New Study: Liberals Tend to Have Higher IQ

[D1B]

Well that says a lot about who you know.

Yeah it does. Guys just like you, clitorus, Griztakesitalltheway, ky jelly, Douche1Bag...you know...blowhards.

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

[Chizzang]

wow... a lot of emotion
It says in the article that it's not Politically oriented, it's simply: Liberally minded vs. Conservatively minded... and you don't have to be a rocket scientists to see this in daily life either - liberally minded people or open minded people tend to continue the learning process throughout their lives...Conservatively minded people in their default state tend to believe they "know everything" already and do not tend to "gather more information" as they move through life...

It's an openly observable trend for all to see in our day-to-day lives
I can't understand why this is "news" or "confusing" to anybody

Again:
This is also old news - many (many) IQ studies have come to this conclusion over a period of decades

Relax people - nobody cares if you're stupid here on this forum

[Wedgebuster]

wow... a lot of emotion
It says in the article that it's not Politically oriented, it's simply: Liberally minded vs. Conservatively minded... and you don't have to be a rocket scientists to see this in daily life either - liberally minded people or open minded people tend to continue the learning process throughout their lives...Conservatively minded people in their default state tend to believe they "know everything" already and do not tend to "gather more information" as they move through life...

It's an openly observable trend for all to see in our day-to-day lives
I can't understand why this is "news" or "confusing" to anybody

Again:
This is also old news - many (many) IQ studies have come to this conclusion over a period of decades

Relax people - nobody cares if you're stupid here on this forum

NUH UHHHHH!

[houndawg]

Yeah it does. Guys just like you, clitorus, Griztakesitalltheway, ky jelly, Douche1Bag...you know...blowhards.

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

He left most of them off because of time constraints.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah it does. Guys just like you, clitorus, Griztakesitalltheway, ky jelly, Douche1Bag...you know...blowhards.

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

Funny, coming from the guy who so regularly got his ass handed to him he LEFT the board.

[houndawg]

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

Funny, coming from the guy who so regularly got his ass handed to him he LEFT the board.

Whachoo talkin bout, fool? I can't ALWAYS be here to help you through life.

[JohnStOnge]

A difference of 6-11 points is really small. I'd put it in the d=.2 range...not very big at all. The difference between someone with an IQ of 130 and 124 is like the difference between a 4.0 student and a 3.98 student.

I think a difference in average IQ of 6 to 11 points represents a fairly large difference between two populations; at least in terms of ranking IQs. From what I've seen the standard deviation of an IQ test is about 15. You'd have to look at the actual distributions but I think it's reasonable to be "assumptive" in this case as a starting point and say each population also has standard deviation of 15.

So lets take averages of 97 for A and 103 for B. About 2/3 (66%) of those in B have higher IQs than the average for A. The discrepancy rises as you go up the IQ scale. Let's look at percentages of each population that are outside of the normal (+/- one standard deviation) range overall on IQ. The overall average IQ is 100 by definition so that means IQs of 115 and above. About 21% of population B is above the "average" range as compared to only about 12% of population A. Another way to look at that is that B members are about 1.4 times as likely as A members to be above the point average IQ of 100, about 1.8 times as llkely to be at or above the 115 mark, and about 3.3 times as likely to be in the "genius" range of 140 or above.

Do the same kind of thing with 95 (A) and 106 (B) and you'd estimate that B members are 1.8 times as likely as A members to be above the point average of 100, about 3 times as likely to be at or above 115, and about 8.7 times as likely to be in the "genius" range of 140 or above.

Of course I'm being "assumptive" in assuming a standard deviation of 15 throughout but from what I can tell from reading about IQ tests over the years I think that's going to be reasonably close. Close enough so that if you had the specifics you'd get the same basic picture. A difference of 6 or 11 IQ points between population means might not seem like much but as you move up the IQ scale the population with the higher mean score becomes more and more disproportionately represented.

[JohnStOnge]

I think it is a mistake to take any study like this one and assume it is correct before you see the details. For one thing, in this case, you'd have to find out if an IQ test was actually administered of if IQ was estimated in some way (I've sent an e mail to the people who did the survey asking about that so hopefully I'll know). I went to the site and would have some questions about religion too. I think it's possible that the study authors considered people who answered "none" to the religion question as atheists. The way the question is set up "religion" would be kind of defined as a specific denomination (Catholic, Adventists, etc.). If I'm reading right it looks like very few specifically said they were atheist so it may have been necessary to include "none" and "agnostic" in the "atheist" group. Don't know but I'd check that.

The reference to how they decided if someone was conservative or liberal is kind of confusing. At first the article appears to say that the investigator defined Liberal and Conservative in terms of level of concern for non related people and support for private resources that help those people. The article specifically says that views on things such as abortion, gun control, and gay rights were not considered. If that's the case I don't know if I agree with their means of categorizing people as conservative or liberal. My bet would be that those who call themselves "conservative," on average, contribute more to charities than those who call themselves liberal do. Also, I think that liberals are more likely to look at helping the unfortunate as the responsibility of government whereas conservatives are more likely to say that private resources...private charities...should be emphasized.

But then the article referred to a specific question on the survey where respondents categorized themselves on some continuim of political orientation (very conservative, very liberal specifically mentioned). Or at least it appeared to. So you'd have to find out more about that. Did they, overall, define Liberal and Conservative in the terms first stated or did they do it on the basis of some question posed during the survey?

Really, though, I've made somewhat of a hobby of looking at studies on "hot" issues that make the news and in my opinion it's not at all uncommon to find that the studies don't really support what the authors say. I know it's a bad situation. I know it'd be nice to be able to assume that the conclusions of a study are correct if it gets published after "peer review." But I really don't think one can make that assumption. If the question of whether or not the conclusions are correct are important to you, you need to see the details and make your own decision as best you can with respect to how well those conclusions are supported.

At least that's what I think.

[D1B]

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

Funny, coming from the guy who so regularly got his ass handed to him he LEFT the board.

Oh, OK Mr. Palin.

[93henfan]

JSO hits a home run every once in a blue moon (see above). He's the Joe Blanton of the poli board.

[D1B]

Funny, coming from the guy who so regularly got his ass handed to him he LEFT the board.

Whachoo talkin bout, fool? I can't ALWAYS be here to help you through life.

Z

He's that dumb fucking moth that just can't stay away from the mesmerizing blue light....

[houndawg]

I think it is a mistake to take any study like this one and assume it is correct before you see the details. For one thing, in this case, you'd have to find out if an IQ test was actually administered of if IQ was estimated in some way (I've sent an e mail to the people who did the survey asking about that so hopefully I'll know). I went to the site and would have some questions about religion too. I think it's possible that the study authors considered people who answered "none" to the religion question as atheists. The way the question is set up "religion" would be kind of defined as a specific denomination (Catholic, Adventists, etc.). If I'm reading right it looks like very few specifically said they were atheist so it may have been necessary to include "none" and "agnostic" in the "atheist" group. Don't know but I'd check that.

The reference to how they decided if someone was conservative or liberal is kind of confusing. At first the article appears to say that the investigator defined Liberal and Conservative in terms of level of concern for non related people and support for private resources that help those people. The article specifically says that views on things such as abortion, gun control, and gay rights were not considered. If that's the case I don't know if I agree with their means of categorizing people as conservative or liberal. My bet would be that those who call themselves "conservative," on average, contribute more to charities than those who call themselves liberal do. Also, I think that liberals are more likely to look at helping the unfortunate as the responsibility of government whereas conservatives are more likely to say that private resources...private charities...should be emphasized.

But then the article referred to a specific question on the survey where respondents categorized themselves on some continuim of political orientation (very conservative, very liberal specifically mentioned). Or at least it appeared to. So you'd have to find out more about that. Did they, overall, define Liberal and Conservative in the terms first stated or did they do it on the basis of some question posed during the survey?

Really, though, I've made somewhat of a hobby of looking at studies on "hot" issues that make the news and in my opinion it's not at all uncommon to find that the studies don't really support what the authors say. I know it's a bad situation. I know it'd be nice to be able to assume that the conclusions of a study are correct if it gets published after "peer review." But I really don't think one can make that assumption. If the question of whether or not the conclusions are correct are important to you, you need to see the details and make your own decision as best you can with respect to how well those conclusions are supported.

At least that's what I think.

You need a girlfriend, John.

[D1B]

I think it is a mistake to take any study like this one and assume it is correct before you see the details. For one thing, in this case, you'd have to find out if an IQ test was actually administered of if IQ was estimated in some way (I've sent an e mail to the people who did the survey asking about that so hopefully I'll know). I went to the site and would have some questions about religion too. I think it's possible that the study authors considered people who answered "none" to the religion question as atheists. The way the question is set up "religion" would be kind of defined as a specific denomination (Catholic, Adventists, etc.). If I'm reading right it looks like very few specifically said they were atheist so it may have been necessary to include "none" and "agnostic" in the "atheist" group. Don't know but I'd check that.

The reference to how they decided if someone was conservative or liberal is kind of confusing. At first the article appears to say that the investigator defined Liberal and Conservative in terms of level of concern for non related people and support for private resources that help those people. The article specifically says that views on things such as abortion, gun control, and gay rights were not considered. If that's the case I don't know if I agree with their means of categorizing people as conservative or liberal. My bet would be that those who call themselves "conservative," on average, contribute more to charities than those who call themselves liberal do. Also, I think that liberals are more likely to look at helping the unfortunate as the responsibility of government whereas conservatives are more likely to say that private resources...private charities...should be emphasized.

But then the article referred to a specific question on the survey where respondents categorized themselves on some continuim of political orientation (very conservative, very liberal specifically mentioned). Or at least it appeared to. So you'd have to find out more about that. Did they, overall, define Liberal and Conservative in the terms first stated or did they do it on the basis of some question posed during the survey?

Really, though, I've made somewhat of a hobby of looking at studies on "hot" issues that make the news and in my opinion it's not at all uncommon to find that the studies don't really support what the authors say. I know it's a bad situation. I know it'd be nice to be able to assume that the conclusions of a study are correct if it gets published after "peer review." But I really don't think one can make that assumption. If the question of whether or not the conclusions are correct are important to you, you need to see the details and make your own decision as best you can with respect to how well those conclusions are supported.

At least that's what I think.

You need a girlfriend, John.

Or a boyfriend. The dude is a vicious, conk homophobe, which means he is without a doubt - homosexual.

[native]

Yeah it does. Guys just like you, clitorus, Griztakesitalltheway, ky jelly, Douche1Bag...you know...blowhards.

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

None of you fools have taken AZG to the woodshed. Your posts are like a mommy's hysterical spankings with a flyswatter that miss the mark, don't hurt, and shouldn't have been done in the first place.

AZG is more like the pappa bear that rarely spanks, but when he does so it is for good reason and he seldom misses the mark.

[JohnStOnge]

You need a girlfriend, John.

I have a wife. A good one too.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I don't think they have a total IQ score to look at. It looks like what they have is something they call the "Add Health Picture Vocabulary Test (AHPVT)," which the Add Health group describes as "... a computerized, abridged version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test."

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test is something I'm familiar with because my son is deaf and had to take it all the time. I think it can be considered to be highly correlated with scores on the verbal portion of the IQ test. But overall IQ includes both verball and non verbal portions.

The other problem, if this is what's being used to make IQ determinations, is that the AHPVT is not the Peabody test. It's a "computerized, abridged version" of it. It could be that some work has been done to show that the AHPVT is correlated with tests of verbal IQ as the Peabody test is (http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com ... d=PAa12010). But you'd have to look into that.

Right now I'm going on having gone to the "Ad Health" site (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth), gone to the "Study Design" link, clicked on each of the waves (I - IV), then done a "Find" on "test." The only psychometric test I found through that process is the AHPVT. If I get a response to my e mail to Add Health I'll let you know.

[D1B]

Funny you list all people who regularly take your stupid ass to the woodshed.

None of you fools have taken AZG to the woodshed. Your posts are like a mommy's hysterical spankings with a flyswatter that miss the mark, don't hurt, and shouldn't have been done in the first place.

AZG is more like the pappa bear that rarely spanks, but when he des so it is for good reason and he seldom misses the mark.

Been taking that idiot to woodshed for years. How long has your racist ass been around?

That fucker thought he was King Konk for a while. It took Cap'n and I a month or so and he went from racist homophobe pro-lifer to the fiscal conservative/social liberal he claims to be today.

[D1B]

BTW, I don't think they have a total IQ score to look at. It looks like what they have is something they call the "Add Health Picture Vocabulary Test (AHPVT)," which the Add Health group describes as "... a computerized, abridged version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test."

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test is something I'm familiar with because my son is deaf and had to take it all the time. I think it can be considered to be highly correlated with scores on the verbal portion of the IQ test. But overall IQ includes both verball and non verbal portions.

The other problem, if this is what's being used to make IQ determinations, is that the AHPVT is not the Peabody test. It's a "computerized, abridged version" of it. It could be that some work has been done to show that the AHPVT is correlated with tests of verbal IQ as the Peabody test is (http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com ... d=PAa12010). But you'd have to look into that.

Right now I'm going on having gone to the "Ad Health" site (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth), gone to the "Study Design" link, clicked on each of the waves (I - IV), then done a "Find" on "test." The only psychometric test I found through that process is the AHPVT. If I get a response to my e mail to Add Health I'll let you know.

Get a life, gay man.

[JohnStOnge]

Or a boyfriend. The dude is a vicious, conk homophobe, which means he is without a doubt - homosexual.

I'm very confident that I am heterosexual, D. One reason is my dreams. When I have erotic dreams, they are always about females. Been that way for 40+ years. I figure that if I had any internal homosexual tendencies they'd show up in dreams...over which no one has any control. I've never had a single homosexual dream. Always involves females.

[bobbythekidd]

Or a boyfriend. The dude is a vicious, conk homophobe, which means he is without a doubt - homosexual.

I'm very confident that I am heterosexual, D. One reason is my dreams. When I have erotic dreams, they are always about females. Been that way for 40+ years. I figure that if I had any internal homosexual tendencies they'd show up in dreams...over which no one has any control. I've never had a single homosexual dream. Always involves females.

What would it mean if a straight guy has erotic dreams about being with a lesbian female?

[JohnStOnge]

Get a life, gay man.

LOL. D, after all these years, have you not yet realized that that kind of stuff doesn't get to me at all?

[JohnStOnge]

What would it mean if a straight guy has erotic dreams about being with a lesbian female?

It'd mean he likes the idea of having sex sith lesbian females. And yes, I am turned on by visuals of women kissing on each other, etc. But I am most decidely not turned on my anything having to do with males.

Kind of an interesting dicotomy, I think. I don't think there are too many women who are turned on contemplating two guys messing with each other. But there are plenty of guys turned on by contemplating women doing it. Don't know why that is.

Boy, do message board threads ever go off in unanticipated directions.

[RobsPics]

None of you fools have taken AZG to the woodshed. Your posts are like a mommy's hysterical spankings with a flyswatter that miss the mark, don't hurt, and shouldn't have been done in the first place.

AZG is more like the pappa bear that rarely spanks, but when he des so it is for good reason and he seldom misses the mark.

*** GROUPIE ALERT ***

[JohnStOnge]

One more thing I should have said: If it turns out that they're basing their IQ determination strictly on the AHPVT and therefor only addressing verbal ability, that's important. The reason is that the non verbal portion of IQ is the part that has to do with analytical capability.

[D1B]

What would it mean if a straight guy has erotic dreams about being with a lesbian female?

It'd mean he likes the idea of having sex sith lesbian females. And yes, I am turned on by visuals of women kissing on each other, etc. But I am most decidely not turned on my anything having to do with males.

Kind of an interesting dicotomy, I think. I don't think there are too many women who are turned on contemplating two guys messing with each other. But there are plenty of guys turned on by contemplating women doing it. Don't know why that is.

Boy, do message board threads ever go off in unanticipated directions.

Come on John... No one is gonna give you any grief for being gay. This place is pretty tolerant.