What is your opinion? Vote for your candidate at this link: http://www.grailmaster.com/essays/essays3.html I really wonder what people think..... Thanks Surak
Hi Surak, Welcome to SciForums. The bathroom is down the hall on the left. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Focusing on IQ is overrated. All it does is predict a person's capacity for leaning. So what? It is miserably apparent that most politicians learn quite slowly unless it to benefit themselves. And while it is a human trait to learn things that assist in self-preservation, a politician should not be spending all of his energy on covering his or her ass all of the time. Peace. __________________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
I think common sense, compassion, and general loyalty to the country count more than IQ. I know very "smart" people with average IQ's. I know geniuses who dont know anything. Also, the lack of a personal agenda in a politician is a very good thing. Plus, resistance to corruption, a little bit of liberalism AND conservatism, tolerance and understanding of all people in the world. IQ's a non issue, sorry. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jimmy Carter had a very high IQ and was one of the nicest, most compassionate people ever elected to office, BUT he was a lousy leader and almost wrecked the country in only 4 years.
I don't see IQ as a non-issue. But it does need clarification: it's a test for general placement of intelligence in a *relative* ranking. It is not expected to be exact. And as comparing Stalin, Carter, and Clinton shows, it's not very useful in determining how effective one is as a leader. I think Yasser Arafat is pretty smart. No comments on American leaders.
Still, IQ is important Yup, of course IQ is not everything. But it certainly can help in your job! It gives you the opportunity to understand the political issues and you can understand your political advisors Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Therefore I asked about the IQ and not to judge the actions, the politicians choose. The actions are also influenced by tousand other factors. Ciao Surak
goofyfish, NenarTronian, With all due respect, it seems that because of people like the two of you, we have a retard running the country. Unlike the two of you, I think that IQ is VERY important in government. The primary responsibilities of government is solving domestic and international problems. These duties are best performed by individuals with high IQ's. It's also a well known fact that memory and knowledge is tied to IQ, so usually people have a high IQ also have an above-average memory, and are usually more educated. More intelligent people also are more likely to act on their logic, and not on their emotions (unlike Cowboy Bushy). In my opinion this is how I rate the IQ of different politicians: Bill Bradley - Over 150 Paul Simon - 150 Joe Bidon - 150 Al Gore - 140 (non-social IQ) Bill Clinton - 130 (social IQ) Tony Blair - 130 Pat Buchanan - 120 George Bush Sr. - 120 Bob Dole - 110 John McCaine - 100 Ariel Sharon - 100 Jimmy Carter - 97 (although very high morals) Ronald Reagan - 95 George Bush Jr. - 90 (and very low morals) Surak: I can't comment on the other world leaders in your list since I don't know them well enough to estimate their IQ. Tom
You mean people like me who did not vote for the retard running the country? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It was a hard choice between the last round of idiots. Maybe an end to partisan politics would help us all? (crickets)
Bibi Philip Emeagwali (engineer) – IQ score of 190 • Benjamin Netanyahu (prime minister) – IQ score of 180 • Andrew Wiles (mathematician) – IQ score of 170 • Bobby Fischer (world chess champion) – IQ score of 168 Forget politicians Bibi is one of the smartest men alive!!
I don't trust published IQ scores. I do think IQ is a reasonable measure of intelligence. I'm not sure it makes sense to compare individuals, especially across international borders, inasmuch as there are some cultural nuances in the test that seem to favor Americans. I disagree that Carter wrecked the country. I think people got tired of his tired look and the tired news about stagflation. You may recall that Reagan looked so tired he was nodding off. And he brought us 20% interest rates, an explosion in prison populations, and some of the worst Supreme Court picks in history, Scalia and Bork (who was rejected by the Senate), plus he groomed Clarence Thomas, the worst justice ever, who was appointed by Bush. I do think that intelligence is a must in any high office. I think there should be a qualifying exam for both houses of Congress, the presidency an vice-presidency, cabinet positions and really all federal officials above a certain pay grade. Similar federal law should be enacted to qualify high positions in state governments. Apparently there is some screening in place for lower level jobs, so this just needs to be expanded. There needs to be some other way to check voter incompetence. People vote emotionally, and very often we see blithering idiots (Bush, Palin and Bachmann come to mind) taking the podium as if by divine right. Poorly educated people may not like intellectuals since they won't tend to connect with them, or understand their language and meaning, or perhaps become envious of their education. I think degrees from respected universities ought to suffice. I think Obama, Clinton, Carter and Kennedy were the most educated presidents since Woodrow Wilson. I think there is a reason for that. To appeal to the Democratic electorate--and to take on the problematic agenda of the Democratic Party--requires academic achievement. I suppose Yale has been suffering from the question of how they could have graduated George W. Bush. Of course he may have gone downhill after graduating, on account of heavy drinking.
