Correlation?

[jimdmcevoy]

This is an interesting statistical situation. I think I might cross post it in the probability forum as I am not sure if this has more to do with politics or mathematics.

So, let's suppose we find the average IQ of each American state. Now lets assign a number to each state, 1 for highest IQ, 2 for second highest, 3 for third highest, and so on.

Now, suppose that the number of states that Kerry won is x. Let's define K the total number of 'points', where you sum all the points from each state he won. So If Kerry only won two states, and say these states ranked 23th and 45th in terms of average IQ, then K would equal 68.

If there was no correlation between average IQ and which presidential candidate won the state, then the probability distribution for K would be:

P(K<x*(x+1)/2) = 0
P(K=x*(x+1)/2) = 1/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+1) = 1/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+2) = 2/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+3) = 3/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+4) = 4/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+5) = 6/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+6) = 7/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+7) = 10/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+8) = 11/(50 choose x)
P(K=x*(x+1)/2+9) = 16/(50 choose x)

and so on

Now according to this source http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ion-IQ2004.htm

x=19

Therefore:

P(K<190) = 0
P(K=190) = 1/(50 choose 19)
P(K=191) = 1/(50 choose 19)
P(K=192) = 2/(50 choose 19)
P(K=193) = 3/(50 choose 19)
P(K=194) = 4/(50 choose 19)
P(K=195) = 6/(50 choose 19)
P(K=196) = 7/(50 choose 19)
P(K=197) = 10/(50 choose 19)
P(K=198) = 11/(50 choose 19)
P(K=199) = 16/(50 choose 19)

and so on

Which therefore makes the probability that K<200 :

P(K<200) = 61/30405943383200
= .000000000002006...

But according to this source, K=199

Now one of three things must be true:

1. It is a miraculous fluke that it has happened this way
2. My assumption that there is no correlation is incorrect
3. The data from my source is incorrect

I'm going with number 2. Even if number 3 is the case, the data would have to be totally way off before number 2 does not have to be the case anymore.

So here is my open question, why the correlation?

For those interested in how I found out the probability distribution, I will show if you want, I find it interesting. It brings rise to the series (1 1 2 3 4 6 7 10 11 16 17 23 24 33 34 44 45 60 61 77 78 .... )

Here is the data I used.





AVERAGE
POP PRESIDENT
LIST STATE IQ ELECT

1 Connecticut 113 John Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 John Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 John Kerry
4 New York 109 John Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 John Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 John Kerry
7 Maryland 105 John Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 John Kerry
9 Illinois 104 John Kerry
10 Delaware 103 John Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 John Kerry
12 Vermont 102 John Kerry
13 Washington 102 John Kerry
14 California 101 John Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 John Kerry
16 Maine 100 John Kerry
17 Virginia 100 George Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 John Kerry
19 Colorado 99 George Bush
20 Iowa 99 George Bush
21 Michigan 99 John Kerry
22 Nevada 99 George Bush
23 Ohio 99 George Bush
24 Oregon 99 John Kerry
25 Alaska 98 George Bush
26 Florida 98 George Bush
27 Missouri 98 George Bush
28 Kansas 96 George Bush
29 Nebraska 95 George Bush
30 Arizona 94 George Bush
31 Indiana 94 George Bush
32 Tennessee 94 George Bush
33 North Carolina 93 George Bush
34 West Virginia 93 George Bush
35 Arkansas 92 George Bush
36 Georgia 92 George Bush
37 Kentucky 92 George Bush
38 New Mexico 92 George Bush
39 North Dakota 92 George Bush
40 Texas 92 George Bush
41 Alabama 90 George Bush
42 Louisiana 90 George Bush
43 Montana 90 George Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 George Bush
45 South Dakota 90 George Bush
46 South Carolina 89 George Bush
47 Wyoming 89 George Bush
48 Idaho 87 George Bush
49 Utah 87 George Bush
50 Mississippi 85 George Bush

IO numbers are from IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, although not in the current edition. Tests and data by Raven's APT, and The Test Agency, one of the UK's leading publishers and distributors of psychometric tests. Data was published in The Economist and the St Petersburg Times, though this does not mean it should be taken as fact.

[Regulator]

Well, that's certainly the fanciest way I've seen anyone say that Republicans are dumb. Did you guys ever stop to think that being condescending dicks is what lead to overwhelming defeats in the last 3 elections?

[lastchance]

Ehh.... I've seen a lot worse on these forums alone. If you take a look at the statistics, it's somewhat interesting.

[Regulator]

Yes, but IQ tests themselves are quite anomalous and unreliable. I've scored anywhere from 125 to 154 on like 5 tests. Furthermore, where is this data coming from? Last time I checked, IQ testing wasn't part of the standard exit poll. No standards, totals or conditions are listed after it tells the agency that collected this data.

I'm not objecting to the bias, because that much is obvious. I just find it a little pathetic that liberals continue to insist that they are smarter, and have gone to this depth to attempt proving it.

[wacki]

I wonder if its these people that drive down the IQ averages.

[wacki]

Sorry if that was off topic, I've just seen too many posts telling me that everyone I grew up with is dumb. I just had to add some humor.

Seriously though, alot of the blue states elected republicans to office for governor, senate and congress positions. Indiana, until a few weeks ago has had (D) governer, and US Senators Evan Bayh is also democrat. Just because one state voted for Bush doesn't mean that state is really red. The same goes with the Kerry states.

Then again your stats are based off of presidential only....

Is there any links to the methodology behind gathering the states average IQ's?

[Taxman]

I assume by "Regulator," you mean you make sure that as many people as possible hear your conservative viewpoint. I think enough studies have shown that liberal people are likely to be more educated that conservative people. Personally I have a major problem with IQ tests (and any sort of standardized test), which obviously are biased towards people raised in a certain environment. Nevertheless, as an easy example, college campuses are overwhelmingly liberal, brainwashing or no (this is not a recent phenomenon either). Thus it seems to reason that more educated people tend to be more liberal. This is independent from any IQ test results.

You want to talk "conservative" and "liberal," then we might as well address the multitude of posts, articles etc. that I have seen about "liberal media bias," or "electoral fraud," which quote all sorts of statistics that may or may not be relevant. In the end, people on both sides are being dumbasses. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the "liberal bias" of the exit polls. So more people supposedly reported voting democrat...does that mean that the pollsters all lied for some strange reason? It's not like Bush won by a huge margin.

I wish that people would just be honest about their motives. I care about my fellow man; I believe in diversity and the protection of the environment. Thus, I am classified as "liberal." Most consevatives are inherently selfish. There is nothing especially wrong with that. They want their money, and, voting for Bush will get it (especially if they're rich). Or perhaps they have strong "religious values." Of course in that case, they tend to be inherently hypocritical. Most will oppose the stealing of human life manufactured through abortions (which are indeed fairly terrible... most of the time) but they fully support the death penalty and the murdering of thousands of Iraqis, terrorists or not. Maybe they want an end to "big government" Democrats, except wait... the Bush administration is about as big as it gets these days.

Frankly I am tired of this ridiculous discourse. I find it endlessly amusing that most "conservatives" today would have been flaming liberals several decades ago. Like it or not, things will change. Gay marriage will become ok. Religious tolerance will be paramount. We will learn to respect human life...or we will destroy ourselves. In either case, the world will probably be better off.

<High-Horse dismount>

[Regulator]

That's an interesting assumption, and I'm glad you brought it up. I'd challenge you to find any post on this message board where I declared a political affiliation or even gave any hint as to what my political positions are. Yes, I've chided liberals and Democrats a few times and I posted facts and rational deductions about Arafat, but nowhere have I said that I'm a conservative.

Let's see, I support gay marriage and even adoption rights. I'm pro-choice and anti-gun. I'm not a Christian and don't have much use for any religion. I like to think I'm an independent thinker, with my only real conservative leanings being that government should butt out unless they're protecting us or performing duties that just can't be run fairly or efficiently in a free market, like education and law enforcement.

From your post, I'd say that we actually share a lot of views. The main difference, though, is your refusal to ackowledge a liberal bias in the mass media. While not relevant to this post, it bleeds through to places like this. On every message board I've ever been to, liberals outnumber conservatives by large margins. So basically, I'm anti-liberal because of an underdog mindset. I try to "regulate" the demagoguery that seems to be more and more pervasive on the left. In today's society, the white Christian is the only group you can trash and not worry about repercussions. In that vein, there are plenty of people who will counter the arguments put forth by the right wing fanatics, but very few who stand up to the left wing fanatics with things like facts instead of more repetitive ideology.

[lastchance]

In this particular forum, we have our share of conservatives and liberals, though very few of the "Religious Right."

Post something controversial enough, and you will be attacked, trust me on this.

I supposed they don't tend to gamble. Everyone, (like me by you in another thread) gets attacked for weak posts.

[Richard Tanner]

Wacki, have you lived here all of your life. Just curious. Anyway, the reason at least in our state (IN) that we are usually split is that the Dems do a better job of soliciting farmer and rural votes (that traditionally don't like "city folk"). That's why Gov. O'Bannon was elected. But most of IN's population is strongly conservitive so on a national level Rep. ideology is more widely held.
As for Bayh, he got the job because he was governer for a time and his dad was a senator.

Cody