[mikemike]

Massachusetts isn't, actually, and I'm pretty sure New Hampshire's close to the national average these days

Nationally, the percentage minority (all minorities) is 36%
MA - 24%
NH - 7%

GA - 44%
LA - 40%

The only state that has a greater than 103 average IQ and a greater than average minority population is NJ (40% minority).

So far as the census is concerned, you are a white-hispanic or a non-white.

Not just on IQ scores, but on a *great number of things.* Many of them about *social* intelligence, *emotional* intelligence, *interpersonal* intelligence, and thus of course *policy.*

The "emotional intelligence quotient" (EQ) is a much better indicator of success in business, that measures your interpersonal skills and ability to empathize. IQ's utility is usually limited to indicating probability of success in traditional academic environments and be "book smart."

Of course there are lots of other ways to be successful and contribute to society beyond what is taught in school. I can't tell you how many times HS drop outs I know who are overflowing with charisma, musical knowledge, or culinary skills. There are lots of well rounded people who manage to beat their own path through life instead of following the old familiar roads which do not suit them.

[newarts]

Looking at color distribution on the chart I think which side of the mason-dixon line one's on is a good predictor of redness or greenness.

[Ratmagiclady]

Fair 'nuff, Mike, (All I really know of NH is like Nashua and similar, ) and all this as of ....Actually, what's the dates on these figures, respectively? (And which minorities in 'all minorities, btw? We're comparing across two studies, there.)

And if *this* state is 44% the gerrymandering's worse than I thought.


Not to mention segregation, as I went into above. People are *here,* but even this place is split up between two massive rural districts to make sure the same conservative Fundies get all the population of this supposed 'liberal mecca of the South.'


You know the schools are that way, too.

It's *weird* but we're kinda 'the white chicks on the block,' apart from one of the neighbors and I think *they're* mostly from out of town.

And again, the 'minorities bringing the IQ count down' only really *has* that statistical weight* when the schools *are* treated in certain ways.

Also, if you look close, just doesn't account for the *average* being that divergent, never mind all the other things charted here. That's not median, that's average.

Made a couple big posts back there about the depth of it.


Admittedly, I'm pretty used to living where the 'whitebread' factor isn't so high, locally. Gods know my stepdaughter's elementary school back in the old town was no bargain, (Infuriating, that, they were *teaching* wrong-ways to read on presumptions of short attention spans or low intelligence: comes down to class and attitude, not race. My nephew's no whiter than my stepdaughter, only difference was about seven miles. (And, I suspect, the teachers he could get weren't disguised 'missionaries' with some messed up 'whole language' technique of trying to teach kids English, may Ogma's croabha slapstick some sense into the fools, long since. Seriously, though, they were teaching kids to read *wrong,* ie, guess. )


Anyway. Against total population, even if you factor in 'minorities' ...Do you see anything there that says conservative policies *work* like they say?

Wanna try to draw a line between that and the *rest* of the statistics that correlate with 'identify as conservative' and 'religiosity?'


Perhaps we should break it down to smaller areas and see how certain policies and attitudes make people 'smarter?'

Tell you what I do know, the quotient of people who're smart enough to start with but dumb down just from my observations, seems to correlate just *fine* with these figures, for reasons I've made a bit of a personal study of.


Incuriosity. That's the thing.

The states that do well, whatever the economic circumstances, generally ain't trying to blame something else for what they're doing, that's where *I* see it.

Gods know how many people 'defending traditional marriage' oughtta be looking at their *own,* but they *do* have heaving-huge divorce rates and try to blame someone else.


Who don't.


Warning, indelicate language.


What have we 'learned in school,' O Righteous guys?

Hit it boys.

You Tube

You Tube

Oh, btw:

The "emotional intelligence quotient" (EQ) is a much better indicator of success in business, that measures your interpersonal skills and ability to empathize. IQ's utility is usually limited to indicating probability of success in traditional academic environments and be "book smart."

'Emotional intelligence' tests are pretty much in their infancy, and though I've never taken one, in the abstract, I'm sure no one would score higher on one, at least for business purposes, than a sociopath. Actual empathy, they tend to try and beat out of people and *then* pick from those who still feel OK about compartmentalizing that (Instead of just going round the bend, as it happens) till it's just, as Yeats said 'Blind men battering other blind men.' But to them, it's just a *tool,* or an 'advantage,' ...a means manipulation, rather than, well, a big part of our common being.


Personally, I chose to hurt rather than make that my life. (Less would be OK: there really are other things to do, and best of all they don't *require* that. Does make me a shitty capitalist, but you wouldn't want to try lying to me, either. ) I do know that that's *exactly* what some were trying to pound out of me, be they waving crosses or bankbooks or both or paperbacks of the freakin 'Fountainhead.'


All to turn *this* into something cold and dry and unliving, whatever the daring or 'eternal carrot and stick about it,' ....to make this *all* a machine, whether you want the machine or want to destroy the machine:


It's not.

We're people.


One thing about some of what I went through as a kid was being told under various 'enhanced interrogations' in the name of people no longer considered so upstanding, 'For someone so smart, you're really stupid.'

Yeah.

And I'd do it again, just better.


Meanwhile, of course, us arguing ain't changing the scape of where we do it in any way for the better, so, maybe some shouldn't be looking for reasons how the figures mean the opposite of what they show.

IQ tests are no more and no less. They test this thing called 'IQ.'


What's so hard there? Is it the climate or someone's skin or is someone not treating somebody right and wanting to do it twice as hard?

More to the point, in fact, if everyone concedes an argument to freaking Saxby Chambliss, are *you* John, going to *be* smarter, or just *feel* smarter until yet again you need to blame someone for their own .sig?

[Parallax]

my IQ score implies I'm far better at calculations than I am, cause I can *see through* tests a lot, not enough that I could utterly fake it if I didn't know the math at *all,* but enough to catch errors as I go, and not incidentally save a lot of time.

Good point. My test scores suggest that I am a wiz at electronics. Wrong!
There are two ways to score well on tests; be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, or be somewhat familiar with the subject and be very good at taking tests.
With some subjects, particularly ones that I am not especially interested in, I have always been better at taking tests than I am at actually learning the material.

(Fortunately, I've always had a knack for understanding politics. )

[mikemike]

Actually, what's the dates on these figures, respectively?

My numbers come from 2010 census data, it looks like the charts are coming from data circa 2008 so the differences should be inconsequential.

Outside a few cities like Detroit, Chicago, and NYC there is very little diversity in the north east and midwest. Even in those cities, minority populations are segregated much more than they are in southern cities like New Orleans, Atlanta, or Miami.

[Ratmagiclady]

Good point. My test scores suggest that I am a wiz at electronics. Wrong!
There are two ways to score well on tests; be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, or be somewhat familiar with the subject and be very good at taking tests.
With some subjects, particularly ones that I am not especially interested in, I have always been better at taking tests than I am at actually learning the material.

Well, the IQ test in particular, (It's intended to be an 'intelligence quotient' ) is *intended* to measure how good you are at learning and figuring out things. That was the definition of 'intelligence' at the time, actually.

Last time I took a real one, I was working my way through half a bottle of Jameson's. Needless to say, I neither remember most of the material apart from a really tempting trig problem (I never actually took trig) nor can explain taking that test in the *first* place when I had a perfectly good bottle of Jameson's right there, but you'd think the resulting IQ score could count for *something* in this world.

(Fortunately, I've always had a knack for understanding politics. )

You have a knack for *running interference* in politics cause you've done well at playing by rules increasingly-stacked against you and don't want this to be the case, Jim. I think in some ways, you've always known which side your bread was buttered on and are now perhaps coming near a conclusion that that side's not so-tasty looking even with the three-second rule.

Actually, you *don't* have a knack for politics. I'd work in your shop any day, Jim, (Well, at least if it weren't in South Dakota.) but what you *believe* the politics outside that shop are, just isn't what you think, were taught, or had been saying. And I suspect you're seeing that.

You have a knack for the bit of a slice of life that some politicians *say* applies everywhere. What you don't have a knack for is all the tells they show even on TV. (Especially when they proceed from zero-sum principles. Zero-sum. Learn it, thank it, spank it, expel it, bring 'synergy.' Synergy. We're smarter than you think, all of us.)

*Politics* is 'the art of the possible.' not 'The definition of a righteous balance sheet.'

I may be no politician, but I *can* sing something out of pretty thin 'possibles. '


And, let me tell you, as someone usually considered a little kooky at best about the dream we all live in, Jim, it's a good day for synergy. First hopeful dreaming *I've* heard round *this* place in a long time. Catbirds and doves would seem to agree.

Anyone wants an intelligence test, Survey says it's a *great* time for people, not arguments, to come together.

Wanna be smart? Look next to you.

Hoka hey. Ha.

[Parallax]

but what you *believe* the politics outside that shop are, just isn't what you think, were taught, or had been saying. And I suspect you're seeing that.

Well, RML, that's twice today you've been right. I live in a completely different sociopolitical environment than you. We here are insulated fairly well from the real world.
I will admit that my political views have changed somewhat over the last couple of years. I am not as far right of center as I once was, and this forum is largely responsible for that. (either that, or some form of dementia is setting in.)
For the record, you'd be welcome in my shop any day.

[Ratmagiclady]

My numbers come from 2010 census data, it looks like the charts are coming from data circa 2008 so the differences should be inconsequential.

Outside a few cities like Detroit, Chicago, and NYC there is very little diversity in the north east and midwest. Even in those cities, minority populations are segregated much more than they are in southern cities like New Orleans, Atlanta, or Miami.

Heh, not by neighborhood or school district, I'll tell you that. In fact, I *did* tell you that.



I may not be a 'racial' minority, (if that's actually all one set of figures meant) but I'm a minority on enough counts to see certain things. Claiming it's *not* segregated down here is *ridiculous.* Keeps catching me off guard, but there's a *big* wall around here. Most of my black friends *are* from the Northeast, and most of my neighbors are *really* conscious of the race thing, and I see how they interact with the local whites, and I *sure* don't see too many (from around here) at the pub.


Keeps catching me by surprise, but it *is* two different worlds overlapping where I live. I'm a very big fan of courtesy, but the problem with that is not everyone knows you *actually* like em till they have to push past the pleasantries for whatever reason and *meet* you. (Southerners (and Midwesterners) find New Englanders 'cold and uncongenial,' but you bloody well know where you stand, with someone, and they don't have to put on false casual to do it. )


One thing I *do* love about the South is the *courtesy.* Much really does follow from that, but when it doesn't quite meet the eyes, then you're guessing.

Clear enough, though, it's wicked divided down here. As shown recently, with stress applied. Got pretty clear the 'us' and 'thems' in some ways, white dudes talking about their guns, non-white folks kinda being, 'We still OK?' and me only noticing when they're *relieved* about me being like, 'Eh, they're running around with MP-5s, can't blame em, just hope everyone stays cool.'

It's not Brigadoon back home, that way, but some things really stand out here.

Laughable to call it 'integrated.' Give it a generation, though and lay off the 'culture war.' Courtesy does do wonders. But it takes time. 'Fake it till you make it,' eh?

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, RML, that's twice today you've been right. I live in a completely different sociopolitical environment than you. We here are insulated fairly well from the real world.
I will admit that my political views have changed somewhat over the last couple of years. I am not as far right of center as I once was, and this forum is largely responsible for that. (either that, or some form of dementia is setting in.)
For the record, you'd be welcome in my shop any day.

That's why I argue *here* rather than political forums. Here we are different people brought together only by a common lens mount. A better cross-section than you might find elsewhere.

There's a health to that, in this 'age of opinion.'

[cardinal43]

(Fortunately, I've always had a knack for understanding politics. )

Obviously not, as you are a "righty".

[Parallax]

Thanks, Tom. I threw bait to school of piranhas and was starting to think none of them were going to bite!

[deadwolfbones]

Everyone knows liberals are guppies, Jim.

[JohnInIndy]

Everyone knows liberals are guppies, Jim.

Guppies. Fish that require you to feed them and do nothing more than exist to reproduce. Used to cycle a tank and if they don't survive it's no big loss. So is that really a good comparison? The only fish worth less would be a goldfish.

[jeffkrol]

NOW there's a Christian response.......

[JohnInIndy]

NOW there's a Christian response.......

What would bring religion into this? I described a fish and asked if it were really a good comparison to a liberal. I didn't say a liberal was a guppy. I asked if it was a good comparison. By that I therefore did not in any way insult the guppy.