Why isn’t it likely? He got scholarships to Yale and Oxford purely on academic merit. people who knew him in college say that he barely put forth any effort and got straight A’s. He has an unbelievable memory and for a while it was a bit of a game in the Washington press corps to try to stump him with more and more obscure and esoteric questions about domestic or foreign policy and his ability to retrieve the most arcane and trivial facts about Energy policy or economic forecasts in Upper Volta was uncanny. Even his most bitter political enemies say that he has one of the most brilliant minds they’ve ever seen.
I’m curious why you think he can’t be a genius. Why the hell not.
Oh…and not to brag or anything, but I tested out at 165 when I was in high school (and no, it was NOT an online test, it was a series of formal tests with a real psychologist). It resulted in an accelerated high school schedule for me and an early graduation. I was still an underachiever, though. I blew off a lot of classes and skated through by acing tests. I’m not saying all this to brag (I actually wondrer about the veracity of those tests since I don’t think I have an extraordinary intellect. I feel like I’m bright, amybe smarter than most, but I don’t think I’m brilliant like Einstein or Hawkings or Shakespeare. I suspect that it’s not that hard to score above 160 on an IQ test. I’ve known others who scored higher than me (Mensa types). It can’t be that unusual.
Sorry, no strawmen here. The Bush Administration and the Republican Party in general definitely oppose gay marriage. The Bush Administration has definitely sanctioned torture, and some Republican apologists have definitely defended the torture at Abu Ghraib. So torture good, marriage bad. It’s not a straw man if there’s substance to it.
There are tens of thousands of people with equivalent or superior academic qualifications. Unless there is some other evidence Clinton has a 165 IQ, the statement that it is “not likely” is logically correct; unless you have a reason to claim he is smarter than the thousands and thousands of people with equivalent or better academic records, it is likely he is not in the top 165.
Probably a hijack, but I didn’t think there was a direct correlation between grades in school and what you test out as far as IQ goes (I recall people in mensa that were plumbers or store clerks and such…who never WENT to college). So, there is no real way to judge what someone’s IQ is (not that IQ is a meaningful score with reguards to intellegence anyway, IMO) from merely looking at their grades. I know in my own case, I scored very high in IQ and on my SAT and other college entrance exams, but my grades were merely adaquate…I spent more time laying about in the sun or getting over a hangover than I did cracking books.
Perhaps the apologists aren’t all republican. Has any one seen any numbers on the size of America’s pro-torture contingent? Are we talking about 5% of the voting population here, or 25%?
From Cecil, Bush made a 1206 on his SAT. A 566 on the verbal and 640 on the math http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html
… and with a 1206 on his SAT GWB’s IQ is about 124 according to this SAT to IQ conversion table.
Well, I worded that a little more strongly than I should have. As Rickjay, said, though, while WJC is unquestionably very gifted, I think “High Genius” is an exceptional claim needing exceptional proof. Top one-half of one percent, I’ll buy, even top 0.1%. Anything more than that is guesswork unless we hear from an expert.
Well, it depends on the test. Some vary widely, especially at the upper end of the scale. Not that I think those IQ tests are really worth a whole lot in the real world, but a GRE score in the top 1% qualifies for Mensa, but only works out to an IQ of 132 or something like that. So 165 is truly exceptional.
Yes you are, easily, and I don’t need an IQ score to tell me that. Now if we could just add some wisdom to that …
Which **EASILY ** puts him at least at the 75th percentile in a group (SAT takers) that already is pre-selected towards intelligence (or academic performance). With that objective evidence available, anyone claiming Bush is “not intelligent” is himself “not intelligent”.
Not that I’m equating IQ and knowledge or even pre-1994 SAT and knowledge -but according to the Straightdope article linked — after the pre-1994 SAT scores were “recentered” Bush would score at 88th and 86th percentile for verbal and math respectively - for those entering college today.
Wow, I didn’t know about that pre-1994 adjustment. Jumps me up to nearly maxing both. Nice. I’m happy that I beat Al Gores adjusted scores with my base scores as well…thats a comfort. Anyone have any of Clintons scores available at all?
I must have missed this article by The Master…thanks Tigers2B1. I’ll have to remember this link next time this question pops up here in GD.
After much googling, I can’t find any definititive cite for Cinton’s IQ. There are claims ranging from 137 on this cite, which purports to have "estimated IQ’s for famous people. I have no idea what criteria they used. The same site puts GWB at 125.
Other sites tend to claim some rather gaudy scores for Clinton. I found claims for 160, 165 and 182. The latter claim is a debunked part of a spurious list of Presidential IQ’s which also listed GWB at 90.
I don’t know if there’s any legit cite for BC’s IQ or if he’s ever even been tested. I do know that they don’t hand out those Rhodes Scholarships, though.
I wouldn’t put much stock in SAT scores, btw. Anyone who knows how to prepare for them can get a decent score. They don’t really measure innate intelligence.
I had several classmates in high school that were great test-takers but widely aknowledged as not very intelligent.
Of course, it all depends on your definition of ‘intelligence’. If you define it as performing well on standardized tests, then he might be somewhat intelligent.
But test-taking is not what intelligence is all about. It is about being able to make correct decisions and correct and clear arguments to support those decisions. And that’s all we really ask for in a president, not if he did well on his SAT’s.
I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Bush has made good decisions during his tenure, and whether he has made clear and correct arguments to support those decisions (hint: think “Iraq”)
Probably not…but then, the IQ tests would fall into the same category, no? So, do THEY measure intellegence? Not IMO. Like you, I know a lot of folks that are just good at taking tests (I’m one of them). What does that tell us about their intellegence? Nothing much really.
However, its the only empirical piece of evidence we have on GW. As to “I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Bush has made good decisions during his tenure, and whether he has made clear and correct arguments to support those decisions” now we are into total partisanship. I can think of myriad mistakes Clinton made too…does that make him stupid?
All presidents make mistake, but the magnitude of their mistakes doesn’t equate to their intellegence either. A smart man can make major mistakes and gaffs…and a stupid one might not make such huge mistakes, depending on circumstances. There is no way to draw a correlation between if GW is intellegent or not based whether he made good decisions (or not) while in office, as your interperatation of what constitutes a ‘good decision’ is different from mine…and both of ours are different from a Republican supporter of the president.
Personally, this whole arguement is just silly. Why people feel the need to make GW into a slobbering moron with a 90 IQ is beyond me. He could be a genius and still not be the guy you want for president, still make major fuckups and have policies opposed to your world view. Isn’t THAT what counts?
I don’t think that IQ is designed to measure “intelligence,” if by that you mean acquired knowledge. As I understand, IQ tests verbal and abstract reasoning. How you use that ability is up to the individual.
The MENSA site uses pre-1994 SAT scores to qualify. SAT scores obtained in 1994 and after apparently do not correlate with IQ and can’t be used.
Well, why don’t you tell us how to measure it then. People on this board routinely state that Bush is “not intelligent.” No one knows how to measure that quality, but the only quantitative measures that we have (however good or bad) indicate that Bush is intelligent. “Has a political viewpoint different from mine” is not a valid argument against intelligence.
If you would prefer, we can take the position that we have no way of knowing how intelligent anyone is. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim to be unable to measure intelligence, and yet somehow know that Bush isn’t intelligent.
I’m happy that I beat Al Gores adjusted scores with my base scores as well…thats a comfort. Anyone have any of Clintons scores available at all?