Bush and Colbert

Moreover, this silly academic model ignores the issue of trust.

At base level, those elected to government act as stewards of the public trust - be it with the public fisc, etc. They are trusted to take care of public issues.

But there is no linear connection between being intelligent and being trustworthy. Some of the most intelligent people known are the best manipulators, liars, and deceivers available - and of course they are: being smart helps them get away with it.

The point is this - the theory seems to suggest that intelligence is a sufficient condition for leadership, but it is not - it is necessary, but more is required: trustworthiness, work ethic, as examples, and something that no model can measure - character.

I know several PhD holders that I wouldn’t vote for dog-catcher, but it isn’t because I am bothered subconciously by their brainpower. That is tragically hilarious. Many factors go into the stew of decisionmaking.

Perfect example, Hspder - you aren’t going to vote for Tim Westly, but it isn’t because you are intimidated by his brains, even though I am sure he is quite smart. You yourself said that there was an intuitive distrust of his character, regardless of his formal and intellectual resume - GSB, success in business, etc. - and that makes perfect sense. And behold: your silly theory doesn’t even hold water for purposes of explaining your own personal voting behavior.

[quote]doogie wrote:
IQs: Bush 123, Kerry 120
[/quote]

This proves that they are one in the same.

Barely average rich kids.

LOL, I don’t think people like the idea that people vote for the dumber and easier to relate to candidate.

Trust? WTF does trust have to do with modern politics? I mean, are the people in office anywhere apparently trustworthy? Scandal after scandal is a plague on those in office… and you want to lecture us about trust?

Anyhow, just so you know, people tend to trust those that they can “relate” to. It’s one of those emotional things, such as distrusting someone who is smarter and running for office.

Gore showed frustration during the debates that I recall. His answers were good, he was intelligent, he knew his stuff, but “nobody” gave a shit about that at all. The popularity contest spin was done and he was the geeky smart kid that nobody liked.

LOL! Don’t forget, he worked very hard to make the Internet available for the public, he has even been given an award for that work, to try to undo the political spin that falsely attributes to him the phrase that he “invented” the Internet.

Damn though, wouldn’t it be horrible if they elected someone who misspoke a little bit from time to time… oh the irony.

doogie, those Kerry quotes are great.

[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL, I don’t think people like the idea that people vote for the dumber and easier to relate to candidate.[/quote]

Quite true, because it is unfounded.

You’re confused - we are talking about getting elected, not performance after the election. You mean to argue that voters are always completely agnostic between a candidate that has demonstrated corruption and one that has a track record of integrity?

Can’t be true - otherwise, why did Delay step down? If Sugar Land voters were nonplussed by his antics, why would he quit?

Voters want trustworthy candidates - even if they are in short supply. The point is they still want to vote for a trustworthy candidate.

Go look at Hspder’s Tim Westly thread - Hspder has already said he doesn’t trust Westly, that he is a weasel.

Part of that is correct - being able to relate is a good thing. But the rest is not - this automatic distrust of ‘people who are smarter than you’ is a fiction, because it can be qualified out of existence. If a candidate has great ability to relate to you - i.e., share your values, etc. - then this ‘intimidation by people who are smarter than you’ - already a shakey theory - becomes even less appropriate.

People do not reflexively distrust people who are smarter than them - so it would be wise to stop trying to pawn that off as fact.

As usual, your analysis is limited - reminds me of your approach to the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, which you opined on but knew nothing about. Gore’s performance entailed much more than your description here, including, but not limited to, his bizarre changes in makeup and propensity to exaggerate/fabricate, which not only did he apologize for at one of the debates, he actually roasted himself over the issue at an Alfred Smith dinner.

Go get informed - Gore’s ‘intelligence’ and the public’s ‘fear of that intelligence’ was not the issue of his poor debate performances.

Again, this lazy excuse - Gore did poorly because people refused to acknowledge that ‘he knew his stuff’ because they were bothered by his smartness - is completely ignorant of context and the many other factors at work.

That is a cheap formulation that requires you to quit thinking and feel quite good about yourself - I know, you get to feel all warm and fuzzy, but there is more work to be done.

You mean like the spin that Bush is criminally stupid? Or that Gerald Ford was clumsy? Or that Carter was a know-nothing hick?

Thunder, you ARE a complete pedant.

Anyhow, I don’t think you can look at the post election Gore and talk about his performance pre-election. Heck, you just gave me the same pre/post lecture in your post.

By the way, it isn’t spin that has Bush making an ass out of himself every time he talks on camera. He sounds like a complete moron, and that has nothing to do with spin, we can all see that for ourselves.

Spin is when something is manufactured. Sort of like the process of swift-boating someone…

Open your eyes zombie.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Thunder, you ARE a complete pedant.[/quote]

This is the height of irony.

What is pedantic? You never said.

This is stupid - Gore’s pre-election performance in large part determines whether or not someone will vote for him in an election. It doesn’t matter what he does post-election - at that point people have already voted. His post-election performance cannot affect how people vote for him in the past.

Bush is not a good public speaker - that wasn’t the point. He has been characterized as having below-average intelligence when it is clear that simply isn’t the case.

I also notice that your ‘spin’ is always reserved for the Right.

Hilarious. Vroom, you are the walking talking proof of the Law of Diminishing Returns - the more you post, the less value there is.

You’ve shown your limitations here - you don’t know half of what you claim to, and you can’t resist trying to attack me, or in your words, “swift boating”…? I have been arguing in good faith on the merits of this goofy, therapeutic theory - but you want to call me a zombie, or whatever.

Well, how about that? In one sense, maybe you are right - people really are intimidated by people who know more than them - thanks for making your point. Your response to me was the best evidence you gave of your theory all day.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bush is not a good public speaker - that wasn’t the point. He has been characterized as having below-average intelligence when it is clear that simply isn’t the case.[/quote]

You really miss the point. We are talking about what people see for themselves. It wouldn’t matter if Bush had a 200 IQ. He talks like an imbecile. That makes people comfortable, at least according to the theory we are arguing about.

Among other things, you are being pedantic in that you are trying to equate reality with public perception, and the two are not so tightly related. I don’t give a shit what his IQ is, he doesn’t act smart, he doesn’t look smart, his policies aren’t smart, his management history doesn’t imply smart.

However smart he is, he’s hidden it very well.

Yeah, I know, I am generally critical of those in office. Funny how that works.

[quote]
Hilarious. Vroom, you are the walking talking proof of the Law of Diminishing Returns - the more you post, the less value there is.

You’ve shown your limitations here - you don’t know half of what you claim to, and you can’t resist trying to attack me, or in your words, “swift boating”…? I have been arguing in good faith on the merits of this goofy, therapeutic theory - but you want to call me a zombie, or whatever.

Well, how about that? In one sense, maybe you are right - people really are intimidated by people who know more than them - thanks for making your point. Your response to me was the best evidence you gave of your theory all day.[/quote]

Perhaps if it was actually my theory, I’d have a better time defending it. I’m just attacking the attack, I don’t actually care one way or the other about the theory itself… but you seem hell-bent on finding a flaw in it.

The sad part is, according to hspder, the damned theory has been built from study of voters.

I’m not sure it can be argued away easily.

Gore was like by more voters than Bush in the 2000 election.

Bush was liked by more voters in the 2004 election and that was almost undone.

If Kerry had just 100K more votes in Ohio then he would have won the election much like Bush did in 2000.

Via the electoral college.

Bush will go down as worse than Harding.

Let’s look at the 2004 elections to see if the Stupid People theory plays out:

Couple of assumptions
-The less education you have, the more stupid you are
-Bush had displayed four years of being dumb as a box of rocks, and Kerry was clearly head and shoulders intellectually above Bush

The numbers:

-No high school: Bush 49%, Kerry 50%

PUSH: odd, though - if people who haven’t finished high school are presumptively pretty dumb, the theory would mandate that Bush - the obvious dumb candidate - should have taken these people’s votes in a landslide, being that they represent the bottom rung of education in America. Yet Kerry actually got more of their votes. Why would people so dumb and uneducated vote for John Kerry, who presumptively should be intimidating voters of this low intellectual caliber into voting in droves for Bush?

-Under $15,000 in income: Bush 36%, Kerry 63%

ADV-KERRY: While income may not be as obvious a determinant of brains as education level, it stands to reason that those in this bracket could be considered presumptively dumb. These people should be overwhelmingly intimidated by Kerry, the obvious smart candidate. So why are they voting for Kerry? Under the Stupid People theory, people simply won’t vote for someone if they think they are smarter than them - but here we have a direct refutation of that claim.

Let’s have even more fun, and go back to the 2000 election, since we have been extolling Gore’s intellectual firepower so much.

-No high school diploma: Bush 39%, Gore 59%

ADV-GORE: By a significant margin. Al Gore, it has been repeatedly argued here, was undoubtedly the more intelligent candidate, yet the lowest rung of Stupid People gave him damn near 60% of their votes. Impossible under the Stupid Person theory. Why didn’t the intellectual powerhouse Gore drive dumb voters - who refuse to vote for someone smarter than themselves under the theory - into Bush’s camp?

-Under $15,000 income: Bush 37%, Gore 57%

ADV-GORE: The presumptively dumb poorer class gave Gore a 20 point advantage over Bush. Why? Gore is a near-genius - these dummies should have overwhelmingly voted for Bush, the imbecile.

Two national elections - two contrary outcomes under the Stupid People theory.

Sadly for us, the exit polls do not have ‘Stupid Person’ category by which to more directly measure their votes, but I suspect that there is an academic conference in the Bay Area thinking of proposing such an idea soon.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Let’s look at the 2004 elections to see if the Stupid People theory plays out:
[/quote]

Americans approach politics the same way they approach fitness for the same reason.

Ignorance.

You all are not recognizing one thing: Bush had a better marketing scheme than Kerry. It is a well know fact that to get people to buy into something, you have to market it correctly. Bush’s team was simply better at marketing their product, which was Bush and his political team. Marketing is were it’s at, not intelligence. Know your audience and adjust accordingly.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gore, irrelevant of his intelligence, came off as detached and unable to connect with people.[/quote]

Reread my initial post.

You don’t even realize it, but you are agreeing with me.

I specifically mentioned people will look for candidates that reflect them – intelligence was just a part of the equation, not the whole package. I mentioned a bunch of other factors. After all, my post was prompted by another factor that most people lack too: integrity.

The fact is, Gore didn’t reflect its audience – some people felt he was a brainiac, some, like you, felt he was detached and a poor communicator. It boils down to the same – people didn’t seem themselves “in” him.

The only reason you seem to be caught up on the intelligence factor (which is, again, just ONE factor) is that it is something about Bush, specifically, that is constantly questioned… And that I highlighted a bit with the specific purpose of dragging Bushviks into the discussion. You’re just trying to defend him, rather than look at the theory, which IS sound – so much so you actually agree with it.

If you, for a moment, step back and look at the big picture, you’ll see what I mean.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Perfect example, Hspder - you aren’t going to vote for Tim Westly, but it isn’t because you are intimidated by his brains, even though I am sure he is quite smart. You yourself said that there was an intuitive distrust of his character, regardless of his formal and intellectual resume - GSB, success in business, etc. - and that makes perfect sense. And behold: your silly theory doesn’t even hold water for purposes of explaining your own personal voting behavior.[/quote]

Again, you fail to look at the big picture. What I question, most of all, is his INTEGRITY, something I (tell myself) have. And that is a factor that I specifically mentioned, the one that actually prompted my post!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Couple of assumptions
-The less education you have, the more stupid you are[/quote]

The fact that you are correlating intelligence with education and income is so wrong on so many levels I simply cannot believe you actually had the nerve to say something like that.

Newsflash: there is NO correlation. And unless you have some way to prove it, I am not going to speculate on assumptions that not only are unproven, I personally take issue with.

[quote]hspder wrote:

The fact that you are correlating intelligence with education and income is so wrong on so many levels I simply cannot believe you actually had the nerve to say something like that.

Newsflash: there is NO correlation. And unless you have some way to prove it, I am not going to speculate on assumptions that not only are unproven, I personally take issue with.
[/quote]

You said that most people are idiots. Your crocodile tears over ‘taking personal issue’ over the rough correlation are laughable - after all, you made the claim that most everyone are ‘idiots’: how do you substantiate that claim?

I think the correlation is a rough one as well, but you think people are idiots: so show me how you would lump your idiots statistically.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
so show me how you would lump your idiots…[/quote]

IDIOTS
T-bolt
general populace

OTHERS
!T-bolt

Sorry man, I couldn’t resist… :wink:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Your crocodile tears over ‘taking personal issue’ over the rough correlation are laughable[/quote]

They are not crocodile tears, and I have every reason to take personal issue over it.

There is a proven strong correlation between race and income. Unfortunately, the truth is that generally, Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest incomes (low/low-middle class on average), Asians are in the middle and Whites are in the upper/upper-middle class of incomes.

So if your assumption WAS correct, it would automatically imply that Blacks and Hispanics are dumber than Asians which in turn are dumber than Whites, by simple implication.

I’ve explained here several times what is the “racial composition” of my extended family (including my wife’s), so yes, I take personal issue with your statement.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
after all, you made the claim that most everyone are ‘idiots’: how do you substantiate that claim?[/quote]

Much in the same way any sizeable scientific discovery (e.g., in physics or in economics) in the past 50 years has been made: whenever you try to explain the behavior of humanity, that conclusion is inevitable.

If you read a few books, or at least a few papers, on the subjects I mentioned – behavioral economics and cognitive bias – you’ll see plenty of examples. I started studying them back in 2002, when some major work started being done in behavioral economics (and a Nobel Prize was awarded to its pioneers) and in every book and paper I’ve read, the conclusion is inevitable. When I was writing a paper myself on behavioral economics (which got accepted just last Monday), again the conclusion was inevitable.

Einstein was on the right track when he said that humanity?s stupidity is the only truly infinite thing that he was sure of.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think the correlation is a rough one as well, but you think people are idiots: so show me how you would lump your idiots statistically.[/quote]

There is no single statistic that can be proven to be common to all idiots (and absent from non-idiots). If there was, we wouldn’t have the tremendous resources we have at Stanford dedicated to the admissions office, nor we would have so many idiots still coming in, in spite of our best efforts to pick them out.

Furthermore, job interviews would be unnecessary. Idiot managers would easily be able to find out other idiots and hire them. They actually need a whole interview process to make sure the candidate is a complete and utter idiot that is in no way smarter than the hiring manager…

[quote]hspder wrote:
They are not crocodile tears, and I have every reason to take personal issue over it.

There is a proven strong correlation between race and income. Unfortunately, the truth is that generally, Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest incomes (low/low-middle class on average), Asians are in the middle and Whites are in the upper/upper-middle class of incomes.

So if your assumption WAS correct, it would automatically imply that Blacks and Hispanics are dumber than Asians which in turn are dumber than Whites, by simple implication.[/quote]

Professor, use your brain - despite you wanting to read in some latent racism into my theory, nowhere was I suggesting that we are talking about “dumbness” as the raw, genetic brainpower born into a human. We have been - or at least I thought we were - discussing it in terms of putting that brainpower to work via getting and utilizing an education in combination with natural brainpower.

And if it stands to reason that most people are idiots, I think a safe assumption is that people with less education are likely more idiotic than their educated idiotic brethren.

If - educationally and income-wise - that falls along racial lines in a way that you don’t like, that is a separate argument - because here you are confusing cause with correlation. This is not a mistake I would expect from a man who is always boasting about his three PhDs. If blacks and Hispanics occupy these bottom rungs, there are other reasons why other than racial limitations - it could be because of discrimination, language barriers, etc. But that is irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion.

We only care who is the most idiotic in order to measure how they vote. If you are going to make a claim that ‘stupid people vote a certain way’ - which you did - we need to figure out the sample group. If it happens to be blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, who cares - I am only interested in who the most dumb are to see if they vote for the dumb candidate.

And if I seem callous by dropping the word ‘idiot’ so casually, it’s intentional - I am trying to act within the framework of your theory and your label. I believe the people you label idiots aren’t quite as stupid as you posit, and if you ever get brave enough to venture outside of your self-affirming cloister of Stanford and the Bay Area, you may actually realize that. But baby steps - one of the unwashed masses may actually come into contact with your skin, so go easy at first.

Fabulous - when it comes to race, you are get your hackles up. You reserve the right to be a pompous, sneering bigot when it comes to nearly everything else that exists outside your bubble - i.e., idiots who vote for rhesus monkeys, etc. - but mention race, and the train stops in its tracks.

Color me unimpressed.

Since your best answer to this point seems to be a non-answer - i.e., you have no idea who the idiots are or any way to measure who is an idiot, but you can apparently explain how they think and what they do with a fair amount of precision amazingly - perhaps you could tell me who isn’t an idiot and how you measure that?

Let’s do this - you can at least explain why you aren’t an idiot and you are immune to all these cognitive biases so inherent in all these idiots running around.

[quote]hspder wrote:

The fact that you are correlating intelligence with education and income is so wrong on so many levels I simply cannot believe you actually had the nerve to say something like that.

Newsflash: there is NO correlation. And unless you have some way to prove it, I am not going to speculate on assumptions that not only are unproven, I personally take issue with.

[/quote]

From wikipedia:

Correlation between

School grades and IQ=0.5
Total years of education and IQ=0.55