George Dubbya Bush

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]lixy wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
…

I disagree. IQ tests shouldn’t come into play for a country’s leader. The qualities one should look for are dedication, common sense, and the willingness to serve the people (NOT some wealthy elite).[/quote]

I never said I.Q. standards should be a criteria for presidential candidacy. I stated that my personal opinion was that it was ironic that the presidency doesn’t display a higher position on the I.Q. bell curve similar to that of U.S. generals, admirals, etc…

Testing and measuring of the various components of human intelligence is a complex affair and I.Q. measurements have definite limitations. However, I.Q. curves have proven useful in predicting individual success in various areas and there is nothing wrong with hoping your leaders have every advantage that may lead to success in their endeavors.

After all a person can posses all the qualities you cite and still be of higher intellect but I am not certain I follow why you believe that people judged a wealthy elite are somehow less entitled to be served by their government.

62

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Of course one would hope that the highest office in the U.S. that includes the position of commander in chief of the military would be a bit more exclusive than the eightieth percentile.

Name the last president that was elected based on intelligence.

Last time I checked it was about sound-bites and money.

People want to laugh at Bush’s perceived stupidity - but there is no such thing as bad press.

I love the fact that the author of this thread prides himself in not being a conformist - yet falls most comfortably into the plush seats of the ABB peanut gallery.

Hypocrisy is not being non-conformist.

Limbic, my frog licking little friend - Bush is not Texan. Never forget that. [/quote]

The key word was hope.

63

[quote]merlin wrote:
WELP, I’m done here.

[/quote]

Were that you would actually be a man of your word. But you can’t You are addicted to the mirage of your own “greatness”.

You have been done here since your first post - your own stupidity has you blinded.

64

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I never said I.Q. standards should be a criteria for presidential candidacy. I stated that my personal opinion was that it was ironic that the presidency doesn’t display a higher position on the I.Q. bell curve similar to that of U.S. generals, admirals, etc… [/quote]

Ok, that clears it up.

They are perfectly entitled to be served by their government. But, more often than not, presidents (prime ministers or whatever title applies) tend to serve the interests of those at the expense of those of the people.

I misformulated my thought though. Shouldn’t have used the categorical “NOT”.

65

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I heard it in the news that according to standardized test scores that were on record for Bush that his I.Q. was likely around 120. That makes him near the eightieth percentile. Hardly a stellar intellect but far from a simpleton.
[/quote]

No, higher than the 80th percentile. Bush apparently scored 1206 out of 1600 on the old SAT (566 verbal and 640 math), which placed him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students. That means his IQ would be higher than the 84th percentile because not everyone is college-bound, and those people who weren’t would have scored significantly lower had they taken the test. I’ve read that an (old) SAT score of 1250 correlates to an IQ of around 130, which is the 97th percentile. Bush would have come close to qualifying for the gifted and talented program in many American school districts.

A 1206 score on the old scale would have Bush one of the brighter kids in his class if he’d gone to a suburban public school. But certainly not the brightest. Still, I think it’s safe to say that merlin’s president is eclipsing him intellectually.

Gore scored over 1300, which is quite nice, but still not at Nat’l Merit Scholarship levels.

Kerry did less well than Bush.

They probably all fall within what I once read described as the “optimal” IQ range: 125-145. Within this range you’re bright enough to succeed at virtually anything you want to pursue, but not so smart that you come off as odd or find it difficult to relate to people.

Anyway, I’m no fan of Bush, but surely he’s easy enough to mock without resorting to inaccuracies.

66

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
No, higher than the 80th percentile. Bush apparently scored 1206 out of 1600 on the old SAT (566 verbal and 640 math), which placed him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students. That means his IQ would be higher than the 84th percentile because not everyone is college-bound, and those people who weren’t would have scored significantly lower had they taken the test. I’ve read that an (old) SAT score of 1250 correlates to an IQ of around 130, which is the 97th percentile. Bush would have come close to qualifying for the gifted and talented program in many American school districts.[/quote]

Pffft, his Dad probably greased a few palms at the test center. Story of his life…

Anyway, Bush scored big in high school? Big deal. After high school, he killed a lot of brain cells with his 20 years of binge drinking and drug abuse. High school was a long time ago.

Now, Bush is doing for America what he did for Arbusto… running it into the ground.

If you have young kids, what do you tell them? That the president is really smart, but just speaks badly? Isn’t it a little embarrassing to have a president who can’t remember the difference Austria and Australia? Seriously.

You Bush lovers seem to gravitate towards failure and can’t bend over backwards fast enough to excuse mistakes. So much for the politics of Personal Accountability… Bush doesn’t sound like an idiot, the problem is all in the way that his words are interpretted by the Bad People.

67

[quote]merlin wrote:

No thunderbolt23, you often have NO point[/quote]

Oh sure, I hear that all the time. I don’t know nothin’ about nothin’ - if I only I could know as much and write as well as you.

I hear you - “illogical” essays are all I have, not the fancy intrigue and airtight brilliance you seem to concoct in your posts. How do you do it? Must be that 120 IQ I keep reading about.

Wow. I have never seen a new poster descend into idiocy that quickly. It’s enough to give you the bends.

68

[quote]merlin wrote:
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” --Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000
[/quote]

Nothing really wrong with that one. The Great White Shark doesn’t mess with me down at the local shopping mall, so I don’t mess with him in his ocean. Fair call, IMHO.

69

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
I heard it in the news that according to standardized test scores that were on record for Bush that his I.Q. was likely around 120. That makes him near the eightieth percentile. Hardly a stellar intellect but far from a simpleton.

No, higher than the 80th percentile. Bush apparently scored 1206 out of 1600 on the old SAT (566 verbal and 640 math), which placed him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students. That means his IQ would be higher than the 84th percentile because not everyone is college-bound, and those people who weren’t would have scored significantly lower had they taken the test. I’ve read that an (old) SAT score of 1250 correlates to an IQ of around 130, which is the 97th percentile. Bush would have come close to qualifying for the gifted and talented program in many American school districts.

A 1206 score on the old scale would have Bush one of the brighter kids in his class if he’d gone to a suburban public school. But certainly not the brightest. Still, I think it’s safe to say that merlin’s president is eclipsing him intellectually.

Gore scored over 1300, which is quite nice, but still not at Nat’l Merit Scholarship levels.

Kerry did less well than Bush.

They probably all fall within what I once read described as the “optimal” IQ range: 125-145. Within this range you’re bright enough to succeed at virtually anything you want to pursue, but not so smart that you come off as odd or find it difficult to relate to people.

Anyway, I’m no fan of Bush, but surely he’s easy enough to mock without resorting to inaccuracies.[/quote]
Good point.

I am curious on Merlin’s age. He seems like he’s very young with his use of the word “conformist”.

BTW has anyone seem that episode of South Park with the Goth kids that constantly dis “conformist”

Also some added trivia

Conformist -definition
noun a person who conforms to accepted behavior or established practices.

Brit., chiefly historical a person who conforms to the practices of the Church of England. adjective (of a person or activity) conforming to accepted behavior or established practices; conventional.

Tell me Merlin was is so wrong with being a conformist? This doesn’t mean you can’t be artistic or creative.

70

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
No, higher than the 80th percentile. Bush apparently scored 1206 out of 1600 on the old SAT (566 verbal and 640 math), which placed him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students. That means his IQ would be higher than the 84th percentile because not everyone is college-bound, and those people who weren’t would have scored significantly lower had they taken the test. I’ve read that an (old) SAT score of 1250 correlates to an IQ of around 130, which is the 97th percentile. Bush would have come close to qualifying for the gifted and talented program in many American school districts.

Pffft, his Dad probably greased a few palms at the test center. Story of his life…

Anyway, Bush scored big in high school? Big deal. After high school, he killed a lot of brain cells with his 20 years of binge drinking and drug abuse. High school was a long time ago.

Now, Bush is doing for America what he did for Arbusto… running it into the ground.

If you have young kids, what do you tell them? That the president is really smart, but just speaks badly? Isn’t it a little embarrassing to have a president who can’t remember the difference Austria and Australia? Seriously.

You Bush lovers seem to gravitate towards failure and can’t bend over backwards fast enough to excuse mistakes. So much for the politics of Personal Accountability… Bush doesn’t sound like an idiot, the problem is all in the way that his words are interpretted by the Bad People.
[/quote]

I suppose if I were to discuss this with a young child I would say something like: “It’s fine not to like someone, but disliking a person doesn’t make it okay to make things up about them. That’s uncool. If you’re going to dislike people, dislike them for who they really are, not for things you or someone else fabricated.”

But that’s just me. I like to stay grounded in reality. As I said previously, there’s plenty to scorn about Bush without having to resort to inaccuracies. But if you want to hate at phantoms, please, be my guest. No one is demanding that you be logical or ethical. It’s your rodeo, ride how you’d like.

71

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
If you’re going to dislike people, dislike them for who they really are [/quote]

Dislike people for what they do, not for who they are.

72

[quote]lixy wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
If you’re going to dislike people, dislike them for who they really are

Dislike people for what they do, not for who they are.[/quote]

I guess I phrased it that way because the quality in question (intellect) is intrinsic. But you’re right. It’s behavior that should determine reaction.

73

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
I heard it in the news that according to standardized test scores that were on record for Bush that his I.Q. was likely around 120. That makes him near the eightieth percentile. Hardly a stellar intellect but far from a simpleton.

No, higher than the 80th percentile. Bush apparently scored 1206 out of 1600 on the old SAT (566 verbal and 640 math), which placed him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students. That means his IQ would be higher than the 84th percentile because not everyone is college-bound, and those people who weren’t would have scored significantly lower had they taken the test. I’ve read that an (old) SAT score of 1250 correlates to an IQ of around 130, which is the 97th percentile. Bush would have come close to qualifying for the gifted and talented program in many American school districts.

A 1206 score on the old scale would have Bush one of the brighter kids in his class if he’d gone to a suburban public school. But certainly not the brightest. Still, I think it’s safe to say that merlin’s president is eclipsing him intellectually.

Gore scored over 1300, which is quite nice, but still not at Nat’l Merit Scholarship levels.

Kerry did less well than Bush.

They probably all fall within what I once read described as the “optimal” IQ range: 125-145. Within this range you’re bright enough to succeed at virtually anything you want to pursue, but not so smart that you come off as odd or find it difficult to relate to people.

Anyway, I’m no fan of Bush, but surely he’s easy enough to mock without resorting to inaccuracies.[/quote]

Ah yes. Thank you for pointing that out.

I wasn’t trying to bash Bush with inaccuracy it was just an honest mistake. My recollection of I.Q. curve percentiles was incorrect.

The news report I saw during the last election only mentioned that his I.Q. was somewhere in the mid 120s and higher than Kerry’s based on the military test scores of the two; hence my imperfect memory referencing that it was near 120.

I found a link that was probably based on the same source as the report I saw in 2004.

At any rate I am happy to be proven wrong and can rest easier that our presidential candidates are in fact as intelligent as I hoped they should be.