George W. Bush – A bad rap on intelligence

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Tigers2B1, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. Tigers2B1 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    Before the present SAT there was a correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores. (The present SAT has been changed and this correlation no longer exists) If George W. Bush’s pre-1974 SAT score was a combined 1206 as reported in numerous sites on the internet --- than this SAT score converts to an IQ of 129 on the Otis-Gamma IQ test. The Otis test is reported to have a standard deviation of between 15 and 16 which makes the converted score almost two standard deviations above the norm.

    http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

    Those of you who accept the numbers above –– should note that the indicated IQ would be in the top 3% of the population. As stated in the linked material, these correlations were developed using a little more than 400 SAT and Otis IQ test takers.
    In addition – the actual correlation for the pre-1994 test to the WAIS is +.80. This is higher than some IQ tests have with each other as shown in the quote below. This quote is concerning the pre-1994 SAT. Note the correlations given --

    Note also that the quote above states that the SAT was actually benchmarked using the Otis IQ test. The Otis test was used in the SAT to IQ conversion above.

    Here’s the link -
    http://members.cox.net/sidelock/pag...icom090299.html

    So the question becomes – never mind whether you agree with his politics – has the media given George W. Bush a bad rap where native intelligence is concerned?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tigers2B1 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    You can be very inteligent and still have multiple learning disorders which prevent you from being functional. I know from personal expirience.

    GW isn't dumb - he's surrounded himself with very smart people to help him along. I do not, however, see him as self-sufficient enough to warrent being the president of any large group of people.

    He doesn't read the newspaper, you know. He has his ades breif him on the events of the day. He just "reads the headlines"


    and given that 150 is genius, how is 129 the top 3% of the nation? Does the Otis IQ test use a different scale than I am used to?

    edit: ah, I must be used to the Cattel test's scoring method, according to the below post.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2003
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tigers2B1 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    river-wind

    This link goes to a chart showing standard deviation (SD) for tests and percentiles for scores. The standard deviation for the Otis-Gamma test is between 15 SD and 16 SD as indicated in the first link in the initial post. A score of 129 falls at about the 97th percentile – putting that score in the top 3%.

    http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/GREIQ.html

    In regards to 150 being a set score for “genius” --- there isn’t a set numerical IQ score that is considered “genius” across the range of tests. For example, the Otis test and the Wechster Adult test (WAIS) have scores of 131 and 130 respectively at the 98th percentile while the score on the Cattel would be 148 at the same 98th percentile.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    IQ only tests certain aspects of what we call "intelligence". I imagine that the type of intelligence desirable in a President is somewhat outside the parameters of standard IQ tests.
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    James is certainly correct, but I'm pretty sure that most people using this particular snipe mean exactly that "he is of low IQ". I don't think he is, though he is by no means extraordinary in this capacity.

    I would say he seems to have desirable leadership qualities combined with poor public speaking ability. He seems to get a little flustered resulting in a bit of a stammerish type thing.

    Where are the critics? Man with all the venom it seems that I've seen spewed at his intellect on this site I'm surprised you haven't been butt raped by leftists accusing you of participation in "reality suppression".

    I suspect it forthcoming.

    Ah, I forgot it's human science. Hehe, this thread would be consumed in WE/P like a baby in a pit of paranas. Ack. I wonder what crap they'll spew. Try it man! It should be pretty interesting.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2003
  10. Tigers2B1 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    I invite any thoughtful and supported responses. People who reply with their own logical - thought-out and supported ideas --- even if they are highly critical of what I post here, are certainly welcome. That makes for very interesting debate --- and creates an opportunity to learn. Real - honest debate is one of the best ways to fill out a subject IMO.

    I typically just don't respond to the posters who seem to be describing. No interest. Anyway -- the idea called "reality suppression" sounds like it would be big enough to merit its own thread -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    --- that is, if it were brought up here in a way that wasn't simply name-calling -
     
  11. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    My interjection is this--if he is really that intelligent, noticeably intelligent, then why does he have so many critics, both at home and abroad? Bush does seem evil, but he isn't nefarious enough, it seems, to keep people from seeing his evil. He's no Hitler, in that respect (at least, the domestic Hitler, not the international Hitler that could be ruling the world right now if not for some incredibly stupid blunders that he himself made). Until he started annexing Europe I'm pretty sure that most people that knew of Hitler didn't think he was that bad a guy.

    To restate my point: he obviously isn't that smart, because if he was, then it would be hard to find people in the country, maybe even in the world, that didn't support him.
     
  12. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    I don't agree with the correlation between SAT score and Otis-Lennon
    IQ percentile: many friends of mine had good SATs and yet still haven't
    scored in the top 5%. Book worms are one thing: high IQs, another...
     
  13. RammsteinandKoRn Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    point

    you make a good point....However, GW isnt that 'smart'. He has the 'book smarts', but like many smart people HE HAS NO FREAKING COMMON SENSE!
     
  14. NEMESIS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    I'm afraid you're not getting it. Dubya got a score of 1206 AFTER being given the correct answers by his daddy!

    This would put him in the bottom 3% of the population as I would assume only the dumbest of dumb can't even copy correctly.


    NEMESIS
     
  15. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Question?

    What does intelligence have to do with wisdom?
    To find out read my post titled 'Human Judgment'.
    In leadership, what is more important? Analytical ability, expressed though questionable tests and the conclusions they imply, or is it wisdom and the ability to perceive the essence of subjects and their long term ramifications?

    One more point.
    Everyone likes to throw around statistics and second-hand information collected through media outlets or other questionable sources, with little doubt or skepticism as to the veracity of the information and the possible motivations behind possibly doctored information. Everyone is under this naive impression that they live in a world of ‘goodness’ where no underhandedness and no conspiracies take place.
    In fact the very term ‘conspiracy’ like the words ‘liberal’ and ‘cynic’ have been infused with such negativity and Orwellian ‘wordspeak’ , that they have become insults.
    Western man readily accepts all information gathered through electronic or print media as a de facto ‘truth’ without even considering that there are powers that hope to gain from disinformation or fail to consider how this information is disseminated or from where it comes from.
    One need only mention the before mentioned words and an entire well-crafted argument can be cast under a cloud of disrepute with no contradictory argument or proof.
    All one needs to do to discredit a hypothesis or a challenge is to label it cynical or liberal or, god forbid, a conspiracy theory and the manipulative practice of mind control through language, as Orwell correctly predicted, succeeds in shaping opinions and restricts possibilities.

    Who's to say what George W. really got on his SAT tests, when he was being proposed for the presidency by an all-powerful elite and when coming from an all powerful and well connected family?
    I wasn’t there personally to give him the test was anybody else?

    There is undoubtedly no better information than first-hand information.
    If I am told someone is smart or dumb, by my friend, according to a test he witnessed or according to his own perceptions, judgment and intellect, should I just take his word on it or should I conduct my own observations and analysis as to the mental quality of this hypothetical ‘someone’?
    Forget about supposed SAT tests and IQ tests and second-hand or third-hand accounts and observe this individual on your own even if through the flattering medium of TV programs and staged performances, and then tell me how intelligent he seems to be.
    I’ve watched this duffus G.W., he isn’t too bright.
    He smirks every time he thinks he’s made a good point and the way he struggles through answers, his overall demeanor, his body language, his facial expressions, his dull eyes, his own words, admitting a non-interest in reading or thinking too much, his past performances in life, tell me there isn’t much up there but what his handlers and groomers have placed there.
    He’s, like every president after Kennedy, just a puppet moving on the strings of big business and military-industrial power complexes. He's a figurehead with no real power constructed to maintain the illusion of Democracy.
    Why was Kennedy killed anyway?
    Oh, that’s right it’s just a conspiracy theory.
    How did GW win the elections? Did he win and how?

    But besides all that let us review what SAT or IQ tests really mean and what value they really measure.
    I would say that any value judgment is a comparison of one entity with another or a hypothetical average.
    When I say I am tall or short I am comparing myself to another person or to my perception of an average height in accordance with my experiences and observations.
    So my 5.10" frame can be considered average in some countries or short in others depending on the average height of that country.
    Likewise an SAT conducted in the US may mean different things than one conducted in another country depending on the overall quality of mind and average intelligence of the population or of the ones participating in the test.

    I wonder what a high SAT score means in a country like the US where the average student doesn’t know where Kazakhstan is, the average person rarely reads but spends hours in front of the TV, the average person can't even speak English correctly and where the intellectual quality of its citizens is often a source of amusement for anyone living outside its borders.
    Hey, look the guy who can’t even win an Oscar is Governor now!!! The ‘governator’ no doubt.
    I wonder how many Californians voted for him because of his ideas and not because he looks cool, because of his image, his wealth and fame and his created persona?

    Perhaps George W. is a genius when compared to the average American, but what is he really when compared to the average world citizen?
    In a country where SAT tests are being lowered in difficulty to allow minorities into the system, I’m wondering through what back-door and what test this mental-giant of world-politics really passed. In a country where rampant hypocritical equalitarianism has leveled its society to such a degree that there are no big differences between men/women, between races, between religions, between philosophies, between ideologies and between individuals and where everything is this huge, flat, wasteland of nondescript uniformity what tests are they passing there and against what average are they measuring themselves against?
    What does an IQ of 126 mean? Is it like my height of 5.10" dependant on the standard you measure it against?

    The leveling of man continues and now leaders become no different than common Joes that we want to mirror our average selves.
    Instead of wanting leaders that inspire, teach and guide us with a superior sense of understanding and awareness we want leaders we feel comfortable with, that look like nice guys [emphasis on the ‘look like’] and individuals that do not make us feel too insecure about our own quality of mind.
    “Hey, if he can become president then there’s still hope for little old me.” That’s the phrase we like to hear.

    They say that a country deserves the leader they have and this is certainly more true for a supposed democratic society.
    If so, then the US most certainly deserves GW and his tax-cuts, his wars and his remarkable imbecility.

    Final point.
    How many were convinced that the war in Iraq was because of weapons of mass-destruction and not oil; how many actually believed they were defending their 'liberty' by sending their sons and daughters half a world away to kill others, how many were duped and manipulated through media and well-devised subliminal messages starting months before the initial decision to invade Iraq was taken?
    Taking the average American intellect I'm guessing its equal to the amount the consistently buy Coke or Pepsi, eat at McDonald’s until obese and who religiously watch 'Friends', ‘Star Trek’ and 'Oprah Winfrey'.
    God bless America, a constant source of entertainment and I’m not only talking about Hollywood.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2003

Share This Page