Tuesday, January 02, 2007

State IQ and standard-of-living correlation

VCU Professor Michael McDaniel released a paper estimating state IQ using NAEP data last October (correlating at over .96 with these previous estimates). He tackled issues most academicians are too pusillanimous (or too focused on furthering their academic careers) to touch, pointing out that IQ correlates strongly with race, and suggesting that implementing Jew-friendly policies (whatever those may be) are likely a viable way to raise a state's average IQ over time. He even entertains Plato's 2,500 year old idea that the state can potentially benefit from having some control over which of its citizens reproduce and how frequently.

One of the correlations he runs looks at the relationship between a state's gross product per capita and its IQ. With an r-value of .28, the correlation trends in the expected direction but is modest.

Because the cost-of-living varies widely between states (and it varies even more so globally between nations), comparisons based on nominal dollar amounts can be misleading (the infamous hoax spurriously estimating average state IQ demonstrates). If only nominal values are considered, simply raising the state's minimum wage will increase its income per capita, but such a move hardly makes the state wealthier.

IQ is related to economics in another, more vigorous way. Steve Sailer created a monetary standard-of-living table awhile back. These values correlate with estimated state IQ at .65 with an infinitesimal P-value (definitely not a fluke). The sparsely populated, cold, and old northern states are relatively expensive by comparison with the rest of the country (logistics costs alone preclude such places from being easily affordable). If the Dakotas and Montana are removed, the correlation jumps to .73.

This is yet another reason raising America's IQ should be a top national priority. We need a merit immigration system that insures that migrants arriving boost the national IQ, instead of pressuring it downward toward Latin American levels. We also need to do away with the regressive nature of the EITC. Instead of phasing it out as income increases, phase it in as income increases.

Crime reduction, better health, reduced infant mortality, greater longevity, and wealth parity are all notable benefits of having a higher average IQ. In the words of Randall Parker:
Anything that could raise average IQ a few points would do more to boost economic growth and lower social pathologies than increased educational spending or the other typical liberal or free market libertarian nostrums.


JSBolton said...

This might be a restriction of range effect, that the correlation is not higher. What would it look like if you had three groups of say five states, each in its own class, of high, low and middling IQ?
Lynn and Vanhanen keep bringing up landlocked countries in their new book; maybe there is an independent effect of km2 oceanfront/total km2 of land area in a country.
The leisured wealth of today pushes capital towards the places of relaxation, where also labor is kept from following to a considerable extent.
When a seasonal dormitory workforce is used, the third world does not get to drop off its children on the local property tax revenues; not where mansions are a-building.
Apparently our ever so progressive, internationalistic and antiracist professionals from the Ivy league, do not believe their own propaganda on how beneficial it is to have such immigrant influxes.
Or, at least, not where they are building lavish leisure homes, accessible to the schools' property taxes.

savage said...

Still that is a significant difference between gross state product and the standard of living comparisons. But Minnesota has almost double the sol of DC, so it should not come as much of a surprise.

crush41 said...


Looking at coastal and non-coastal attenuated the correlation slightly (.61), although part of the problem comes from a reduced sample size. I suspect the same thing will happen with a categorization of states by IQ grade.