did not mean it in any political or sniping way. Really, are you always this angry?
This isn't in the blue. Go hate somewhere else.
(there's a the south sucks thread on the front page, you'd feel more at home there.)
posted by justgary at 8:39 AM on November 9, 2004
Oh, nonsense. Statistics can be perfectly fine, and if done right, and based on good data, they are. The proper thing to do is to evaluate the data and the techniques being used -- not to throw out results just because they're "statistics" (i.e., just because they're results).
Yes, you can make statistics lie; but you can make anything lie. You're electing to throw away the only tools that can ever let you evaluate one claim against one another. The path you're mapping leads (if you follow it assiduously and honestly) to believing in nothing.
posted by lodurr at 12:25 PM on November 9, 2004
Yes, you can make statistics lie; but you can make anything lie. You're electing to throw away the only tools that can ever let you evaluate one claim against one another. The path you're mapping leads (if you follow it assiduously and honestly) to believing in nothing.
posted by lodurr at 12:25 PM on November 9, 2004
Oh, nonsense. Statistics can be perfectly fine, and if done right, and based on good data, they are. The proper thing to do is to evaluate the data and the techniques being used -- not to throw out results just because they're "statistics" (i.e., just because they're results).
Lodurr, I understand the role of statistics. Hey, I've taken a few classes myself.
But when you start using statistics that come from partisan sources, they will often be twisted to get the desired result.
And the example, in this very thread, is fake. Example 1. All I'm saying is they should be looked at with a discerning eye, especially when they come from a group trying to prove their own point. Being skeptical is not a problem.
posted by justgary at 1:16 PM on November 9, 2004
Lodurr, I understand the role of statistics. Hey, I've taken a few classes myself.
But when you start using statistics that come from partisan sources, they will often be twisted to get the desired result.
And the example, in this very thread, is fake. Example 1. All I'm saying is they should be looked at with a discerning eye, especially when they come from a group trying to prove their own point. Being skeptical is not a problem.
posted by justgary at 1:16 PM on November 9, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by scarabic at 3:47 PM on November 8, 2004