Ranking Presidents by their IQ

[DigitalDrifter]

Understand though, the estimates are made by a very distinguished professor.

Yep, I understand that. I also understand that the very definition of an IQ precludes his "estimates" to be anything more than speculative guesses.

I also understand that an IQ score is itself meaningless without providing context for what kind of scale it is on. You still can't answer that simple question.

You still have not debunked his results.

You really are pathetic!

It's not up to me debunk anything. The professor's claims are unsubstantiated. Indeed, they are unsubstantiatable.

I've given you a professors estimates of the IQ's of past presidents, you don't want to believe any of it, I could fucking care less.

IMO his credentials give us the likelihood of a fairly accurate ranking, I'll go with him and his research.

 

[SwimExpert]

Understand though, the estimates are made by a very distinguished professor.

Yep, I understand that. I also understand that the very definition of an IQ precludes his "estimates" to be anything more than speculative guesses.

I also understand that an IQ score is itself meaningless without providing context for what kind of scale it is on. You still can't answer that simple question.

You still have not debunked his results.

You really are pathetic!

It's not up to me debunk anything. The professor's claims are unsubstantiated. Indeed, they are unsubstantiatable.

I've given you a professors estimates of the IQ's of past presidents, you don't want to believe any of it, I could fucking care less.

IMO his credentials give us the likelihood of a fairly accurate ranking, I'll go with him and his research.

In other words, you just accept whatever bullshit is peddled your way. You know, that's a mark of a sub 50 IQ.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Understand though, the estimates are made by a very distinguished professor.

Yep, I understand that. I also understand that the very definition of an IQ precludes his "estimates" to be anything more than speculative guesses.

I also understand that an IQ score is itself meaningless without providing context for what kind of scale it is on. You still can't answer that simple question.

You still have not debunked his results.

You really are pathetic!

It's not up to me debunk anything. The professor's claims are unsubstantiated. Indeed, they are unsubstantiatable.

I've given you a professors estimates of the IQ's of past presidents, you don't want to believe any of it, I could fucking care less.

IMO his credentials give us the likelihood of a fairly accurate ranking, I'll go with him and his research.

In other words, you just accept whatever bullshit is peddled your way. You know, that's a mark of a sub 50 IQ.

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.
I take his word for it based on his knowledge and his credentials.

I do not however take anything you have said seriously, since you have supplied nothing to back up your protests.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

You seem to simply wish to think in black and white terms. I for one am open to other formulas, other ways at drawing conclusions.
For you here, the IQ test was unavailable at the time of most of the subjects here, so it's all utter nonsense, and useless to even attempt to draw an estimate, and of course it would be for someone refusing to budge an inch from their protected stance.
This leaves you with only the option of going ad hominem.

For me, Professor Simonton's use of historiometric research is interesting to consider, and is a worthwhile accomplishment.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

You seem to simply wish to think in black and white terms. I for one am open to other formulas, other ways at drawing conclusions.
For you here, the IQ test was unavailable at the time of most of the subjects here, so it's all utter nonsense, and useless to even attempt to draw an estimate, and of course it would be for someone refusing to budge an inch from their protected stance.
This leaves you with only the option of going ad hominem.

For me, Professor Simonton's use of historiometric research is interesting to consider, and is a worthwhile accomplishment.

*yawn*

You still can't identify the scale he uses. He may as well say that JFK had an IQ of a zillion.

If you were even slightly educated on the subject, you would know that. Since you're ignorant AF, you're just left with a blank gaze into space.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

You seem to simply wish to think in black and white terms. I for one am open to other formulas, other ways at drawing conclusions.
For you here, the IQ test was unavailable at the time of most of the subjects here, so it's all utter nonsense, and useless to even attempt to draw an estimate, and of course it would be for someone refusing to budge an inch from their protected stance.
This leaves you with only the option of going ad hominem.

For me, Professor Simonton's use of historiometric research is interesting to consider, and is a worthwhile accomplishment.

*yawn*

You still can't identify the scale he uses. He may as well say that JFK had an IQ of a zillion.

If you were even slightly educated on the subject, you would know that. Since you're ignorant AF, you're just left with a blank gaze into space.

And again all's you've got is personal attacks. How old are you ?

 

[SwimExpert]

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

You seem to simply wish to think in black and white terms. I for one am open to other formulas, other ways at drawing conclusions.
For you here, the IQ test was unavailable at the time of most of the subjects here, so it's all utter nonsense, and useless to even attempt to draw an estimate, and of course it would be for someone refusing to budge an inch from their protected stance.
This leaves you with only the option of going ad hominem.

For me, Professor Simonton's use of historiometric research is interesting to consider, and is a worthwhile accomplishment.

*yawn*

You still can't identify the scale he uses. He may as well say that JFK had an IQ of a zillion.

If you were even slightly educated on the subject, you would know that. Since you're ignorant AF, you're just left with a blank gaze into space.

And again all's you've got is personal attacks. How old are you ?

So, asking you to identify the scale is a personal attack? Or do you take it as a personal attack anytime someone presents you with a sound, rational challenge that you can't overcome?

 

[JoeMoma]

IQ is very difficult to estimate/measure even by testing living individuals. Also, there are many different types of intelligence. A person who is a terrible writer but a genius at math could easily have a low IQ estimate based on a sample of his writing. Likewise, a strong writer but weak mathematician would have a high IQ based on writing samples.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No, what I do accept, is a distinguished professor's research into what the likely IQ's of this group of people.

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

You seem to simply wish to think in black and white terms. I for one am open to other formulas, other ways at drawing conclusions.
For you here, the IQ test was unavailable at the time of most of the subjects here, so it's all utter nonsense, and useless to even attempt to draw an estimate, and of course it would be for someone refusing to budge an inch from their protected stance.
This leaves you with only the option of going ad hominem.

For me, Professor Simonton's use of historiometric research is interesting to consider, and is a worthwhile accomplishment.

*yawn*

You still can't identify the scale he uses. He may as well say that JFK had an IQ of a zillion.

If you were even slightly educated on the subject, you would know that. Since you're ignorant AF, you're just left with a blank gaze into space.

And again all's you've got is personal attacks. How old are you ?

So, asking you to identify the scale is a personal attack? Or do you take it as a personal attack anytime someone presents you with a sound, rational challenge that you can't overcome?

It's funny, this article in Scientific American, sure doesn't call my prof a quack, or call anyone who might actually take his research seriously, as someone "ignorant" or "a mark of a sub 50 IQ" or "a joke" or "pathetic" or "an ignorant, uneducated moron with an IQ of 4.7" .
Hmmmmm, I don't get it !
You really should set Scientific American straight on this, since you're so much smurtur than they be !!

How Smart Should the President Be?

 

[SwimExpert]

Even though by definition what he is claiming is impossible, as well as meaningless without identifying a scale.

See, the problem here is that you're so flaming ignorant all of this is well over your head. And so you simply assume that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

You seem to simply wish to think in black and white terms. I for one am open to other formulas, other ways at drawing conclusions.
For you here, the IQ test was unavailable at the time of most of the subjects here, so it's all utter nonsense, and useless to even attempt to draw an estimate, and of course it would be for someone refusing to budge an inch from their protected stance.
This leaves you with only the option of going ad hominem.

For me, Professor Simonton's use of historiometric research is interesting to consider, and is a worthwhile accomplishment.

*yawn*

You still can't identify the scale he uses. He may as well say that JFK had an IQ of a zillion.

If you were even slightly educated on the subject, you would know that. Since you're ignorant AF, you're just left with a blank gaze into space.

And again all's you've got is personal attacks. How old are you ?

So, asking you to identify the scale is a personal attack? Or do you take it as a personal attack anytime someone presents you with a sound, rational challenge that you can't overcome?

It's funny, this article in Scientific American, sure doesn't call my prof a quack, or call anyone who might actually take his research seriously, as someone "ignorant" or "a mark of a sub 50 IQ" or "a joke" or "pathetic" or "an ignorant, uneducated moron with an IQ of 4.7" .
Hmmmmm, I don't get it !
You really should set Scientific American straight on this, since you're so much smurtur than they be !!

How Smart Should the President Be?

The scale! Identify the scale, or shut it!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Funny, this article in Time doesn't come even close to laughing at the professor's work. I don't get it !

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

 

[SwimExpert]

Funny, this article in Time doesn't come even close to laughing at the professor's work. I don't get it !

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

The scale, or shut it!

 

[320 Years of History]

I am late to this discussion so if what I have to say has been said, apologies.

Insofar as there have been over 40 presidents, the OP of this thread seems to present George Bush as being at least somewhat bright. The matter of guess-timating presidential intelligence is a debatable one at best, but that said, IMO, as goes depicting GWB as being 27th reflects an idealized assessment of that man's mental acuity.

No other president during my adult life gave me more occasions to have to defend his, and by extension my nation's, actions than did Mr. Bush. Time and time again in my personal and professional travels abroad, I was asked, "What is that man thinking? Is he even thinking at all, or does he only act upon his knee-jerk, emotional motivations? How can your people have elected such a stupid man as your leader?" Indeed, I'm hard pressed to

The matter of estimated presidential intelligence was raised in the public arena this past spring here: Poindexter in Chief: Presidential IQs and Success in the Oval Office .

I don't particularly need a president to be a genius, but I do expect the person holding that office to be at least as smart as I am, although smarter is preferable, and it'd also be good for the president to be smarter than the average American. Mr. Bush is living proof that no matter how improbable it is for something to occur, sooner or later it will. Mr. Bush showed that to be so when he, a mental midget, contrary to all rational prognostication, won the presidency and then proceeded to demonstrate to the world just how bereft of complex thinking skills he is.

When one becomes U.S. President, there's no denying that one will become privy to scads of information to which we "mere" citizens lack access. It's how one processes and analyzes that info that shows how smart one is. For example, at Mr. Bush's behest, Gen. Powell averred to the world that there were unquestionably WMDs in Iraq. It would have taken very little to have instead asserted that "according to our best intelligence, we feel confident there are WMDs in Iraq." Merely making a strong assertion that nonetheless made it clear to everyone that our level of certainty was less than 100% would have been a far smarter approach to take. Mr. Bush didn't see that to be so; moreover, it seems he didn't even consider that it might not be so, for had he the sense to know that little can be said with 100% surety, he would not have claimed the WMDs existed and in turn wasted over a trillion dollars prosecuting a war to find, capture and destroy them.

The WMD motivated Iraq war was just one blunder of global proportions that happened on Mr. Bush's watch. The financial meltdown of late 2008 is another. Might Mr. Bush alone have been the root cause of either or both? Well that is hard to say for sure, but what's not hard to say is that when one is president, one gets to take credit for the good that occurs during one's tenure and one also must bear the burden of responsibility for the failures that happen in that period. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I am late to this discussion so if what I have to say has been said, apologies.

Insofar as there have been over 40 presidents, the OP of this thread seems to present George Bush as being at least somewhat bright. The matter of guess-timating presidential intelligence is a debatable one at best, but that said, IMO, as goes depicting GWB as being 27th reflects an idealized assessment of that man's mental acuity.

No other president during my adult life gave me more occasions to have to defend his, and by extension my nation's, actions than did Mr. Bush. Time and time again in my personal and professional travels abroad, I was asked, "What is that man thinking? Is he even thinking at all, or does he only act upon his knee-jerk, emotional motivations? How can your people have elected such a stupid man as your leader?" Indeed, I'm hard pressed to

The matter of estimated presidential intelligence was raised in the public arena this past spring here: Poindexter in Chief: Presidential IQs and Success in the Oval Office .

I don't particularly need a president to be a genius, but I do expect the person holding that office to be at least as smart as I am, although smarter is preferable, and it'd also be good for the president to be smarter than the average American. Mr. Bush is living proof that no matter how improbable it is for something to occur, sooner or later it will. Mr. Bush showed that to be so when he, a mental midget, contrary to all rational prognostication, won the presidency and then proceeded to demonstrate to the world just how bereft of complex thinking skills he is.

When one becomes U.S. President, there's no denying that one will become privy to scads of information to which we "mere" citizens lack access. It's how one processes and analyzes that info that shows how smart one is. For example, at Mr. Bush's behest, Gen. Powell averred to the world that there were unquestionably WMDs in Iraq. It would have taken very little to have instead asserted that "according to our best intelligence, we feel confident there are WMDs in Iraq." Merely making a strong assertion that nonetheless made it clear to everyone that our level of certainty was less than 100% would have been a far smarter approach to take. Mr. Bush didn't see that to be so; moreover, it seems he didn't even consider that it might not be so, for had he the sense to know that little can be said with 100% surety, he would not have claimed the WMDs existed and in turn wasted over a trillion dollars prosecuting a war to find, capture and destroy them.

The WMD motivated Iraq war was just one blunder of global proportions that happened on Mr. Bush's watch. The financial meltdown of late 2008 is another. Might Mr. Bush alone have been the root cause of either or both? Well that is hard to say for sure, but what's not hard to say is that when one is president, one gets to take credit for the good that occurs during one's tenure and one also must bear the burden of responsibility for the failures that happen in that period. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

The study you link to is the same one for the basis of this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am late to this discussion so if what I have to say has been said, apologies.

Insofar as there have been over 40 presidents, the OP of this thread seems to present George Bush as being at least somewhat bright. The matter of guess-timating presidential intelligence is a debatable one at best, but that said, IMO, as goes depicting GWB as being 27th reflects an idealized assessment of that man's mental acuity.

No other president during my adult life gave me more occasions to have to defend his, and by extension my nation's, actions than did Mr. Bush. Time and time again in my personal and professional travels abroad, I was asked, "What is that man thinking? Is he even thinking at all, or does he only act upon his knee-jerk, emotional motivations? How can your people have elected such a stupid man as your leader?" Indeed, I'm hard pressed to

The matter of estimated presidential intelligence was raised in the public arena this past spring here: Poindexter in Chief: Presidential IQs and Success in the Oval Office .

I don't particularly need a president to be a genius, but I do expect the person holding that office to be at least as smart as I am, although smarter is preferable, and it'd also be good for the president to be smarter than the average American. Mr. Bush is living proof that no matter how improbable it is for something to occur, sooner or later it will. Mr. Bush showed that to be so when he, a mental midget, contrary to all rational prognostication, won the presidency and then proceeded to demonstrate to the world just how bereft of complex thinking skills he is.

When one becomes U.S. President, there's no denying that one will become privy to scads of information to which we "mere" citizens lack access. It's how one processes and analyzes that info that shows how smart one is. For example, at Mr. Bush's behest, Gen. Powell averred to the world that there were unquestionably WMDs in Iraq. It would have taken very little to have instead asserted that "according to our best intelligence, we feel confident there are WMDs in Iraq." Merely making a strong assertion that nonetheless made it clear to everyone that our level of certainty was less than 100% would have been a far smarter approach to take. Mr. Bush didn't see that to be so; moreover, it seems he didn't even consider that it might not be so, for had he the sense to know that little can be said with 100% surety, he would not have claimed the WMDs existed and in turn wasted over a trillion dollars prosecuting a war to find, capture and destroy them.

The WMD motivated Iraq war was just one blunder of global proportions that happened on Mr. Bush's watch. The financial meltdown of late 2008 is another. Might Mr. Bush alone have been the root cause of either or both? Well that is hard to say for sure, but what's not hard to say is that when one is president, one gets to take credit for the good that occurs during one's tenure and one also must bear the burden of responsibility for the failures that happen in that period. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

The study you link to is the same one for the basis of this thread.

My mistake. I saw Bush at #27 and, scanning too quickly, I missed the "H.W." between "George" and "Bush." Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

I stand by my comments re: GWB, but had I realized it is the same study or that #27 referred to his father, I wouldn't have bothered to post them.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No problem.