Trego's Mountain Ear

Let me start with the comment that I haven’t evaluated the methodology of developing this map:

There seems to be some face validity – I would expect Massachusetts, with MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. to lead the nation.  The map is from the Visual Capitalist at Mapped: Average IQ Score by State.  The data source is at Updated IQ and Well-Being Scores for the 50 U.S. States – PMC – and the methodology sounds OK. IQ is one of the most solidly researched topics of psychology, the tests are well supported, and there are still a lot of naysayers that deny the test accuracy.  At Jordan Peterson on IQ – The Online Scholar Fact Check these two paragraphs describe the topic:

“In one statement, Jordan Peterson said that “so one thing you need to know is that if any social science claims whatsoever are correct, then the IQ claims are correct. Because the IQ claims are more psychometrically rigorous than any other phenomena that’s been discovered by social scientists.” A small nitpick or distinction to make here is that it could be entirely true that the IQ claims in social science could be wrong and other claims arrived at through less rigor, may well be true. However it appears Jordan is making an epistemic claims about how knowledge is arrive at and that part of the claim is certainly defensible.

The psychometric data and testing has come a long way since it’s inception and those people that say “all that a high IQ means is that the person is good at taking an IQ test”, is really missing out on all the work that has gone into the formation and development of these tests. On the other side though, one of the reasons that the IQ literature has required such rigorous psychometric data is because intelligence, and all it’s attempts to study it, is very hard. The mere definition of intelligence is still intensely debated but just so readers know, the working definition: I.Q. is the measure of one’s ability to a) solve problems and b) learn new things. This is extremely important because it does not factor in the importance of personality which causes some interference in making strong claims about specific future success.”

So I’m looking at the map and comparing Montana and California . . . and remembering a classmate who took an IQ test, scored 94, and was proud of his high score. 

At What it Means to have an IQ LOWER than 83 | Jordan Peterson describes how life prospects are for the folks who score in the lower 10%, and comments that even folks scoring below 90 (and that’s one in four people) have trouble following written instructions.  If Californians actually average 95.5, the state’s average is at the 38th percentile – compared with the Montana number of 103.4 at the 59th percentile (Massachusetts comes in at the 61st percentile).  Starting with an average of 95.5, instead of 100, changes Peterson’s 10% to something closer to 14 or 15.    I’m not sure about the 83 number – but talking about a tenth of the population – and then looking at averages below 100 – makes it a significant topic.  There was a time when a guy could make a good living with a strong body and a good work ethic.  Peterson’s lectures pretty much say that time is long past.

He explains that no one has found a way to increase IQ – that it is basically the luck of birth.  These two college lectures quickly describe the topic:

Jordan Peterson on Increasing Intelligence and Lifetime Success

Jordan Peterson – Controversial Facts about IQ