Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

While discussing stuff in another thread I realized that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 12th grade Civics test provides, I think, some insight as to the impacts of testing potential voters for knowledge pertaining to our system of government. The test is given to a "scientific" probability sample of 12th graders so it provides legitimate estimates pertaining to the entire national population of 12th graders. No 12th graders usually (hopefully) aren't old enough to vote yet. But I think it's reasonable to believe that the distribution of results in terms of scores relative to each other for any 12th grade cohort would be similar for that cohort as it ages. Not identical. But similar. With that in mind, here is how the most recent class tested (2010) did on the NAEP 12th Grade Civics test by ethnicity:

Average 2010 NAEP 12th Grade Civics Test Score by Ethnicity

White 156
Asian 153
Hispanic 137
Native American 134
Black 127

That's interesting. But what's really interesting is to look at the impact Civics testing similar to that represented by that NAEP test would have if it were a pre-requisite to voting. Let's say, for instance, we said somebody had to score at or above the average of that test in order to be eligible to vote. The overall average is 148. Based on means and standard deviations for each group, here are the estimates of the percentage of each group that would be eligible to vote:

White 60%
Asian 56%
Hispanic 38%
Native American 35%
Black 27%

That suggests that poll testing could dramatically change the balance of power. Take 2008 for example. Here is how the national vote is estimated to have gone by race:

White (74% of voters) Obama 43%, McCain 55%
Asian (2% of voters) Obama 62%, McCain 35%
Hispanic (9% of voters) Obama 67%, McCain 31%
Other* (3% of voters) Obama 66%, McCain 31%
Black (13% of voters) Obama 95%, McCain 4%

*Native American not broken out but would be part of this component.

Obama won the popular vote by a 7 percentage point margin. But the demographic pattern was as it always is in national elections. He won because he achieved an overwhelming margin among non Whites. I could do that math if you want but I think you can see that if a system had been in place so that less than a third of blacks and only a little over a third of Hispanics had been potentially eligible to vote it's very likely that, even in what was a high water year for the Democratic candidate, McCain would've won the popular vote (and probably the electoral vote as well).

I thought Asians were smarter than whites?

kalm wrote:I thought Asians were smarter than whites?

It would be much simpler just to go back to having a poll tax

So you weren't really convinced but now you are?


Bullsh8t.

OL FU wrote:

OK so I feel somewhat badly (which of course is a foreign emotion on this board ) JSO takes a lot of grief (and rightfully so). He is obviously intelligent, does a lot of research and many times comes to conclusions that might be against the norm but taken generally might just make sense.

For example, the Global warming thread where one side says that the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that man made global warming is going to be a disaster and JSO isn't convinced. While I think climate change is occurring and, at least a portion of it is attributable to man made causes, I am not convinced that it is the impending disaster that some make it out to be. First, I agree that there is a consensus among scientist that man's activity add to climate change, and contrary to the posts and shouts of many, I really haven't seen "meaningful" evidence that 98% of scientist believe it is going to cause impending doom. (and before you post the articles on the 98% agreement, there are just as many people who have looked into that percentage and say it is as meaningful as Warren Buffet's tax rate) Additionally, I will stay with JSO on the consensus science isn't settled science. There have been many times that consensus science has been absolutely incorrect from what formed Yosemite to whether you should drink milk. (obviously not nearly as important, but the point is the same).

On the other hand, while there may be valid reasons for some of the things JSO recommends, they are many times the conclusions are absolutely and totally impractical, impossible and beyond reality, I scratch my head.

For example, taxes should be levied on a per person basis. While I can see the argument, and disagree with it, that this is the ultimate in fairness, any one that can't see the absolutely impossibility of such a tax system working in the 21st century is well.....

and this, a test, no matter how well thought out, is arbitrary and more than likely easily manipulated for bias. I fully understand that some voters are more informed than others but even informed voters don't come to the same conclusion. Look at this board. But a system that denies a vote based on an arbitrary measurement, is much worse than a system that allows the most uninformed voter to participate.

So JSO this is somewhat of an apology and somewhat an explanation. But honestly there are times when I think that you and citdog were both born in 1825

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:I thought Asians were smarter than whites?

It would be much simpler just to go back to having a poll tax

Poll tax!? Now there is a real outrage! Expecting people to have to pay money to vote for one of these clowns or clownettes.

OL FU wrote:

OL FU wrote:

OK so I feel somewhat badly (which of course is a foreign emotion on this board ) JSO takes a lot of grief (and rightfully so). He is obviously intelligent, does a lot of research and many times comes to conclusions that might be against the norm but taken generally might just make sense.

For example, the Global warming thread where one side says that the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that man made global warming is going to be a disaster and JSO isn't convinced. While I think climate change is occurring and, at least a portion of it is attributable to man made causes, I am not convinced that it is the impending disaster that some make it out to be. First, I agree that there is a consensus among scientist that man's activity add to climate change, and contrary to the posts and shouts of many, I really haven't seen "meaningful" evidence that 98% of scientist believe it is going to cause impending doom. (and before you post the articles on the 98% agreement, there are just as many people who have looked into that percentage and say it is as meaningful as Warren Buffet's tax rate) Additionally, I will stay with JSO on the consensus science isn't settled science. There have been many times that consensus science has been absolutely incorrect from what formed Yosemite to whether you should drink milk. (obviously not nearly as important, but the point is the same).

On the other hand, while there may be valid reasons for some of the things JSO recommends, they are many times the conclusions are absolutely and totally impractical, impossible and beyond reality, I scratch my head.

For example, taxes should be levied on a per person basis. While I can see the argument, and disagree with it, that this is the ultimate in fairness, any one that can't see the absolutely impossibility of such a tax system working in the 21st century is well.....

and this, a test, no matter how well thought out, is arbitrary and more than likely easily manipulated for bias. I fully understand that some voters are more informed than others but even informed voters don't come to the same conclusion. Look at this board. But a system that denies a vote based on an arbitrary measurement, is much worse than a system that allows the most uninformed voter to participate.

So JSO this is somewhat of an apology and somewhat an explanation. But honestly there are times when I think that you and citdog were both born in 1825

Shut up, Meg.

Ibanez wrote:

OL FU wrote:

OK so I feel somewhat badly (which of course is a foreign emotion on this board ) JSO takes a lot of grief (and rightfully so). He is obviously intelligent, does a lot of research and many times comes to conclusions that might be against the norm but taken generally might just make sense.

For example, the Global warming thread where one side says that the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that man made global warming is going to be a disaster and JSO isn't convinced. While I think climate change is occurring and, at least a portion of it is attributable to man made causes, I am not convinced that it is the impending disaster that some make it out to be. First, I agree that there is a consensus among scientist that man's activity add to climate change, and contrary to the posts and shouts of many, I really haven't seen "meaningful" evidence that 98% of scientist believe it is going to cause impending doom. (and before you post the articles on the 98% agreement, there are just as many people who have looked into that percentage and say it is as meaningful as Warren Buffet's tax rate) Additionally, I will stay with JSO on the consensus science isn't settled science. There have been many times that consensus science has been absolutely incorrect from what formed Yosemite to whether you should drink milk. (obviously not nearly as important, but the point is the same).

On the other hand, while there may be valid reasons for some of the things JSO recommends, they are many times the conclusions are absolutely and totally impractical, impossible and beyond reality, I scratch my head.

For example, taxes should be levied on a per person basis. While I can see the argument, and disagree with it, that this is the ultimate in fairness, any one that can't see the absolutely impossibility of such a tax system working in the 21st century is well.....

and this, a test, no matter how well thought out, is arbitrary and more than likely easily manipulated for bias. I fully understand that some voters are more informed than others but even informed voters don't come to the same conclusion. Look at this board. But a system that denies a vote based on an arbitrary measurement, is much worse than a system that allows the most uninformed voter to participate.

So JSO this is somewhat of an apology and somewhat an explanation. But honestly there are times when I think that you and citdog were both born in 1825

Shut up, Meg.

Yeah I know

kalm wrote:I thought Asians were smarter than whites?

I have personally performed a study on this very subject.
You thought wrong.

kalm wrote:I thought Asians were smarter than whites?

I think NAEP test results are consistent with what I read years ago in books about IQ (Richard Hernstein's IQ and the Meritocracy and Hernstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. In those books the authors assessed that Whites and Asians have similar verbal IQs with Whites maybe even being slightly higher in that area but Asians tend to have higher non verbal IQs. Higher non verbal IQ is associated with higher math and quantitative science aptitude.

And if you look at the most recent NAEP 12th Grade scores in each subject area for which scores are available it looks to be pretty consistent with that belief. Here they are (averages) with subjects in which Asians scored higher in blue text:

Civics (2010): White 156, Asian 153
Economics (2012) White 160, Asian 160
Geography (2010) White 290, Asian 285
Mathematics (2013) White 162, Asian 174
Reading (2013) White 297, Asian 296
Science (2009) White 159, Asian 164
US History (2010) White 296, Asian 293
Vocabulary (2013) White 307, Asian 298
Writing (2011) White 159, Asian 158

To me it's another example of how there can be a lot of truth in what a lot of people derisively call "stereotypes." Also seeing stuff like that makes me more inclined to believe that Richard Hernstein was correct in a lot of what he said. It's just that what he said wasn't consistent with egalitarian dogma.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:I thought Asians were smarter than whites?

I think NAEP test results are consistent with what I read years ago in books about IQ (Richard Hernstein's IQ and the Meritocracy and Hernstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. In those books the authors assessed that Whites and Asians have similar verbal IQs with Whites maybe even being slightly higher in that area but Asians tend to have higher non verbal IQs. Higher non verbal IQ is associated with higher math and quantitative science aptitude.

And if you look at the most recent NAEP 12th Grade scores in each subject area for which scores are available it looks to be pretty consistent with that belief. Here they are (averages) with subjects in which Asians scored higher in blue text:

Civics (2010): White 156, Asian 153
Economics (2012) White 160, Asian 160
Geography (2010) White 290, Asian 285
Mathematics (2013) White 162, Asian 174
Reading (2013) White 297, Asian 296
Science (2009) White 159, Asian 164
US History (2010) White 296, Asian 293
Vocabulary (2013) White 307, Asian 298
Writing (2011) White 159, Asian 158

To me it's another example of how there can be a lot of truth in what a lot of people derisively call "stereotypes." Also seeing stuff like that makes me more inclined to believe that Richard Hernstein was correct in a lot of what he said. It's just that what he said wasn't consistent with egalitarian dogma.

So Asians are among the smartest if not smarter than whites and they still vote predominately Democratic.

Thank you.

Now look at NEAP scores by state.

Instead of allocating electoral votes and representation in Congress by population...... Let's weigh each state's electoral votes based on NEAP scores!! How about that?? I'm sure you'd be on board, right??

Are Southerns naturally and biologically dumber than northerners?

I'm sure you'll say that the South scores lower because they have more black people - but, maybe blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Now look at NEAP scores by state.

Instead of allocating electoral votes and representation in Congress by population...... Let's weigh each state's electoral votes based on NEAP scores!! How about that?? I'm sure you'd be on board, right??

Are Southerns naturally and biologically dumber than northerners?

I'm sure you'll say that the South scores lower because they have more black people - but, maybe blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?

SmellyJelly makes a damn good point.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Now look at NEAP scores by state.

Instead of allocating electoral votes and representation in Congress by population...... Let's weigh each state's electoral votes based on NEAP scores!! How about that?? I'm sure you'd be on board, right??

Are Southerns naturally and biologically dumber than northerners?

I'm sure you'll say that the South scores lower because they have more black people - but, maybe blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?

I've looked at NAEP test scores by State many times. You should know that if you are familiar with me because most of what I've written historically about NAEP test scores has to do with the idea that demographics matter more to what NAEP test scores than jurisdictions do. There is some variation based on State. However, if you go into any State and break things down by race Blacks score low.

I hate to get into the weeds too much but I'll say that there's a limit to how much you can break things down by State with the 12th grade scores. You can't do it at all with the Civics test but you can do it for some States with the math test.

I'll just pick Connecticut since that one if available for the NAEP 12th grade math test and is definitely not in the South. Here's what you get just looking at Connecticut:

Asian 177
White 168
Hispanic 141
Black 136

Now I'll pick Arkansas because that's also available and I think it qualifies as kind of a "deep south" State. Here's what you get looking at Arkansas:

White 156
Hispanic 143
Black 130

The reason I only posted four races for Connecticut and three for Arkansas is because those are the only groups in each State for which sample sizes were considered large enough to provide estimates. But I think you can see that if the question is "Do Blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?" the answer is "no."

As I've written in the past I think it's more a matter of the Southern scores being lower because of demographics than it is of some demographic groups scoring lower because they go to school in the South. To me when you break it down demographics (race, socioeconomic status, parental education level are the ones I've looked at most) clearly matter a whole lot more than State education systems do. I think the the majority of the variation in how different States score on average is accounted for by those demographic factors.

It's another one of those things our culture has a hard time dealing with due to the egalitarian dogma. I actually talked to a NAEP statistician about it once. Asked him if they'd considered putting out a ranking of States that was adjusted for demographics. He said they'd actually talked about it but it was considered too controversial. And it WOULD change things. For example: Texas might very well be more highly rated than Massachusetts if they did that. If not it would be very close. Louisiana would be in the middle of the pack intead of at the bottom. So on and so forth.

Sky caused me to think about adjusting for demographics so I did something to try to do that with the 13 States for which I can get reports with respect to the most recent NAEP math test. What I got made me feel really bad for West Virginia. Here it is:



First I'll say that the information on the Variances is consistent with my belief that the majority of variation in State to State test score averages is due to demographics. The Variance of the adjusted departures from national average is only 39% that of the raw score departures.

As a Southerner I was glad to see Florida and Arkansas move from 11th and 10th among the 13 States to 5th and 6th when scores were adjusted for demographics. And Tennessee, though not moving in the rankings, does look a little better (8.51 below national average to 5.13 below).

But I"m glad West Virginia didn't secede so I don't have to call it part of the South. It actually fell FARTHER below the national average when scores were adjusted for demographics. And I think I can see why. West Virginia is the WHITEST State among the 13 listed yet it is LAST in the raw scores. According to Census Bureau estimates West Virginia is 92.7% non-Hispanic White.

I've never seen anything like it. I had never looked at West Virginia before and to my recollection this is the FIRST time a State I looked at that was near the bottom of a list of standardized test score averages did not look somewhat better when I tried to account for the demographics of that State in order to be fair about it.

JohnStOnge wrote:Sky caused me to think about adjusting for demographics so I did something to try to do that with the 13 States for which I can get reports with respect to the most recent NAEP math test. What I got made me feel really bad for West Virginia. Here it is:



First I'll say that the information on the Variances is consistent with my belief that the majority of variation in State to State test score averages is due to demographics. The Variance of the adjusted departures from national average is only 39% that of the raw score departures.

As a Southerner I was glad to see Florida and Arkansas move from 11th and 10th among the 13 States to 5th and 6th when scores were adjusted for demographics. And Tennessee, though not moving in the rankings, does look a little better (8.51 below national average to 5.13 below).

But I"m glad West Virginia didn't secede so I don't have to call it part of the South. It actually fell FARTHER below the national average when scores were adjusted for demographics. And I think I can see why. West Virginia is the WHITEST State among the 13 listed yet it is LAST in the raw scores. According to Census Bureau estimates West Virginia is 92.7% non-Hispanic White.

I've never seen anything like it. I had never looked at West Virginia before and to my recollection this is the FIRST time a State I looked at that was near the bottom of a list of standardized test score averages did not look somewhat better when I tried to account for the demographics of that State in order to be fair about it.

If you don't call it part of the South, you definitely can't call it part of the North. WV didn't exist at the beginning of the War Between the States. As part of VA it did secede. The 50 counties that are now WV then seceded from VA and was created as a separate state in 1863. It remained slaveholding, I believe, even after the Emancipation proclamation. WV, like the 4 WBTS border states, is technically southern, as it sits below the Mason Dixon line (originally the MD/PA border & with the Missouri compromise extended to Ohio River). Culturally, its definitely more southern than northern.

Does anyone really doubt that if a basic civic literacy were required for voting it would be the democrats wailing about how it discriminates against minorities? Really, does anyone? All it would take is something like that for liberal bigotry of lowered expectations to bare itself. Deep down they know it would hurt them more if the ignorant vote was lost.

I believe it was on this very board where we discussed one district in Arizona that proposed removing political parties from the ballots and the ACLU sued and specifically said that it would discriminate against minorities.

So that means we should institutionalize discrimination against less intelligent people? Aren't they God's children, too?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Now look at NEAP scores by state.

Instead of allocating electoral votes and representation in Congress by population...... Let's weigh each state's electoral votes based on NEAP scores!! How about that?? I'm sure you'd be on board, right??

Are Southerns naturally and biologically dumber than northerners?

I'm sure you'll say that the South scores lower because they have more black people - but, maybe blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?

I've looked at NAEP test scores by State many times. You should know that if you are familiar with me because most of what I've written historically about NAEP test scores has to do with the idea that demographics matter more to what NAEP test scores than jurisdictions do. There is some variation based on State. However, if you go into any State and break things down by race Blacks score low.

I hate to get into the weeds too much but I'll say that there's a limit to how much you can break things down by State with the 12th grade scores. You can't do it at all with the Civics test but you can do it for some States with the math test.

I'll just pick Connecticut since that one if available for the NAEP 12th grade math test and is definitely not in the South. Here's what you get just looking at Connecticut:

Asian 177
White 168
Hispanic 141
Black 136

Now I'll pick Arkansas because that's also available and I think it qualifies as kind of a "deep south" State. Here's what you get looking at Arkansas:

White 156
Hispanic 143
Black 130

The reason I only posted four races for Connecticut and three for Arkansas is because those are the only groups in each State for which sample sizes were considered large enough to provide estimates. But I think you can see that if the question is "Do Blacks score lower because they are concentrated in the South?" the answer is "no."

As I've written in the past I think it's more a matter of the Southern scores being lower because of demographics than it is of some demographic groups scoring lower because they go to school in the South. To me when you break it down demographics (race, socioeconomic status, parental education level are the ones I've looked at most) clearly matter a whole lot more than State education systems do. I think the the majority of the variation in how different States score on average is accounted for by those demographic factors.

It's another one of those things our culture has a hard time dealing with due to the egalitarian dogma. I actually talked to a NAEP statistician about it once. Asked him if they'd considered putting out a ranking of States that was adjusted for demographics. He said they'd actually talked about it but it was considered too controversial. And it WOULD change things. For example: Texas might very well be more highly rated than Massachusetts if they did that. If not it would be very close. Louisiana would be in the middle of the pack intead of at the bottom. So on and so forth.

Right. But Asians are still smarter and vote mostly Democratic.

Right. But Asians are still smarter and vote mostly Democratic.

Not in Civics! Besides, it doesn't really matter to the point if Asians are smart and vote mostly Democrat. The point is that it's reasonable to believe that if there was a poll test Democrats would be hurt by it. Asians are a very small percentage of the electorate so the fact that they would probably do about as well as Whites do on a poll test has negligible impact.

Another thing: Asians may not be as solidly locked in as some other groups. For years I've wondered why the heck they vote Democrat. But I noticed the other day that the Asian split between Democrat and Republican in the last set of House elections was a "statistical tie." The exit poll estimates for the Asian vote in the 2014 House elections are 49% Democrat, 50% Republican. (http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/result ... exit-polls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Jesus, John, all this verbal flatulence about a problem that doesn't even exist except in your brain. You cling desperately to your racist explanations but the simple fact is that there just aren't that many people that think like you.

Right. But Asians are still smarter and vote mostly Democratic.

The group that really gets me is the Jews in the United States. Very high IQ distribution. They tend to do well economically so they've got big targets on their backs as far as the Democratic Party is concerned. They are disproportionately represented among "the rich" group that the Democratic Party likes to demonize. And in my opinion the Democratic Party has made it clear that it is hostile to Jews. Also I'm pretty confident that if you were to ask most people running things in the Jewish State which major party they would rather see in power in the United States they're would say "the Republicans." Yet American Jews consistently vote majority Democrat; usually by somewhere around a 2 to 1 margin.

Not that big a factor in the elections because they're only about 3% of voters. But to me one of the political picture's greatest mysteries. Jews in the United States consistently voting majority Democrat makes absolutely no sense. It's like a death wish or something.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Right. But Asians are still smarter and vote mostly Democratic.

The group that really gets me is the Jews in the United States. Very high IQ distribution. They tend to do well economically so they've got big targets on their backs as far as the Democratic Party is concerned. They are disproportionately represented among "the rich" group that the Democratic Party likes to demonize. And in my opinion the Democratic Party has made it clear that it is hostile to Jews. Also I'm pretty confident that if you were to ask most people running things in the Jewish State which major party they would rather see in power in the United States they're would say "the Republicans." Yet American Jews consistently vote majority Democrat; usually by somewhere around a 2 to 1 margin.

Not that big a factor in the elections because they're only about 3% of voters. But to me one of the political picture's greatest mysteries. Jews in the United States consistently voting majority Democrat makes absolutely no sense. It's like a death wish or something.

You can probably make the same point regarding gays.

Hmmm...you might want to reconsider your entire thesis.