Bush is cleverer than 95% of us!

#1
Some egg-head has done an exhausive analymacating of Bush & Kerry's officer candidaturism and standardamacating testification scores:

From the NY Times:

POLITICAL POINTS

Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: October 24, 2004



Secret Weapon

For Bush?



To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.



That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.



Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.



Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.



Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.



Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.



You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.



Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The original analysis was done by IQ expert Steve Sailer:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

Steve Sailer is not a partisan pro-Bush hack, which anyone can confirm by reading his blog: http://www.isteve.com/
 
#3
From the NY Times:


Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said ......... "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand,"
Does that hold for Bush's knack of speaking absolute sh*te that people can't understand? On that basis, he's gotta be a candidate for Mensa 8O
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#4
Little Jack H said:
From the NY Times:


Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said ......... "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand,"
Does that hold for Bush's knack of speaking absolute sh*te that people can't understand? On that basis, he's gotta be a candidate for Mensa 8O

Bush is cleverer than 46% of mental impaired :D :twisted: Just a yank speaking the truth
 
#5
Which just goes to prove, intelligence is by no means, the be all and end all. I have an IQ higher than both of them, but cant even be trusted to babysit my sisters cat. Taking responsibility in the military is easy, we are all grown-ups with reasonable nowse and lethal weapons, but taking charge of 280million borderline pondlife (no offence intended to our colonial cousins), calls for something else, an enormous ego perhaps? :wink:
 
#6
To be honest I've never held human intelligence (not your type Chickboy stop salivating...) to be of much relevence in regards to a social standing.

There are a lot of people out there who can't do the hardest of mathematical equations but then there are those that can who can't put a cabinet together.

Now whilst this sounds like the old tale of some people have intelligence and others common sense, it's not. It's just simply saying that different people have different areas they're good at and anyone can be taught how to do the majority of things given time. They may not be great at them but they will be able to do them.

Now to lead a country, I'd say they don't need a greatly above average intelligence. Rather they need the ability to manage. They won't know all about economics, international politics (although Bush's admission to being a realist is worrying), educational policy, labour concerns and so on. There will be people who do though, and the true test for them is how they manage not only the people but the information that they bring him or her.

So perhaps the better question is what subjects have these men studied, what do they know and how do they utilise the information coming to them from their advisors?
 

Similar threads

Top