10/26 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html
(username / pw = bobbob)
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.
\_ The difference is that Kerry didn't spend his 20s and 30s doing
blow.
\_ That explains a lot. :-P
\_ Boy, it sure is a good thing that IQ tests and ratings are such a
meaningful and credible measure of an individual's intelligence.
I'm glad I can estimate either candidate's intellectual fiber
based on this decisive piece of information. -John
\_ Whoops, there's a small problem here. Gottfredson, the psych. prof.
who made the correlation, took the candidates' rankings on their
respective Officer Qualifying Tests and directly correlated those
ranks to IQ tests. Since Bush was in the 95th percentile of his
class for the AFQT, Gottfredson extrapolated that he had an IQ
of corresponding rank. However, the 1960s AFQT, like the ASVAB,
was an aptitude test, not an IQ test. Drawing correlations between
the two is more like comparing Fujis to Grannies than apples to
oranges, but it's still prone to significant errors. What the AFQT
does tell us, however, is that GWB is not a moron, but Bush-watchers
already knew that; he's much too cunning to misunderestimate.
\_ psb said Bush was a ChimpBrain. Surely, the great psb was not
wrong. You have a fault in your reasoning somewhere.
\- When Bush first emerged on the scene, I thought he
looked like Alfred E. Newman. I have since decided
he looks more like a Chimp. I do not believe he is
an especially bright fellow, but I also dont believe
most people are especially bright. I agree that he is
smarter than a lot of the people who call him an
idiot ... same goes for Rush Limbaugh. Most of the
people calling them idiots could not give a 30min
talk and a fair number of them probably could not
tell you who Francois Mitterand was. Of the presidents
since 1980, Bill Clinton is the only one I would
call "really smart". BUSH's and RUSH have serious
character defects but they arent idiots [which doesnt
make them geniuses either]. It's actually fun to ask
people ranting about how dumb Bush is "do you think
he is dumber than <name some dull acquaintance>".
As I asked on wall previously, "who would you rather
have as president: bush or saarp?" --psb
\-BTW, I also think intellectual curiosity counts
for a lot. A friend of mine at Berkeley who used
to get A+ in upper div physics classes [including
from people like Steiner, if that means anything
to you] once said "I thought Cambodia was in
Africa ... because that is where all the starving
people are." This guy was a genius when it came
to physics problem sets but you dont want him
running the world. I am not sure I want somebody
who says "jesus is my favorite philosopher" or
"sovereignty is sovereignty" running much of the
planet. Yes, I know Bush understand legislative
nuance and is being disingenuous with comments
like "he voted for/against it". Yes I agree not
one person in 50 who laughed at the sovereignty
comment could have defined sovereignty. --psb
\_ Wait, not being a moron somehow equates to not being a chimp-
brain? Being smart is no defense against being wrong and
morally bankrupt (cf. Richard Cheney).
\_ I'm confused. I keep hearing Bush is stupid and incompetent.
If so, how did he get the Whitehouse, is ahead in polls for a
second term, foll John Kerry and others into voting for the war,
fool millions of Americans and the media on a continuous basis
and pack the supreme court with right wing partisans?
\_ You *are* confused, but it has nothing to do with the
fallacious "points" you bring up.
\_ Could you please explain? Thank you.
\_ Sure. You believe that getting into the White House,
maintaining a good approval rating, and lying to a bunch
of Senators about how he's only going to use war as
a last resort somehow requires intelligence and the
ability to be a good President. It doesn't. You can
do much the same with a well-oiled political machine,
a popular tough-guy image, and a heaping serving of
arrogance and bravado. That's where you're confused.
You're welcome.
\_ Hey confused boy: Dubya delivered his GOP convention speech
very well, spreading the gap as much as 51% Dubya, 39% Kerry.
Yet, he looked like a total d00f during the debates,
especially debate 1. Therein will you find your answer.
\_ Who would win in a debate between W and PSB?
\_ That's easy, PSB would just get thrown in Gitmo.
As for "foll [sic] Kerry ... into voting for the war", Kerry
voted for war authority, not for war. Purportedly only the
President has the best intelligence and perspective to make
the final call to take the country to war. Let me remind
you that the Senate never saw conflicting reports on aluminum
tubes from the Energy department, unlike the President.
\_ Kerry wouldn't have seen any reports anyway since he
hardly ever showed at any Senate Intelligence meetings.
\_ Now I'm reaaaally confused. Since the polls you're
implicitly citing changed their voter mix calculations
at the same time as the debates and I keep reading that
the polls don't mean anything anyway, at least when GWB
is up. Please help!
\_ Where do you keep reading this? Certainly not on the
motd. Wherever you keep going to read misinformation,
stop it.
\_ It's standard (D) spin. I watch the news shows, I
see the Kerry people saying the polls don't matter.
The Kerry campaign is my source of misinformation. |