Asking what value you place on intelligence independent of other qualities is fantasy?
Is something going on for you recently?
All things are never equal, especially if there is so great a divergence in intelligence. If someone is notably ‘smart’ then they aren’t likely to have all other factors similar to someone who is notably ‘dumb’. And even if they were or could be, I’d say that personality probably trumps intelligence in most people mind, as long as the difference doesn’t impede the candidates ability to communicate and their message.
And yeah…there has. RL stuff. Sorry for my tone. I’m trying to reduce my postings on this board to no more than a few a day, but maybe I should take a full stop break. Sorry for my tone.
-XT
No sweat. Best wishes to you.
Dean Simonten has written about this, and there is an interesting graph here charting intelligence and Presidential success.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/election-blog-post.aspx?id=1219
I can’t figure out how someone would obtain an IQ score for Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, or even Eisenhower or FDR. Similarly, how did they measure “presidential success”?
Sorry I ain’t been back for ages…
My phrasing of “IQ test” was kinda vague. What I was thinking, as has been pointed out, was that IQ is (to me anyway) a fairly generic measure of the ability to acquire, process and apply knowledge. This goes (hopefully) hand in hand with some form of critical thinking skills to recognise when people are coming from a biased position, the ability to recognise “good” and “bad” reasoning and the ability to weigh evidence.
At the end of the day, I expect a “leader” to listen to experts, but then apply their advice in line with his / her own principles. I don’t expect them to be expert in everything, but the thought was that a person that has a higher “IQ” would hopefully be better at assembling a team and recognising good advice (not the only measure though, obviously)
Frankly speaking, I look at someone like Sarah Palin, and I get scared that a populist stands a chance of getting elected - a populist that has some pretty extreme positions and that may not apply advice so well.
At the same time I do tend to equate “IQ” with “reasonableness” if you like - the ability to moderate oneself, and recognise other viewpoints. Its not infallible obviously, but may at least form some sort of safeguard.
I’d only be in support of a minimal IQ score requirement if there were also some way of screening out presidents who are lazy, corrupt, greedy, and immature.
Having a high IQ score does not preclude one from acting retarded. All other things being equal, I would choose a smart president over a dumb president, but really what I want is a president who conducts himself like a smart person. That entails looking at more than IQ.
Only if we allow IQ tests for voters. Seriously! I’ve had more intelligent conversations with melting ice cubes than some people but while the person can vote, the ice cube can’t. Where is the fairness in that? I would also argue that IQ tests do not really indicate leadership ability. Herbert Hoover would have had a high IQ (he was a mining engineer from Stanford) but combine his engineering way of thinking with his philanthropic nature and you have someone completely ill-equiped to deal with the Depression.
You used two Republicans and so in fairness I’ll use two Democrats. Jimmy Carter was no dummy but he mishandled just about every major issue he dealt with. Barack Obama is quite intellectual, in the mold of Woodrow Wilson. But he just does not have the experience in dealing with Congress. Right or wrong, give President McCain a cause he’s passionate about with a 60/40 majority in the Senate and he would have kicked ass and dug up graves to get his plan passed instead of letting his party puss out. But then again Obama ran a perfect campaign while McPalin waundered around like an outpatient. Almost makes you wonder if it takes different kinds of intelligences to be elected president and to be a good one.