The only quantitative evidence available suggests that Dubya’s IQ is in the range Sam Stone stated. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with this evidence. But stating that it is just a concoction of a sycophantic mind means you either didn’t read the thread (which I still suspect) or you’re ignoring the thread in order to try to insult Sam Stone.
For me, I would be surprised to learn that GWB’s IQ is actually where the 2006 study and his SAT scores put it. But that’s just one guy’s uneducated observation. If I wanted to really debate the point, I would try to come up with some evidence on par with the evidence already offered. And I certainly wouldn’t suggest that anyone who disagrees is doing so merely out of partisanship.
For the sake of this discussion, I have a cousin who was in Mensa until 10 years ago when he was kicked in the head by a horse and is now a drooling idiot. Just because he was smart then doesn’t mean he’s smart now. If some want to stick to the notion that in 1964 his SAT score proved he was smart or above average or whatever in 1964, fine. I’ll admit that is a possibility. The OP wasn’t was he ever smart, but is he smart now. A lot of people used to be a lot of things they aren’t now. What has he done in the last 30 years to demonstrate that he is not currently a dumb man?
If his SAT score “proves” he was smart then, current video evidence of him “proves” he is dumb today.
The only way to have an estimate of Bush’s IQ is to have the results of a standardized IQ test. Extrapolating from an adjusted SAT or from the shite methodology of the thing you dug up from Wikipedia (really, I mean, assessing the “Intellectual Brilliance” and “Openness to Experience” of John Quincy Adams and Millard Fillmore? Estimating the IQ of Chester A. Athur from birth to 17 and from 18 to 26 based on biographies) is bullshit.
One is quantifiable and objective, and has been shown to correlate with raw intelligence. The other is qualitative and subjective, and frequently does not correlate with raw intelligence. Neither is proof of anything, but one is better evidence than the other.
As for the time difference, the 2006 study was done in, well, 2006. That said, I think the drug thing or presenile dimensia might be worth exploring.
Right. Fine. Dismiss the sources (though it is clear from your characterization that you barely looked at the study). I don’t necessarily disagree, except to point out that the correlation between SAT and IQ is as high as .8. Since we don’t have an IQ test, we’re forced to weigh our own subjective judgments based on public speeches against quantitative evidence. I’m not going to call you ignorant for choosing the more subjective, limited evidence. But rejecting as partisan anyone who disagrees is out of line, IMHO.
Well, I’m going to single out a few other pieces of evidence - the whole let’s invade Iraq and get welcomed with flowers, mission accomplished, bring it on - kind of thing and ask does any of that look like the words and actions of an intelligent man?
By their fruits shall ye know them, or words to that effect.
Dumb and stupid is as dumb and stupid does and on the evidence of the last six years Bush is dumber than a sack full of hammers.
I don’t know about “dumb” or “stupid,” but if you’re talking about IQ, you have a silly point. You believe that anyone who supported the Iraq War, for example, has a low IQ. That is just demonstrably false by dozens of objective measures, and has no place in GD.
If you’re talking about wisdom, or some such, more power to you. I don’t disagree.
You keep saying this, without backing it up in any way. I haven’t read the thread, I haven’t read the study… If you want to do more than pretend to astral projection, why not provide some compelling argument as to what it is I’ve missed?
And that is indeed a strong correlation. But it means that they would share as much as 64% of the variance, or that more than one third of the variance is not shared. When you are talking about the potential error of the measures in question and the potential error arising from the method of testing of someone like George Bush, there’s simply too much error to feel comfortable in a crosswalk between the scores identified on the internet.
I would say it is quite safe to call Sam Stone a partisan supporter of Bush. Are you new around here?
I would also point out that my argument is that the claim that Bush is not only not stupid, but is actually of “very superior” IQ is an extraordinary claim. I’m quite comfortable in the face of such an extraordinary claim in questioning the known bias of the source of such a claim.
Well I do know. It takes dumb and stupid to screw up like that. Nothing to do with wisdom.
And I’ll thank you not to extrapolate my judgment of Bush into what I think of the IQ of war supporters thank you very much. Consider the same injunction to apply to any other posts of mine you feel like building straw men from okay.
To use your own patronizing phrase - building strawmen has no place in GD.
I would say if 150 other world leaders say the invasion is bad idea, and you alone think its a good idea and move forward anyway, that could be viewed as stupid. Or evil. Or both.
People who originally supported the war took the President at his word that the “facts” he presented were accurate and unbiased. Trusting the President then doesn’t make you dumb- continuing to support him now does.
I can’t provide any substantive evidence of GWB’s current drug/alcohol use (if any), nor do I suspect that anyone else here can. But this video does show him drunk at a wedding, long after he reportedly gave up the hootch.
IMHO, this doesn’t account for his level of intelligence, or lack thereof. I agree with many other posters that Bush appears to be intellectually lazy, which is not the same thing as stupid. I do not think, either, that he is indicative of a typical Ivy Leaguer, as he was denied admission to a state law school (as reported upthread). In that vein, I think his family legacy (and prep school background) did have a lot to do with his admission status to Yale and Harvard.
It was clear you hadn’t read the thread because you accused Sam of coming up with those numbers from his own imagination. It was clear you hadn’t read the study because you dismissed it out of hand for evaluating figures long dead based on their writings, even though the studied used widely-accepted techniques not limited to such analysis.
But given the choice between that and your subjective assessment you think anyone that chooses the former is partisan?
Ok. But it isn’t safe to call him that because of what he’s posted in this thread, which I thought was the topic at hand.
The whole point is that Sam Stone isn’t the source of the claim. He is agreeing with the evidence as shown by the SAT score and the study. Reasonable non-partisans also agree with that evidence.
It makes no sense to assert that the decision to invade Iraq proves that Bush is of below average intelligence, while the decision by other people to support Bush’s decision proves nothing.
Smart people can make poor decisions. Often “smart” people–however you’d like to define it–consistently make poor decisions, the archetypal example being the maladjusted geek trolling message boards from his parent’s basement, or the professor who can’t tie his own shoes.
As I’ve said before, Bush appears below average only because we’re grading him on the curve of national and world leaders. I have no problem with the conclusion that he’s well below average among that group. But honestly, you guys seem to have never hung out with real average people. And I’m not talking average guys in your IT department, or average guys you went to college with. Those are skewed samples.
And as for incredulity that Bush could be two standard deviations from the mean, well, the top 5% is only what, somewhere around 10 million people? It’s not like people in the top 5% are vanishingly rare, and it would strike me that people found in the top echelons of power who aren’t also in that top 5% are pretty damn rare. Just about everyone who makes it to the top echelons of power is that smart, because millions of people are that smart. And you don’t find many really dumb people in that group who got their through their connections, simply because the really dumb children of the elite have plenty of better things to do with their time…play tennis, drive their sports cars, drink champagne, snort coke off the chests of $500 a night hookers, and so on. Taking a job like this is waaaay too much work. The “dumb” ones are like your “dumb” boss. He’s your dumb boss because he’s too dumb to be a boss, not because he’s literally a drooling moron. George Bush may be too dumb to be qualified to be President, but that doesn’t mean he’s literally dumber than the average person.
Please–arrange a meeting & I’ll take a day off. I’m hardly a “virulent Bush-hater” but doubt that meeting him would improve my opinion of his general worthlessness.
Next time we have a presidential debate ,ask one question. Do you believe in the rapture.? If you think the world is ending any minute ,so much of the rest follows. Why worry about the treasury, or the environment or the future for your grand kids. There wont be one. So much illogic can be explained by that. Many of these politicians do believe it is close. Bush is reportedly one of them.
I’m not talking about decisions I (or you and anyone else) disagrees with. I’m talking about political gaffs that have come back to bite him and his administration squarely on the ass…or were ill conceived or ill thought out. Things like his Social Security initiative, some of the things his administration has done on trade and then had to back peddle, many of his decisions concerning Iraq and other foreign policy decisions he and his administration have made. I don’t think they were stupid decisions because I disagree with them…they were stupid because they weren’t thought through in many cases, poorly implemented in others. To me this is the definition of ‘stupid policies’…my agreement or disagreement is not conditional on something being ‘stupid’.
I saw Bush in person during a campaign stop in Everett at the start of his original presidential run. Even though I didn’t agree personally with anything he said, he came across as a sturdy, quick, effective speaker who could positively work a crowd. He certainly didn’t exude the fumbling idiot vibe that he has the last several years.