> > regarding ppl who live in cities, and whether or not they are more or
> > less smart than ANYone or thing who/that lives in the country...

One other point.  Back in World War I, when huge numbers of young men
entered military service, they all were given one of the early
intelligence tests, the "Army Alpha".

The 1917 Army Alpha doesn't meet modern standards of an unbiased test.  I
have not seen the questionnaire, but I think it included some knowledge
questions that required some acquaintance with popular culture of the
time.

But as I understand it, one of the curious statistical results of this
test was a negative correlation between one's score and the distance of
your home from the nearest railroad station.  People who grew up farther
away from a railroad (the fastest transportation of the time) scored lower
than those who were close by, i.e., living in cities and small towns on
railroad lines.

It's easy to imagine this as showing the impact of development,
industrialization and modernity.  The railroad brought contact with the
outside world, industrialization, and so on.  Considering the bias of the
test itself, obviously the guys who lived in towns on the railroad line
would be more in touch with popular culture and national ideas.  Surely
those towns would also be more affluent and have better schools and public
libraries; places far from the railroad may not have had much schooling
available at all, and less intellectual stimulation for children.

Another possible explanation I have heard: far from the nearest railroad,
communities were smaller and inevitably more isolated (remote, indeed, by
definition), and more likely to suffer from inbreeding.

                                    Larry

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
Washtenaw County Commissioner, 4th District
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106