« Boris sets out his plans to tackle youth crime in London | Main | Nick Herbert defends hate crime legislation »

Comments

As for the Greens' ranking, I always like to say, there's some stuff that's so stupid you need a PhD to believe it. In any case, we're better than Labour, so whatever! ;)

I would have voted Green before I turned blue, I feel that these results are valid :)

It is of no surprise that the only party whose voters are under the average are the BNP.

Well we used to have the reputation as the stupid party so lording it over Labour, UKIP BNP etc should be the cause of wild celebrations!!
The fact that the Greens and Lib Dems did so well I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that this poll appeared in the Guardian.
One can't help wondering why parties with such intelligent members cannot produce an economic policy that makes sense (LD'S) or a realistic enviromental policy (Greens).

If they are so clever why have they never run the country?

I don't understand though why they compared their IQ at the age of 10? Surely a more recent age would be more appropriate, surely 18?

The "intelligent" Greens and their friends have been the driving force behind the wind turbines. Unfortunately, these same wind turbines do not generate much useful electricity.

So there maybe there is a flaw in the measurement of IQ, electrical power, reality or something.....

There are 9 political affiliations defined here and 6000 voters. For the survey to be of real significance it should compose of roughly equal numbers of each affiliation - about 600-odd per party. If the set which was polled more closely reflects their share of the electoral vote then the number of Greens and BNP polled would be quite low whilst one would expect the highly represented groups - Labour and Tory to be larger and consequently overall more representative. So it is no surprise that smaller parties of the relatively affluent groups should show a higher IQ bearing in mind the influence that nurture has on actual childhood IQ tests. [Is that disputed?]
One would expect small parties representing less affluent sectors to show a lower IQ and that is borne out by the BNP result.
It is not therefore surprising that the Conservative and Labour scores are so close to each other.
One factor that is not revealed to us is how were the IQs at age 10 derived? Anecdotally or by preselection of known subjects?
It is not surprising that on the whole the average IQs are above the median 100 as one would expect people with political interests to be slightly above average intelligence.

I think they're making a mistake between intelligence and conceit.

Frankly without far more information it means almost nothing. But people will neither the less make something of it.

How did they find out which party these children supported? A lot of them are unable to read or write English these days. Seems a load of rubbish to me.

You don't have to be thick to be a Nazi, but it helps.

The research was based on a survey involving 6,000 people, so it's obviously pretty authoritative.

I'm not sure why obviously?
It could be an interesting thing to compare IQ to votes, but comparing aged 10 IQ with how they voted 31 years later from, I assume, a random sample (ie. there may have only been 1 green voter for all I know) then there's too many holes for these stats to be useful.
That said, many Green party people are very intelligent but do not keep up with modern issues - eg. Achademics who just research old books and papers and don't watch tv as "it's all trash" etc. This means they are easily mislead when it comes to politics, or don't really understand how things work in the real world, which is why we need to keep the BBC.. oh hang on, this thread wasn't about the BBC/Licence fee- what's going on?

IQ is loosely correlated with class and this correlation is stronger in childhood than in adulthood. It therefore isn't a surprise that supporters of parties which reflect the concerns of the urban middle class would score more highly than those who appeal to working class voters.

The abstract says that the Green Party result is explained by occupational social class but the Lib Dems aren't. I suppose it could be that Liberal Democrat voters are often tactical voters whose knowledge of politics is therefore somewhat higher on average than the norm.

I'm a bit surprised that the Conservative voters were only 0.7% above Labour but I suppose back in 2001 a lot of the suburban middle class voters backed Labour.

Also bear in mind that this only takes into account one age cohort whose experience of a Labour government in 2001 was limited to the 4 previous years and from 1974-79 when they were pre-teen children.

IQ tests measure people's ability to take IQ tests. Intelligence is relative and some people clearly excel in certain areas and fall short in others. Results like this are just as meaningless as saying brunettes are more likely to pasta on a tuesday.

very dangerous

How, I wonder, was a UKIP voter defined?

For the last EU Parliament elections, UKIP received 16% of the votes with a turnover of about 38% so, on that basis, one have expected there to be about 30 to 40 UKIP voters in the total group. On the other hand, in the GE, UKIP received only 2.5% of the votes cast with a 61% turnout so there have been only around 9 UKIP voters, hardly a statistically significant number. In fact, for people who were 10 in 1970, the number of UKIP voters are likely to be fewer, since UKIP members are heavily concentrated in the over 55s and under 25s.

The same is true, to a lesser degree, for all parties (e.g. the well known tendency for some Labour voters to defect to the BNP and the crossover between Tory and Lib Dem voters in the Southern counties).

So the “academic research”, doubtless conducted by high IQ social “scientists” with little grasp of statistics, is deeply flawed.

I heard an interview on the breakfast show on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning with the lady from the university that did the research.

Personally I think the Greens and the Dim Lebs (perhaps I should not use this now in view of the survey results) come top because they don't live in the real world - idealists not realists who generally live sheltered lives in Brighton or Islington.

Following my argument to its logical conclusion then what do we make of the BNP coming bottom. Let us not forget that the BNP do draw support from disaffected Conservatives, many of whom are not fools.

Trivia. Not even relevant. IQ is hardly relevant in a system of universal suffrage, one vote is as good as another.

Its a load of bunk. we are expected to belive that scores for IQ tests can be said to be meaningful, when the differances noted are so small. O.3 percent is far to trival to be taken at face value. She's pulling your plonkers and duh you fell for it...how intelligent is that.

BTW I voted green at the last election, that makes me smarter ...nonsence, its as belivalble as much of the garbage in the Mail.

Rather strange. Every one is above average apart from the very few BNP voters. And even they are only marginally below average.Shurely shum mistake, Ed (hic)

Where's Graeme Archer to give some statistical cred?

It’s a load of bunk. Are we are expected to believe that scores for IQ tests can be said to be meaningful, when the differences noted are so small. O.3 percent is far too trivial to be taken at face value. She's pulling your plonkers and duh you fell for it...how intelligent is that.

BTW I voted green at the last election that makes me smarter ...nonsense, it’s as believable as much of the garbage in the Mail.

I hope noone here is stupid enough to think that the way you vote affects your IQ (although voting labour may adversely impact your kids education)...

To decide to support a party there are two steps:-
1) Understand what the party's message
2) Decide whether you like that message better than the others.

So people only (generally) chose from among the parties whose message they understand.

In this case, the chart could be taken as an indication of the level of IQ requried to even understand a parties message (before even deciding whether you like it or not)...

Keep it simple - for stupid - they can vote too you know.

As other people have said, a high score in an IQ test merely reflects the subject's ability to do IQ tests! I have never been good with numbers so despite the fact that I score highly in verbal reasoning, I cannot get a high overall score as the numerical tests drag it down!

The "intelligent" Greens and their friends have been the driving force behind the wind turbines. Unfortunately, these same wind turbines do not generate much useful electricity.

So there maybe there is a flaw in the measurement of IQ, electrical power, reality or something.....

Posted by: David_at_Home | November 03, 2008 at 16:10

Funny you should say that - this weekend my wife and I drove from Newhaven in Sussex to Folkestone in Kent to attend a wedding. In kent we drove through an enormous field of absolutely massive turbines. 'They're pretty' my wife said. 'Yes but do you see what they're not doing?' I replied, 'Turning around'. That's right. They just sat there with no wind at all.

If that's the future, I'll see you round the campfire in our cave!

People with the highest IQs are apparently the least interested in sensible politics...

Sorry, but this is a complete waste of a thread. At the end of the day your IQ does not dictate whether you are allowed to vote.

Anti-intellectualism can be appealing to some voters.

Anti-intellectualism can be appealing to some voters.

That's what I've never understood about labour voters - They supposed aim are at people who are poor and undereducated so it's therefore in their interest to see people poorer and less educated for their own survival and on that principal alone should be reason enough not to vote for them.

Anti-intellectualism can be appealing to some voters.

That's what I've never understood about labour voters - They supposed aim are at people who are poor and undereducated so it's therefore in their interest to see people poorer and less educated for their own survival and on that principal alone should be reason enough not to vote for them.

Sounds like a lovely way to ignore the wishes of a lot of voters. They have low IQ's so they don't count.

If the 'greens' are supposedly so smart, why do they support a party/policies that will so horribly undermine their own wealth?

Here is my argument to support the view that Tories are cleverer than Labour voters:

Premise One: Labour voters believe in socialism.
Premise Two: Socialism is a crock.
Premise Three: Conservative voters are capitalists.
Rebuttal Premise: There is no better economic system than capitalism and it is unlikely that a better system can be found.
Conclusion: Therefore anyone who believes in the unworkable and discredited doctrine of socialism must be a bit thick and anyone who subscribes to capitalist principles must be more intelligent than a socialist.

Now isn't that strange?

I have a Mensa-measured IQ of 160 and I'm a British Nationalist.

In order to arrive at this delightfully PC outcome I should think Messrs Deary, Batty and Gale would have had to choose their subjects pretty carefully. Or maybe their sponsors informed them that future sponsorship would not be forthcoming if they did not come up with the right results.

What the politically incorrect all know is this, The Guardian would NEVER have published these findings if the reseachers had happened to interview a few more British Nationalists like me!

Check out the iamanenglishman web site.

It doesn't take a genius to see these results cannot be correct unless a huge number of people don't vote or vote BNP. Average=100, so these numbers are too high.

"It doesn't take a genius to see these results cannot be correct unless a huge number of people don't vote or vote BNP. "

Yes and we know that around 40% of the population didn't vote in 2001, and that figure was probably higher in the age cohort being surveyed here.

Oh look, IQ charts! I know, let's do a survey based on race, that will go down well!

Very surprising figures. I always assumed the Lib Dem figure would be the lowest.

Intelligence is not much good without judgment, eg. Gordon Brown. I could name some Conservative politicians as well.


Nowhere are the floating or switch voters mentioned or even the amnesiac voters... after a big change in electoral direction (an upset at the polls) almost everyone you speak to will claim to have supported the winner. I don't think it is entirely dishonest either, people get swept up and like to identify with a winner. I believe the number of Manchester United supporters also fluctuates with their success on the football field.
On the other hand this sort of research carries some sort of undertones of political party 'eugenics'. Intellectual pride can make us forget that we seek office in order to represent all - clever or thick - they are the people we want to work for.

Clearly they did not test political intelligence.

Enoch Powell was a PHD at 24, a record at the time.

How interesting that a tiny IQ difference which reflects the working class support of the BNP is quoted when it comes to denigrating the BNP, but is not mentioned in the context of the poor socio-economic performance of blacks and other ethnic minorities. Blacks have on average an IQ some 15 points below that of whites in Western societies, a figure which alone explains their low average achievement - not 'oppression' by whites,for which fiction all white people are made to feel guilty and to pay for in a thousand ways.

This lie is the true oppression.

Where's Graeme Archer to give some statistical cred?

Posted by: Martin Wright |

You're way too kind. I started typing a response but decided this is too delicious so I'm writing it up for Centre-Right!

Here you are Martin.

These figures are an utter nonsense. The most valuable asset in politics, as in life, is wisdom, not bare intelligence. And as we all know, as intelligence goes up, common sense...

I don't know where Tim gets that figure from.

Although IQ is a sound model, which follows a principle of following logic within a limited time, people can be at a disadvantage if they are poorly educated already for reasons other than their IQ itself.

Also, some people perform badly in tests, and tend to freeze.

That said, my mother did an IQ test about three times in her life, and got exactly the same result.

Oh well, internationally compared, the Brits all do very well:

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

and as was pointed out above, the BNP voters often are working class whilst the greenies often are pedigree champagne socialists due to social, rather than actual moral reasons.

Btw, intelligent is not always smart, often it's the less 'clever' folks that pragmatically get complex things to work with just common sense and focus, whilst the eggheads stand around hindering process and progress with learned but unpractical and often silly advice.

Would this be the same academic source that consistently places Black IQs below those of Whites?

And nobody asked me - I have an IQ of 140 and I'm a BNP voter

That wasn't a misprint?

I did read about a woman who complained bitterly to the London News media because of this disgraceful hoax she fell for - you win a prize if you collect bar codes.

She was interviewed in her kitchen with about 8,000 of them.

hi were did you get the same amount of bnp members from,were is all the money gone??

I dont know why those BNP member are claiming proudly they have 140+ IQs. The only excuse for voting BNP is stupidity. For the intellectual to vote BNP just shows a streak of evil.

"The only excuse for voting BNP is stupidity"

Perhaps, although immigration has been raised as a valid problem in the House of Lords report on the Economic Impact of Immigration. The major parties tend to avoid the issue for fear of appearing racist. So the issue is ceded to the BNP, however, undesirable they may be.

If the Tories actually reduced the number of asylum seekers & tightened immigration to ensure only highly skilled migrants could come in the BNP would be redundant.

HOUSE OF LORDS. Select Committee on Economic Affairs. 1st Report of Session 2007–08. The Economic. Impact of. Immigration. Volume I: Report

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

I think the fact that the greens are top is more due to their tiny voting numbers. Therefore, average IQ is bound to be higher than say Labour/conservative. However, it is telling that BNP with simarly low voting numbers have such a low average iq

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker