NationStates Jolt Archive

Is anyone else sick of leaders that couldnt think themselves out of a wet paper bag?

Im starting to think that we should enact some kind of IQ test before they can run for government to stop these idiotic leaders causing caos aorund the world

Is anyone else sick of leaders that couldnt think themselves out of a wet paper bag?

Im starting to think that we should enact some kind of IQ test before they can run for government to stop these idiotic leaders causing caos aorund the world

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm



What kind of IQ does Bush's 1206 SAT imply?

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told me:

"I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile."

In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.

Charles Murray came up with a similar result:

"I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him in the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."

This suggests that applicants to the Air Force Academy averaged about 122.5 (halfway between one and two standard deviations above the average), putting Bush in the 125-130 range -- a little better than his SAT score would suggest.

ofcourse hje is going to do well in a school test, his daddy can buy him the best tutors and resources that he could get. and anyway, I didnt mention Bush, to be honest I was more thinking locally to our country to John Howard who sucks up to everyone without actually thinking of any of his own policies

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm



What kind of IQ does Bush's 1206 SAT imply?

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told me:

"I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile."

In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.

Charles Murray came up with a similar result:

"I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him in the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."

This suggests that applicants to the Air Force Academy averaged about 122.5 (halfway between one and two standard deviations above the average), putting Bush in the 125-130 range -- a little better than his SAT score would suggest.



I had a SAT score of 1390 does that mean I am smarter than the President...


*Note* The way the SAT is scored you can't have a 1206 or any number that doesn't end in zero buddy.... I now know you made it up

The SAT was a scholastic aptitude test, not an intelligence test. It doesnt measure intelligence and was never meant to. Anyone who claims to be able to derive IQ from an SAT score is either lying or deluded. IQ tests measure raw intelligence based on things you cannot study for (unless you have a copy of the test), as opposed to being based on knowledge. The SAT as of the time Bush took it measured a mix of your ability to analyse and the things you know (the knowledge you have acquired). The SAT was changed recently because universities began to realise that its results were biased and heavily benefitted those who could afford to be trained to take the test. They were finding out that SAT scores were increasingly useless and didnt reflect the ability to learn of those who took it.

As for whether we should require IQ tests of presidential candidates, I say no. Presidential candidates have extensive resources, and it would not be terribly difficult for each presidential candidate to find one psychologist who is intimately familiar with the IQ testing instrument to be used and is willing to coach them on the correct answers.

The only way an IQ test would be useful for determining your eligibility to become president is if IQ tests were required at an early age and those scores are the ones that qualify you for future public office. IQ does not change much throughout life except due to heavy drug use or brain damage. However, then you would give an unfair advantage to the children of families with a history of political office (a Kennedy child, for example, would be very likely to be trained heavily to pass the IQ test in case he wanted to run for office in the future).

So, while I like the idea of being able to test the intelligence of people before they run for office, there is no practical way to do so.

I had a SAT score of 1390 does that mean I am smarter than the President...

*Note* The way the SAT is scored you can't have a 1206 or any number that doesn't end in zero buddy.... I now know you made it up

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

According to a 1999 article in The New Yorker, he had a 566 Verbal - 640 Math, for a 1206 total (which would be about 1280 today). Combined with Bush's mediocre grades in prep school, this meant he was left sweating over whether he'd get in.
_____________________________

You mean you "think" the New Yorker "made it up", don't you 'Buddy'?

Regards,
Gaar

*Note* The way the SAT is scored you can't have a 1206 or any number that doesn't end in zero buddy.... I now know you made it up
Urantia didn't make it up himself, it says it on that website. If it was made-up, it was the website's creator, not Urantia.

*goes off to look for info on SAT scoring*

The SAT was a scholastic aptitude test, not an intelligence test. It doesnt measure intelligence and was never meant to. Anyone who claims to be able to derive IQ from an SAT score is either lying or deluded.

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society

I "guess" YOU believe SHE is "deluded" then?

Cause this is what she says...
"I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile."

Regards,
Gaar

I had a SAT score of 1390 does that mean I am smarter than the President...


*Note* The way the SAT is scored you can't have a 1206 or any number that doesn't end in zero buddy.... I now know you made it up
Before the 1970s SAT scores were not rounded to the nearest 10 so you can have numbers that do not end in zero.

Urantia didn't make it up himself, it says it on that website. If it was made-up, it was the website's creator, not Urantia.

*goes off to look for info on SAT scoring*

Scoring has changed a bit recently, which is why you see people relating old scores to new ones...

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Ok, maybe not so recently, but it did change.

Yeah.. Bush got a 1206 SAT, Gore's was slightly higher.. I got a 1380 (ACT equivalent), and I can barely tie my shoes. So I'd say no, IQ doesn't predict competence, only speed of processing information.

Kinda like having a new 3.5 GHz processor in a machine with no RAM and a 2 Gb hard-drive... the machine's useless for practical purposes.

Scoring has changed a bit recently, which is why you see people relating old scores to new ones...

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Ok, maybe not so recently, but it did change.
Yes, from what I've found, the scoring was altered between when Bush took the test and now, which may explain the discrepancies people are claiming between his score and current scoring.

I swear I crack a smirk every time I see someone rail on Bush for being a moron and manage to make a grammatical slop of their attempt, bloody hilarious.

As for Bush, he at least has the destination of being the second most underestimated man in the history of politics, second only to Lucius Junius Brutus. That destination, given his last two victories, has proven to be as much a advantage as it has ever been.

Is anyone else sick of leaders that couldnt think themselves out of a wet paper bag?

Im starting to think that we should enact some kind of IQ test before they can run for government to stop these idiotic leaders causing caos aorund the world

The issue involved here is the same one with the literacy tests used to kep blacks from voting back during the Jim Crow days. Whoever administers the test becomes the arbiter of who gets to lead the country.

Besides, IQ is generally regarded as a fairly narrow measure of intellegence. If IQ was the only thing that mattered, then Jimmy Carter should have been our greatest President ever. I don't think that he was anywhere close.

That would be great. Most presidents are complete fat as* idiots.

If you think Bush has a high IQ UrantiaII, then your link is a lie. Bush has got to learn how to pronounce nuclear, and has to learn that Africa is not a country.

IQ = GOD[/sacasm]
God, I hate all of you. Well, not all of you but most of you.

That would be great. Most presidents are complete fat as* idiots.

If you think Bush has a high IQ UrantiaII, then your link is a lie. Bush has got to learn how to pronounce nuclear, and has to learn that Africa is not a country.
I beleive the IQ given for Bush, I just think he's too damn lazy to use it. Having the ability to learn does necessarily give one the willingness. This is a man that spent 42% of his first year on vacation.

I swear I crack a smirk every time I see someone rail on Bush for being a moron and manage to make a grammatical slop of their attempt, bloody hilarious.

Oh boy.... I'll bold for emphasis:

As for Bush, he at least has the destination of being the second most underestimated man in the history of politics, second only to Lucius Junius Brutus. That destination, given his last two victories, has proven to be as much a advantage as it has ever been.

Now, before you decide to go and ridicule someone on a public message board for their grammar, you may want to pick up a dictionary and make sure you know the meaning of all the words you're going to use to do it. And the sad part is it's not exactly an obscure term you just misused twice in two sentences.

(Hint: The word you were looking for there was "distinction". Or, if you were trying to make your point in a truly unusual way I suppose it's possible that you might have meant "destiny".)

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

What kind of IQ does Bush's 1206 SAT imply?

The guy posted someinthg general about stupid leaders (not singling out any in particular) and you wrote all this crap about Bush? I think that reveals more about what you think about the US President than anyone else.

As for Bush, he at least has the destination of being the second most underestimated man in the history of politics
Don't you mean "misunderestimated man in politics"? ;)

The guy posted someinthg general about stupid leaders (not singling out any in particular) and you wrote all this crap about Bush? I think that reveals more about what you think about the US President than anyone else.
Any time someone mentions stupid leaders the cons jump to Bush's defense. There must be something to that. I think he doth protest too much.

(Hint: The word you were looking for there was "distinction"...

I am fully aware of that. I purposely misspelled one particular word twice to see how much ridicule I could subtly beat up. Misusing "too" and "to," "where" and "were," etc are good if you just want to leave something for the grammar hounds, in this particular instance I wanted something more noticeable.

Thanks for noticing.

EDIT:

Don't you mean "misunderestimated man in politics"?

Misunderestimate is not a word. <<--{Click} (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misunderestimate)

Anyone "notice" that 'Urantia II' likes to use "" and '' alot?

The first post had made absolutely no reference to any particular politician, and all of a sudden it's turned into another Bush vs Kerry debate. That makes a whole lot of sense; lets argue over which American party leader has better visual/spacial abilities, or who can multiply really big numbers faster. Nevermind about other politicians, other countries, other cultures, or whether or not IQ is actually a relevant measure of intelligence.

Hey, I scored higher on the SATs then George W. Bush in 7th grade. :)

I am fully aware of that. I purposely misspelled one particular word twice to see how much ridicule I could subtly beat up. Misusing "too" and "to," "where" and "were," etc are good if you just want to leave something for the grammar hounds, in this particular instance I wanted something more noticeable.

Thanks for noticing.

EDIT:



Misunderestimate is not a word. <<--{Click} (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misunderestimate)


http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ro6.shtml#misunder

It's one of Dubya's "special" words

IQ isn't accurate. It would work better if you had to be sponsored and not support yourself. That way, you wouldn't need to be rich to run.

Don't you mean "misunderestimated man in politics"? ;)
damn i wanted to be the first...

anyway bush is an idiot no matter what his IQ
i mean he cant even read queque cards examples
"rarely is the question asked, is our children learning"
"if we do not suceed we run the risk of failure"
"i understand the bondage between mother and child"(shudder)
"i understand how hard it is to put food on you family"
should i continue?

My point exactly.

I beleive the IQ given for Bush, I just think he's too damn lazy to use it. Having the ability to learn does necessarily give one the willingness. This is a man that spent 42% of his first year on vacation.
that figure includes weekends tho