Would you support an IQ test for (US) Presidency?

[Icarus]

Another vote for no.

Citing the specific examples - while I was strongly opposed to Bush as a President, I did not see him as un-intelligent. He achieved an advanced degree at a very well respected university. Having been exposed to him as Governor of Texas - hearing a few of his speeches, etc., he did not give the impression of being a dolt at that time. I truly believe he was coached to “dumb down” his presentation as President.

However, you can have a great deal of intelligence and/or a great IQ score and be very misguided. No test can measure that.

[Jackmannii]

I.Q. tests do not reliably evaluate excellence in leadership, integrity and generation of innovative ideas. Therefore I’d be against using them as any kind of measure of the virtues of a candidate for elective office.

Also it would be a mistake to assume that either Bush or Palin would score badly on such tests. Does anyone think that, for example, Bush was the intellectual inferior of Eisenhower or Truman? I don’t believe Palin is a dope either - rather that there may be some laziness or contempt for organized acquisition of knowledge operating in her case.

[JKellyMap]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Can you provide any cites for this assertion?

The book Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, is a good place to start. A very good read, in any case.

ETA: I see someone already mentioned this book.

[Sitnam]

IQ fades with age, I’d be more in favor of putting an age limit on our highest office…and all the rest for that matter.

[XT]

@Jackmannii

Also it would be a mistake to assume that either Bush or Palin would score badly on such tests. Does anyone think that, for example, Bush was the intellectual inferior of Eisenhower or Truman? I don’t believe Palin is a dope either - rather that there may be some laziness or contempt for organized acquisition of knowledge operating in her case.

No idea about Palin, but from the last thread on this tiresome subject about Bush I seem to recall that his IQ scores were solid…not spectacular, but well above average. In fact, IIRC, his IQ scores were higher than either Kerry or Gore, but I might be misremembering. Also, his SAT scores were (again IIRC) decent as well.

I don’t see how IQ would be a good basis for who should or should not be president, to be honest. The only real test is the one done at the polls, IMHO.

-XT

[Chief_Pedant]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

As to the OP, I kinda like the idea.

What I’m more interested in, and this should probably be a separate topic, is the idea expressed in many posts here that IQ is not a very good indicator of intelligence. It actually is, and it is a pretty good indicator of function in a lot of domains. It’s also one of the most stable quantities we have measured in people over time.

I’m tickled to see a defense of IQ tests, which are often inappropriately maligned and/or misunderstood on this board.

The question is whether an IQ test would provide additional value here other than establishing a floor intelligence. It seems to me the various other constraints of getting to the place of being a POTUS candidate already selects out for an adequate raw intelligence floor.

The thing that intelligence testing does not select out for are things like judgment. For instance, I think it was beyond dumb–not just politically, but as an item of judgment–to invade Iraq, even though some highly intelligent people came to an opposite conclusion.

I realize that the OP point is probably to use intelligence as a necessary but not sufficient quality, but there is an implication that a smarter President is a better President, and that’s what I’m taking issue with once a certain minimum intelligence is reached (in round numbers, something over 120 or so, say?). And I’d bet that the average POTUS has had that basic level.

The other dilemma is that a really smart guy has more potential for really bad errors than a dumb guy. If the world were full of lower IQ populations, we wouldn’t be over-running it and we wouldn’t be facing AGW. We might not have even invented anything beyond subsistence farming. Think Dr Evil, I guess.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Chief Pedant, I agree with what you’ve written, except I think for the last bit.

[whorfin]

@Kearsen

Instead of an IQ test, they need to all be survivors of front line fighting, actually in command of some sub set of troops.

If we applied this rule to the data we have, it would rule out some of the more distinguished and successful presidents: FDR, Lincoln, Reagan, Clinton, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, and Woodrow Wilson, while ruling in some of the undistinguished/plain bad (not counting those like W.H. Harrison, who didn’t serve for long) Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Zachary Taylor, Benjamin Harrison, Grant, and Ford.

I can’t call a rule “good” that would bar Lincoln, Jefferson, and FDR from the Presidency in favor of Pierce, Buchanan, and Grant.

[BrainGlutton]

@astorian

Woodrow Wilson had a Ph. D. in political science, which didn’t stop him from getting the U.S. involved in a pointless, unnecessary war and then drawing up the map of Europe in such a way as to ensure future wars.

WWI as a whole was pointless in hindsight, but U.S. involvement in it was not necessarily pointless. And the Versailles Treaty was much more punitive of Germany than Wilson wanted; and its border settlements, at any rate, were not in any sense causative of WWII.

In any case, just because A is smarter than B does not mean A will never make mistakes – to the contrary, it makes it possible A will make kinds of mistakes B could never imagine. Nevertheless, it is still better to be smart than dumb – and A is still preferable to B as a choice for public office.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

I don’t see how IQ would be a good basis for who should or should not be president, to be honest.

IQ (whatever IQ means) might not be, but intelligence is a pretty important consideration.

There are other considerations, of course, like honesty and political views. An intelligent POTUS who is also unethical and of socially destructive politics could do a whole lot more damage than a well-meaning shlub of a more beneficent tendency. Nixon was very intelligent.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@BrainGlutton

WWI as a whole was pointless in hindsight, but U.S. involvement in it was not necessarily pointless. And the Versailles Treaty was much more punitive of Germany than Wilson wanted; and its border settlements, at any rate, were not in any sense causative of WWII.

Bull. The ease that Hitler had in getting back the Rhineland lead directly to the Anschluss and the Munich Agreement. The conditions of Versailles, including the border arrangements, were a direct cause of World War II.

[Perciful]

@BrainGlutton

IQ (whatever IQ means) might not be, but intelligence is a pretty important consideration.

There are other considerations, of course, like honesty and political views. An intelligent POTUS who is also unethical and of socially destructive politics could do a whole lot more damage than a well-meaning shlub of a more beneficent tendency. Nixon was very intelligent.

Nixon didn’t need a teleprompter to make an address to a fifth grade class. Obaba does.

[Markxxx]

First of all IQ only measures a capacity not what you know.

Think of an IQ like a 16 ounce glass. That’s the capacity, but the glass may never come close to holding 16 ounces of liquid.

Second, the president insn’t a dictator. It’s far more important for him to be able to get others to work with him to get programs passed.

The president can do little on his own.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Markxxx

First of all IQ only measures a capacity not what you know.

Think of an IQ like a 16 ounce glass. That’s the capacity, but the glass may never come close to holding 16 ounces of liquid.

What does this mean?

An IQ score is based in part on fund of knowledge, so in fact what you know is part of the full scale IQ score.

[not_alice]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

It’s also one of the most stable quantities we have measured in people over time.

I was surprised just yesterday to learn that is not the case. My psychologist GF attended a hearing (in which she is not involved) where the competence of the defendant is at issue.

Defendant is 21 years old or so, Hispanic male, probably of Mexican descent He shot a cop. That he killed the cop is not an issue.

At the hearing, their was forensic psychologists describing his IQ testing.

Apparently, there is not really a normed test for his population demographic, and whether they should use the US English one, or the Mexican version makes a difference in the results.

It seems that the Mexican one has a much larger confidence interval around the score than the US one because the norm test population is much smaller. So the doctor could only give a very broad range of IQ estimate, such that it is meaningless for the Court’s purposes. That surprised me to learn.

The US English test though, is both in language and actual questions, culturally biased, so his score there, although the confidence interval might be tighter, may simply be inaccurate.

So the competence remains an open question for the Judge to decide.

Legally I suppose this is far from the first time this has come up, but it is important because this is a death penalty case for sure, and it is going to be a good long time before the last appeal is heard should it actually result in the death penalty. such appeals very well could turn on what happened this week in determining competence.

So that is just one example of how an IQ test is apparently not normed with lots of people over a long time or otherwise, and the effect it could have on all of us as we pay for this trial and punishment.

I followed up - less details to offer, but apparently IQ tests as we know them in the US are not so common elsewhere (for some value of “elsewhere”) which also goes to the quote above.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@not_alice

I was surprised just yesterday to learn that is not the case. My psychologist GF attended a hearing (in which she is not involved) where the competence of the defendant is at issue.

[…]
So that is just one example of how an IQ test is apparently not normed with lots of people over a long time or otherwise, and the effect it could have on all of us as we pay for this trial and punishment.

I followed up - less details to offer, but apparently IQ tests as we know them in the US are not so common elsewhere (for some value of “elsewhere”) which also goes to the quote above.

I’m not sure how any of this gets to stability over time. What that means is that if your IQ is measured at 15 and at 45, it’s not going to show meaningful change.

[not_alice]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I’m not sure how any of this gets to stability over time. What that means is that if your IQ is measured at 15 and at 45, it’s not going to show meaningful change.

Well, as I think has been discussed here before, the tests might not actually score that low.

But the point is that you are given a score and a confidence interval which means there is a x (=95%) probability your true score is in that range.

In the case of the Mexican test I described, that range is too wide as to be useful to the court. Depending on which side you are on I guess - I think she said the Dr. testified his score on that test was between 45 and 85 or something like that. Right in the middle there is where they might start to figure he is competent, and so that is a pretty wide range.

(don’t hold me to the actual numbers, just to the broader point I am making)

Whether the test changes over time, measures anything universal at all, is culturally biased, or is precise enough to be useful are probably all open questions.

[BrainGlutton]

@Perciful

Nixon didn’t need a teleprompter to make an address to a fifth grade class. Obaba does.

:rolleyes:

[Otara]

IQ tests have been normed for a pretty wide variety of populations and languages, and similar results found.

Just because a particular population hasnt been well normed doesnt mean that argument really holds much water, unless one takes the argument that all populations everywhere have to return similar results before you can conclude the concept is generalisable.

Like all psychometric tests there are caveats, but it is a fairly well developed area. In many areas also, it doesnt have to be perfectly accurate - just more accurate than peoples subjective assessments for the same issue. Job performance would be a classic in that regard.

Otara

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@not_alice

Well, as I think has been discussed here before, the tests might not actually score that low.

But the point is that you are given a score and a confidence interval which means there is a x (=95%) probability your true score is in that range.

In the case of the Mexican test I described, that range is too wide as to be useful to the court. Depending on which side you are on I guess - I think she said the Dr. testified his score on that test was between 45 and 85 or something like that. Right in the middle there is where they might start to figure he is competent, and so that is a pretty wide range.

(don’t hold me to the actual numbers, just to the broader point I am making)

Whether the test changes over time, measures anything universal at all, is culturally biased, or is precise enough to be useful are probably all open questions.

No. It’s not. The stability of IQ scores has been pretty well established, and nothing that you’re talking about has yet come close to the issue of stability.

Whether it’s culturally biased is a different matter, but that’s why one generates scores based on appropriate norms.

It sounds like you believe a second-hand account of one person’s testimony calls into question the entirety of the literature base on the assessment of intelligence. It doesn’t.