Is George W. Bush actually stupid?

90 IQ is functional literacy? Wow, nobody told ME this; guess I will have to pretend that I am a complete moron from now on out.

Sure, I have severe trouble orating- I forget words constantly, mispronounce them due to nervousness, and probably have that dull look to my eyes when I speak; but I wouldn’t say I was borderline retarded, or just fuctionally literate. I think you have a bloated perspective of what a normal person is capable of- those 90-110 IQ’s that make up 50% of the population.

70 and below is the mentally handicap range, with 20-50 being severe, 75 would be borderline literate, not 90.

I don’t like Bush. However, I’ll defend his verbal foibles. Every linguist knows people form new words all the time, and only the ignorami think everyone should speak the language of their parents exactly as their parents spoke it.

Bush isn’t stupid, but he’s not very smart either. He thinks in black and white, that there are no grey areas. If you call that stupid, you’ll have to call millions of practising Muslims/Christians/Jews in the country stupid (I think they are, but that’s just me). It’s a benefit in some ways - it means decisions are made faster. Of course, they may not be (and usually aren’t) the right decisions, but at least something happens, and people start reacting. There are situations where that eventually leads to a situation akin to that where the right decision was taken in the first place. (For instance, the public reacting and electing someone who then makes the right decision.)

Nearly anyone with little experience in an area is going to do stupid things in it. I’ve changed career paths two or three times, and each time I’ve got to get used to being, and looking, ignorant in the new area. Bush has no experience with foreign policy, behavioral economics, sociology, group psychology, and a lot of other things. Rowe and Co did a great job of getting him up to speed on a lot of things, but hey, they couldn’t very well teach him anything that might lead him to veto their policies once he became president, could they?

There are many kinds of intelligence, and many kinds of stupidity.

A Harvard MBA suggests some kind of intelligence. Then again, I’ve known three people with graduate degrees from Harvard–one I considered brilliant, one very intelligent, and the other absolutely stupid (as well as filthy–I moved into his apartment after he was fired from my department for incompetence).

Fighter pilots need a certain kind of intelligence, as well as quick reflexes and concentration. Then again, boxing requires quick reflexes and concentration, but I don’t hear many people praising Mike Tyson’s intelligence.

Political success says less to me about the intelligence of the politician than about the intelligence of the voters and the validity of the system.

Even his abysmal public speaking skills don’t necessarily signify stupidity. Growing up in Texas, I knew a few good ol’ boys who could barely put a subject and verb together correctly, but were nevertheless pretty insightful. They just never learned to express their insights in the proper academic style. In the case of a president, I do think that public speaking skills should be high on the list of prerequisites, but if the public feels that they are better represented by the “aw shucks” school of public speaking, again, that is a statement about the public, not about the president.

The reason I don’t consider Bush to be very intelligent is that I have seen no evidence of any real critical thinking skills. Narrow-mindedness, or single-mindedness if you prefer, arrogance, hubris, black/white thinking–these things can be very efficient, whether they result from intelligence or the lack of it. As GoHeels pointed out on page one, agonizing too much over the morality of a decision can lead to paralysis. That may be a sign of intelligence (I tend to think it’s a sign of social intelligence, which is all shades of gray, not black and white), but it probably isn’t good leadership.

Ultimately, I simply don’t think that politics is about intelligence. It’s about power. I would like it to be more about intelligence, not to mention compassion, but that ain’t the way it is.

I don’t really fault the man for his level of intelligence, though he is an embarrassment to me, since I’m a US citizen living abroad. Still, I can forgive mediocre intelligence more easily than questionable morals. I don’t consider him a good person, and to me, that’s more important.

I’ve read that he served in the Texas Air Defence in the capacity of a pilot, I’ve read nothing about him being a “qualified” “fighter pilot” – most of what I’ve read suggests he went AWOL and was, subsequently, let off. Did he, for example, even fly solo in a regular fighter ?

And just hearing him speak (not how, but what he says) suggests what he got from Harvard was the ‘Gentleman’s C’. This is not a man given to intellectual curiosity. He is not a man given to exploring the world (in any sense) beyond his immediate surroundings, despite his wealth.

He’s ignorant of much that the world offers and he’s happy in his ignorance.

History also suggests he’s a man given to excess and someone who’s achieved little or nothing without the family name, in education, in business and in politics.

Now those qualities are fine – we’re all flawed – but they do not a good president make. Instead, they make a good puppet of a president.

Had be not been born with the family name, I’d guess he might have made middle manager, maybe something like a ‘regional manager’, for a fast food chain – assuming whoever he married helped him overcome his earlier inclination to excess.

This and this are good starting places re George’s actual flight experience. Looks like about 300 hours in the F-102, but somehow “disappeared” before getting the 500 he’d need to go to Vietnam (the old F-102 was being withdrawn from there by then, though) - says here. T’ell widdit, there’s a galaxy of links here. All of that has bollocks to do with the kinds of intelligence needed by a President, though.

No, he’s not stupid in the ordinary senses of the word. As several others have said, he’s lazy, incurious, dogmatic, leaving him ignorant about too many areas of his direct responsibility (Will Rogers pointed out that we’re all ignorant, just about different things). He doesn’t adapt his thinking to comply with any growing understanding of reality, he adapts his filtration of facts and interpretations of reality to comply with his simplistic preconceptions. In regard to what a President needs to know and understand and how he needs to think, he’s seriously deficient, and probably incurably so.

But let’s be fair, by comparison. Note that hardly anyone would call Tony Blair stupid, yet he’s following much the same path in his own job. It would seem he’s simply subject to the same tunnel vision problem, wouldn’t it?

Good post London Calling… like I said before… curiosity is a major trait of intelligence.

Well if I am not mistaken he was a "pilot" in the 60's-70's. It was a way more simple era to be a pilot. He was a pilot in the National Guard which was like the official "rich kids" getaway... very different from today isnt it ?  IFR I dont think was a requirement for him either... probably not. Today the US military are quite different from back then... way more professional and demanding.   

So careful comparing oranges to apples... I seriously doubt that being a pilot is a reasonable measure of his intelligence. He probably never flew again after his AWOL ridden service...

Why is there a thread on every BB about George Bush being stupid?

Bush is not an “intellectual” by any means. But he ain’t no dummy.

Bush got better grades than Gore did, for God’s sakes. Gore scored higher on the SAT’s, but if you take Bush’s score of 1206 and add 120 or so points to it – as ETS has done with the tests in the intervening years – Bush comes out in low 1300 territory.

“Genius” and Rhodes Scholar Bill Bradley, btw, scored 485 on the verbal SAT.

See, e.g., http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26731

You’re totally wrong. First of all, navigation and pilotage was MUCH harder back then. Because the airplanes were simpler, you had to do a lot of calculations for yourself. No calculators and computers meant slide rules and memorization of tables.

IFR is absolutely a requirement for every military pilot. What, do you think the air force is grounded every time there’s some cloud cover? And having flown IFR approaches in airplanes at 100 knots, I can well imagine how difficult it can be when you’re going 300.

And while the National Guard may have been a ‘rich kids’ getaway, I guarantee you that they weren’t hiding out in fighter jets unless they had real skills to get them into the cockpit. You don’t just get given a seat in a fighter because your Dad is someone, because Dad is likely to get really mad when you become a greasy stain on a runway somewhere.

And a lot of guys like to intimate that the F-102 was somehow a ‘lesser’ fighter for weak pilots or something. Well, it was in the process of being replaced by newer jets, but that’s irrelevant to how difficult it was to fly. Those early Century Series fighters were known as some of the hardest jets to fly, ever. They had horrific accident rates. Bush lost two squadron mates to operational accidents while he was in the guard, and the chances of him being killed flying the F-102 were much greater than if he had been drafted to Vietnam.

ElvisL1ves: Those links you provided are interesting, but highly partisan. There are some real howlers there. Like the big about how he was grounded and suspended from flight duty for ‘failure to take a physical’. Makes it sound like a punishment. In fact, a grounding and suspension from flight duty are normal and automatic if you don’t complete your physical. Hell, I’m “suspended and grounded from flying” right now, because my physical has lapsed. Whoop-de-do.

And you said Bush had approximatley 300 hours in the F-102. Your second cite says he had 300 training hours in the F-102. That sounds about right - there’s a lot of training for fighter jocks - everything from aerial gunnery to formation flying to low-level flying and god knows what else. So let’s see… By July of 1970 he ‘earned his wings’ according to your second cite, and was an operational fighter pilot, with 300 hours in the F-102, plus at least 200 hours before that (you have to be qualified IFR in the T-38 before transitioning, and that’s a minimum of 150 hours for the IFR, plus qualification time in the jet). So by 1970 he has probably about 500 hours.

Then he flew for almost two more years in guard, according to your second cite, last flying the F-102 in April of 1972. In 70 and 71 he was credited with 68 days of flight duty (which means days in which you actually flew the airplane). Call it maybe a total of 80 days of flight duty before he let his medical lapse. If you figure an average of five or six hours of flight time per day, Bush probably had close to about 1,000 hours of flight time before he left the military, including his basic flight training and operational flying.

As for that story of him ‘almost crashing’ the Cessna, that sounds to me like Bush jerking Don Evan’s chain. There’s no way a pilot qualified like Bush was would forget how to fly a Cessna 172 in six or seven years. Hell, I flew one after a wait of that long once, and after about 10 seconds it was like I’d never left the cockpit. The damned things almost fly themselves.

It sounds to me like Bush did a little goofing off in the plane (which he should NOT have done anyway), and the story got embellished over time. Airplane stories tend to grow a life of their own.

“let his medical lapse”

???

Are you suggesting that the USAF or US Air National Guard allows pilots trained at vast expense to just “let their medicals lapse”? When you, as a private pilot, let your medical lapse, that’s nothing. When a commercial pilot lets his medical lapse, that’ll be his job. But military pilots? Show me a CO who lets his pilots allow their medicals to lapse as if it’s no big deal, during a freaking war, no less, and I’ll show you a CO with the military acumen of Colonel Henry Blake. Sheesh.

I don’t pretend to know what was going on in that unit when George went AWOL, but saying that it’s routine for military pilots to be grounded because they didn’t show up for physicals is ridiculous. I do, however, agree that flying the century fighters was no picnic, though I’ve never heard that the 102 had a particularly nasty reputation as some other fighters in the series (like the 104) did.

Sigh… I’m afraid I can’t objectively pronounce GW as stupid. Then again, I have no reason to consider him all that bright either.
He’s a piss-poor embarassment of an orator however. Everytime that man says “nukular” I can’t help but cringe. It’s almost comforting, in a Machiavellian way, that he is purposely mispronouncing that word in such that it shows no knowlege of it’s origin (as in the nucleus of an atom, duhh) to appeal to the idiots at large, but it doesn’t improve my opinion of the man any.

If you’re not on active flight status, I would imagine letting your medical lapse is no big deal. Someone will put a mark on your file saying, “grounded pending renewal of medical”. Then if you get called to active flight duty, you go get the medical.

What’s the problem?

Now, I’d agree with you if Bush had actually been assigned to a squadron at the time. But my understanding is that he was flying a desk at that time.

BTW, I had a friend who flew CF-104’s. His best line: “How do you get your own F-104? A: Buy a piece of property in Germany and wait.”

I was an English and Communications teacher with graduate work in educational psychology. As much as I dislike Bush, poor speaking skills are not always indicative of a low IQ. But they are damned important in a President.

Even in scripted speeches, the rhythm is unnatural. Notice that he never goes more than five or six works without a pause. I don’t think that I have ever heard him speak a single complex sentence all the way through without pausing. That’s just a speech tick, but a bad one.

I put very little faith in his college grades, SAT scores, etc. To have scores that high, he would have to do well on verbal skills. That didn’t happen.

If I were estimating his IQ I would guess it to be approximately 110 – high average. I don’t know the current numbers, but a few years back the average doctorate had an IQ of 125 – but that includes some really creepy schools.

The President’s limited intelligence combined with ignorance, poor communication skills and a poor sense of decorum* combine to make him look utterly stupid.

*The interview in which he describes the “funny” events of the night of 9-11-01 left me open-mouthed.

Yes, poor speaking skills are indeed “damned important in a President.” (See Jefferson, Thomas.) Good point there.

[QUOTE]

Even in scripted speeches, the rhythm is unnatural. Notice that he never goes more than five or six works without a pause. I don’t think that I have ever heard him speak a single complex sentence all the way through without pausing. That’s just a speech tick, but a bad one.
[/QUOTE}

Even in scripted speeches, the rhythm of WHAT is unnatural? The Muzak playing in the background? Unnatural compared to what? A Bo Diddley beat? The cadences of a TV newsreader?

You do have a point with the speech ticks, though. They could cause Lyme Disease.

He got a 566 on the verbal portion. Add 60 points to the number to get a present-day analogue and you’re in the low 600s. Not William F. Buckley territory, perhaps, but not to be sneered at either. Are you saying that he cheated?

Your psychometric background, training and credentials are exactly, erm, what?

Only charity prevents me from responding to THAT one.

Again, I have to say the guy is, on occasion, a spell-binding orator. I’m speaking only of his two major speeches after 9/11, after which I stopped listening. Yes, he speaks in four to six word bursts. Yes, he sees things entirely in black and white. That is exactly what makes him so effective. He is communicating with his intended audience.

Reagan fashioned a world revolution out of, basically, waking up every once in a while and saying, “there you go again,” then nodding off again. HE was stupid. Bush is alert and like a fox. Don’t underestimate.

It would appear that G.W.B. has AD/HD, as well as T. Edison, B. Franklyn, W. Churchill, B. Gates, Vincent Van Gogh, Wright Brothers, and lost of others.

People with AD/HD can appear ‘stupid’ to scholastic tests and to other, but this is very disceptive and they are usually very smart but it just doesn’t show.

The fact is that there are different kinds of intelligence. You can:

Speak like MLK.

Imagine like Einstein.

Perform math like Johnny Von Neumann.

Write like Shakespeare.

Teach like Richard Feyman.

Connect with people emotionally like Bill Clinton.
The question is flawed, because we first need to decide what kind of intelligence we want out of a president.

I also think that there are some people who so viscerally hate Bush that they need him to be an idiot.

perhaps he’s www.toostupidtobepresident.com

All this talk, and I havn’t heard anyone mention a previous president that had a reputation as a terrible public speaker: Eishenhaur. From my reading (he’s very much before my time) he had a very hard time making a speech without making a mistake, and it’s an open question as to if he did it intentionally, or claimed he did to cover his mistakes.

But I’ve not seen anyone who considered him stupid or simpleminded.

Maybe I’ve got a soft spot. I’m a doctor, but I have a slight stutter, tend to repeat words in a sentance when speaking quickly and occationally manage to string together all the right words, but in the wrong order. Thankfully, I’m an optometrist and not an Emergency Room physcian… :slight_smile:

Or Eisenhower even. Gad, in addition to being a lousy speaker, I can’t type or spell worth a damn…