Terminalcoffee discussion

48 views
General Fuckery > Average IQs

Comments Showing 1-50 of 95 (95 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments Verrrrry interesting.

This is a report published from the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Their mission was to determine the IQ of GW Bush...no kidding, this is real! Before anybody gets their knickers in tatters, this is not politically motivated. When I read the following, I knew GW was in trouble.

"Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. "

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:


147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
98 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182.

President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said.


message 2: by Knarik (last edited May 01, 2009 10:25PM) (new)

Knarik I was just reading about a 2 years old girl from London, whose IQ is 156. She is considered(by the article) the most intellegant child.
Oh! her video is on Yahoo's first page right now!



message 3: by Knarik (last edited May 01, 2009 10:28PM) (new)

Knarik This is really interesting... :o)


History Mystery



Have a history teacher explain this----- if they can.



Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head

Now it gets really weird.

Lincoln 's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln .

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln , was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.



John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln , was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.



Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Now hang on to your seat.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called ' Lincoln ' made by 'Ford.'

Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

And here's the kicker...

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe , Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.







message 4: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments Ha! She's got more eloquence and a higher IQ than Dubya. What a cutie.


message 5: by Matthieu (last edited May 01, 2009 11:13PM) (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments I was deemed "profoundly gifted' in elementary school. That is, a measured IQ over 175. Do I put much weight into this? No.

Do I even believe in IQ? No.

Did I learn much faster than my peers? Yes.

In my opinion, intelligence comprises far too many components to be reduced to a simple test. Spatial reasoning, verbal analogies, mathematical ability, visual memory, etc.

If anything, the pre-1995 SAT was the best method of (in)directly measuring fluid intelligence.

And so, if we're going by SAT/IQ conversion:

Bush scored a 1206 on the SAT. If we convert (pre-norming), his IQ comes out somewhere in the 127/128 range. Far from 91. In fact, this myth was debunked around 2001.

Also, the other IQs on the list are completely fabricated.

I'm hardly a fan of Bush, by the way. It's just... urban myths presented as facts piss me off.

I'm sorry, Sherrie, but this may be the lamest thread to ever come out of TC.


message 6: by Matthieu (last edited May 01, 2009 11:18PM) (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments Also, Knarik, she's hardly the "most intelligent" child. That's an absurd statement. Typical media wankery. Do yourself a favour: Don't buy into the validity of IQ tests.

I like the people who take the online versions. They actually believe the score they receive. Pathetic.




message 7: by Cosmic Sher (last edited May 01, 2009 11:17PM) (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments LOL Well thank you for clarifying, Matthew! :D
I posted it mostly to get reactions, and poke at Dubbya Jr. I'm glad that someone had the cajunas to call me on it. ;) (And, I'm glad to know that it is considered a myth)

I actually have issues surrounding IQ tests in general because I believe they primarily test a linear, left-brained, logical intelligence and, for the most part, disregard right-brained, creative, abstract intelligence. I don't have any personal knowledge of the SATs, so I can't comment on those.


message 8: by Cosmic Sher (last edited May 01, 2009 11:19PM) (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments Knarik... I've read that before... is that all true or another urban myth, as mine apparently was?

If it is, it's a bit freaky. (Or am I being extremely gullible? It's happened before.)


message 9: by Matthieu (last edited May 01, 2009 11:50PM) (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments Ha, you're welcome, Sherrie. I'm sorry if I came across as hostile. I'm all for making fun of W.- just don't bring IQ into it. IQ is a rather touchy subject for me; IQ testing/gifted programs ruined my early childhood.


message 10: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments No, not hostile (well, much). I expect to be called on it when I'm giving information that is bogus and I don't realize it. And I can relate in a weird way.

It's interesting because I was the child in my family that didn't get picked for the TAG programs, because my "thought processes were not ideal" and were considered too "abstract and uncentered". I was a dreamer & just didn't get what school was supposed to be about as a kid.

This created havoc with my school years as well. I always felt I was not intelligent enough or 'gifted' enough to succeed. Even though I was in the top 10% of my class, maintained at least a 3.8, and am the only one in my family that, without formal education, went into Technical Business Analysis & Writing. Not to mention I tend to read things about quantum physics and chaos theories in my spare time, and the rest of my family (except my homemaker Mom - who is brilliant in her own way) just can't conceptualize some of the things I like to think about.

I really do think it's all about perceptions, and once you label a kid one way or the other it can affect their whole education, socialization & subsequent career. This is also a big reason I have issues with the current structure of education, and would really like to see much of it transformed into a more exploratory & experience-based curriculum, instead of the current memorization, testing & learning 'by rote' that they hold so dear now (and for the last 100+ years).


message 11: by Matthieu (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments That'd certainly be nice, but I highly doubt that the education system is going to change.

I'd love to converse with you about quantum physics. I've always loved math/physics. I'm an astrophysics/cosmology major, as I'm sure you already know.

That's strange that it's considered a fault to have abstract thought processes. Abstract reasoning is a tremendously important component of overall intelligence. The ability to adapt quickly to abstract concepts is perhaps the most sought-after ability in a student.





message 12: by Nuri (new)

Nuri (nools) | 538 comments I don't think it was quite the same way as for you, Matthew, but I know plenty of children who have been/are being similarly ruined by tests that presume to assess intelligence. The standards for measuring intellect are so limited. The education system... I suppose I jumped through all their hoops well enough, but it makes me angry to think of the children who -- by no fault or weakness of their own -- could not.

I don't feel quite as strongly, but I've been shaped, since a young age, by what my father called a genius of diligence or will power. I hate this idea that if you're not born with something so arbitrary as "IQ," you'll never be able to succeed. To an extent, mental capacity does rely on genes, but I think most of it is heartbreaking perseverance.


message 13: by Knarik (new)

Knarik Matthew wrote: "Also, Knarik, she's hardly the "most intelligent" child. That's an absurd statement. Typical media wankery. Do yourself a favour: Don't buy into the validity of IQ tests.

I like the people who tak..."

Matthew, I didn't say that she is the most intelligent child(as i know myself some more talanted than she), I just said what artical wrote. And about IQ's. I took some at school and got pretty well` 155,and the other time 160, once I even got 145. Different tests, different answeres and I DON'T BELIEVE THEM AT ALL. They are not true. However, I think that Bush really doesn't have much intelligance, or he is SO smart as not to show that he has.




message 14: by Knarik (new)

Knarik Cosmic Sherrie wrote: "Knarik... I've read that before... is that all true or another urban myth, as mine apparently was?

If it is, it's a bit freaky. (Or am I being extremely gullible? It's happened before.)"


I don't know if the information I posted is accurate or not. I haven't checked it. it was just interesting.


message 15: by Matthieu (last edited May 02, 2009 01:49AM) (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments Oh, I wasn't implying that you said it, Knarik! Sorry for any confusion.

The fact that it's an absurd statement remains unchanged.


message 16: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments I'm sure that my studies of quantum physics and the micro & macrocosms are not on the same level as what you may be studying, and from a different perspective. I think if I had more of a logical intelligence these are some of the fields I would have gone into, or perhaps the study of the brain & neurology, but my grasp of higher math just wasn't up to snuff. Basically, I could come up with the right answers but it took me longer to grasp them than was warranted to succeed in those arenas.

I find the theories fascinating, but my interest in them is also from a more spiritual/ how does it fit in with humanity and our place in the universe view. I know that most in the scientific fields don't hold much sway with these things, but so much of it (that I've read about at least) fits hand in hand with much of the Eastern philosophies when you really begin to study them.

I guess this is part of what I refer to when I talk about measurements of intelligence. They are valued when intelligence is shown from a concrete, logical & scientific perspective, but when you come from a different viewpoint so much is discounted. I agree that being able to grasp abstract concepts within math & science, pulling together dissimilar ideas with equations & experiments, is highly valued in students within certain boundaries. But there is still so much of a barrier put up when you don't speak the language of science, and it is assumed that conclusions cannot be valid unless you can prove them concretely.

I could never stand up with a dissertation about the connection of the universal mind and the microcosm, and then say it was based on threads I've woven together through reading and my gut feelings about them. I'd be tossed out on my rear. But, that is exactly the methods that I use because that is what I have at my disposal.

I guess one of my questions for you guys in school and dealing with this kind of information is, do you see any kind of a melding of science and spirituality? I don't mean introducing God in the curriculum, but rather a sense that there is something deeper within what you see in the cosmos? I know some of the great minds like Einstein & Bohr searched for this as well as the purely scientific explanations. How do you guys see it?

Can you see why they call me Cosmic Sherrie? ;)


message 17: by Jessica (last edited May 02, 2009 03:39AM) (new)

Jessica (jesstrea) Knarik wrote: "This is really interesting... :o)
History Mystery
Have a history teacher explain this----- if they can.
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. K..."


This has been around for a long time. I remember showing it to an Advanced ESL class I taught in Mexico City in 1984. Yes, it's fun, but I don't take it seriously. My feeling is that is you look hard enough you can find coincidences almost anywhere.


message 18: by RandomAnthony (last edited May 02, 2009 06:04AM) (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments I agree with Matty on this. After all, he's got a high IQ.

:)

No, I agree with Matty anyway...intelligence is notoriously hard to measure and even harder from which to draw implications about behavior and/or predictions of future behavior...

However, I always got the "stronger verbal than nonverbal" tag in IQ tests, and I think that's true. But the final "Number" as comparative data...nah:)


message 19: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments I guess one of my questions for you guys in school and dealing with this kind of information is, do you see any kind of a melding of science and spirituality? I don't mean introducing God in the curriculum, but rather a sense that there is something deeper within what you see in the cosmos? I know some of the great minds like Einstein & Bohr searched for this as well as the purely scientific explanations. How do you guys see it?

This is a great, great question and deserves a more thoughtful answer...later:)


message 20: by Nuri (last edited May 02, 2009 10:07PM) (new)

Nuri (nools) | 538 comments Oh, Sherrie. I am a little afraid to answer your question because I know people might think I'm crazy, but you all probably think that anyway, so... <3

I think "spirituality" is inherent in everything, and I don't know that science is so different from art/humanities. And I firmly believe in the indifferentiable connectedness of everything. Of course discoveries we make about the furthest reaches of the universe will have implications on us, even if they are not immediately or obviously applicable to daily tasks like groceries or next month's rent. This is the stuff we were made of: all God-breathed and divine (or as amazingly hyper-developed stardust, if you prefer).

If it can procure in even one curious soul that sense of amazement -- that, I think, is the ultimate relevance of science/art/whatever it is that we pursue. Which means I think that any sort of learning, including science, is spiritual....

... Am I still on topic?

It's not incense and chanting and yoga -- although I don't doubt it can be found in these things. It's that glowing realization that we are wonderfully tiny specks and everything is so terrifyingly, comfortingly bigger than we are: that sense of self-shorn awe.

Sorry this is rushed (I was just on my way out.. aah) and overtly touchy-feely. The girl in me who went to school for 15 years sternly disapproves, but I think a part of the problem with many parts of Western education is its derision for the spiritual... basically.


message 21: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) Nools wrote: "It's not incense and chanting and yoga -- although I don't doubt it can be found in these things. It's that glowing realization that we are wonderfully tiny specks and everything is so terrifyingly, comfortingly bigger than we are: that sense of self-shorn awe."

Oh, my ... yes. Thank you Nools. Yes indeedy doody.




message 22: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) Yeah, but ....


message 23: by Dave (new)

Dave Russell Donna, that SNL skit you're referring to was a soap opera parody called "West Palm Beach." Val Kilmer played Jeb Bush. It was hilarious.

RA, have you read The Mismeasure of Man yet?


message 24: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments No, Dave, I couldn't find a good edition...my library only had the old one...it's on my list, though...


message 25: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i took an IQ test once. the results said "dumb ass".

i totally believe in them. i also got invited to be in DENSA


message 26: by Matthieu (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments Haha, you're the best, Kev.


message 27: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17346 comments Mod
Matthew, wasn't that you with a MENSA quandary earlier this year?


message 28: by Matthieu (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments No, I believe that was Sarah, Sally.


message 29: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) BunWat wrote: "I ♥ Stephen Jay Gould."

Moi, aussi.



message 30: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments "If it can procure in even one curious soul that sense of amazement -- that , I think that is the ultimate relevance of science/art/whatever it is that we pursue. Which means I think that any sort of learning, including science, is spiritual....
It's that glowing realization that we are wonderfully tiny specks and everything is so terrifyingly, comfortingly bigger than we are: that sense of self-shorn awe.
...but I think a part of the problem with many parts of Western education is its derision for the spiritual... basically."


Very nicely said Nools. I guess I'm kind of relieved to hear others say it as well who are still in the scholastic world. I know not everyone thinks of or even believes in spirituality (and I don't necessarily mean God in any traditional sense), but that is my take on it as well. The more I read about the enormity & complexity of space &/or quantum fields, the more I am awed by it and feel that it is all part of a wild, chaotic dance of eternal patterns. And for me, at least, that points to something highly intelligent and unseen of which we are nevertheless a part of.

Thanks for sharing that.


message 31: by Lori (new)

Lori I'm so glad so many people with high IQs say those tests don't measure up, since I always do poorly on them! :) Supposedly I scored much better when I was a kid, but either I've lost a vast amount of smarts (I KNEW I shouldn't have smoked all that pot!) or else I knew the tricks to those logic questions. Because I'll tend to skip those, unless I can see the pattern in one second, after sweating over the first one without any kind of solution.


message 32: by Matthieu (last edited May 02, 2009 10:57PM) (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments Nah, you don't "lose smarts", Lori. You're fine.

IQ is supposed to remain relatively constant throughout one's life. That is, if fluid intelligence could be measured.

Ex.

1. Test taken at age 12. Score: 150

2. Test taken at age 25. Score: 145

3. Test taken at age 36. Score: 150

4. Test taken at age 48: Score 155

+/-5





message 33: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments So, does that mean if we extend our lives with technology &/or medicine we'll end up with IQ's of 30 (+/-5)?


message 34: by Matthieu (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments No. Probably not.


message 35: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments Oh good. I was a bit worried there. ;)


message 36: by Sally, la reina (new)

Sally (mrsnolte) | 17346 comments Mod
This is a nice thread.


message 37: by Kevin (last edited May 03, 2009 01:57PM) (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments so IQ can't be increased? Knowledge can be but IQ can't?


message 38: by Dave (new)

Dave Russell Not if it's genetically determined, as many people who believe in IQ testing seem to think it is.


message 39: by Sarah (last edited May 03, 2009 04:46PM) (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) I've taken a couple of different IQ tests (not the cheesey online ones) and scored nine points lower on the second one than the first time.

I think it depends on the questions. Usually they have to do with logical reasoning and recognizing patterns. I'm awful with numbers (possibly a little dyslexic since I tend to transpose numbers a lot) so if there are more numeric patterns, I won't do as well as verbal or shape patterns.

I was in the G.A.T.E. program in grade school. It didn't ruin my life in any way, nor do I think it made it any better. It just was. I don't have any other experience to compare to it.


message 40: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) Also, Matthew, thanks for pointing out that the presidential IQ thing is a myth.


message 41: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i ALWAYS take the online ones to see how i rate next to the likes of Vanilla Ice, Vern Troyer and/or Ben Afleck. apparently i rank somewhere between Flava Flav and Lassie


message 42: by Matthieu (new)

Matthieu | 1009 comments It depends on the test, Sarah. My scores have varied by 5-6 points.


message 43: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments Kev, Lassie was a very smart (series of male) dog(s).
You should feel priviledged.
Of course, if you scored less than Flava Flav... well, I think we're all worried about you.


message 44: by Lori (new)

Lori Aha! Last night I took another test and the logic questions were actually answerable. Either that test was easier or else there's a tremendous difference in the way my brain works first thing in the morning and at night. Well, really, no surprise there!


message 45: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments sherrie - me too. when i got my score i went:

"YEEAAAAHHHH BOOOOOOOIIIII-EEEEE !!!"


message 46: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) I'm not feeling very smart right now. I'm trying to answer an essay question and I just can't concentrate. I start to read the text in my book and my eyes just glaze over.


message 47: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments Oh Kevin... I think you need to go play some Vivaldi and stare at pictures of the Smithsonian, or something.

Um, and take that gigantic clock off of your chest. Sheesh.


message 48: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments go recommendations sherrie. and don't, don't, don't believe the hype


Jackie "the Librarian" | 8993 comments Sarah wrote: "Also, Matthew, thanks for pointing out that the presidential IQ thing is a myth."

And thanks to Ko, too, for the link the Snopes that debunks it with citations. I love a good debunking!




message 50: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i thought debunking was when you got out of bed?


« previous 1
back to top