How smart is Bush?

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: esun
I'm sure you could. I'm using an example to point out how stupid it is to correlate SAT scores and intelligence. And I'm also pointing out that even if you were to correlate the two, a 1280 would certainly not be considered the score of an intelligent person. I'll try to be more literal next time.

You mean 'a 1280 would certainly not be considered the score of an intelligent person' by your own arbitrary personal definition of intelligent.

 

[GrGr]

Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

Good thing. Policies of appeasement and Social Security are responsible for the majority of the messes that we find ourselves in today.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

Ah yes, but the independant and free-thinking Liberals are the saviours of us all, no? :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

If his extensive and continuous verbal fumbles are not the result of brain damage - that is, not each and every one - then what is your reasoning for the fact that the President is continuously tripping over the English language? What is your explanation?

The only way to "prove" that Bush's prior drinking directly causes his current 'verbal fumblings' is to somehow find video or accurate personal accounts of him speaking publicly to large audiences in his teen years, before he was an alcoholic. If such accounts show him to be an eloquent and capable speaker, then you can assume that something that occurred later in his life affected his abilities and you can hypothesize that it was his drinking. Until then, nothing you have posted 'proves' anything, as you are claiming.

The simple fact that you aren't even proposing a possible explanation, but are rather vehemently asserting that you are 100% correct with your repeated posting of "Fact. Fact. Fact..." just goes to show why you can't be taken seriously. Your quote above seems to indicate that you believe that the only reason anyone (or at least Bush) could ever have to being a poor public speaker is a history of alcohol abuse. That is, of course, absurd, but you have yet to deny that's not what you meant (despite the fact that is exactly what you wrote.)

1) Bush was an alcoholic for more than 20 years
2) Alcohol abuse has known harmful effects which include brain damage
3) The brain damage occurs in areas responsible for speech and judgement (the frontal and parietal lobes)
4) There are tests that show this damage consistently, such as PET scans
5) The pattern of verbal screw ups characteristic of Bush is completley consistent with alcohol induced brain damage

The funny thing is, no one seems to be disputing the first 4 of your 'facts.' You have given evidence that links chronic alcohol abuse to brain tissue shrinking. That's not the issue, however. What we are (or at least I) am claiming is that you haven't posted a single bit of evidence that 'proves' #5 on your list. You've made this claim repeatedly in this thread, but where is that proof? Where are your links to 'peer-reviewed' and 'respected' medical studies than links brain size to speaking ability and intelligence?

You seem to enjoy frequently mentioning common fallacies, such as 'ad hominem' attacks on your character, but what about the obvious deductive/inductive fallacies you are demonstrating? Simply because you can post some arbitrary number of indisputable facts, does not mean that any conclusion you may draw has to be true, now does it? I think your argument also doesn't pass the duck test as

I could care less about 'winning' this argument or whatever, my only goal now is to encourage (or force) you to retract some of your unfounded claims and admit that you may not, in fact, be the greatest and most infallible mind ever to have graced the internet, as you seem to enjoy presenting yourself as. If you were not so self-righteous, indignant, and pompous in your claims, you might have a better chance in convincing others to look at things from your perspective. As it stands, many are simply forced to 'tune you out' because of your presentation style. Now, you may choose to interpret this as simply another 'personal attack' on you, but I assume you it is not.

Interestingly that was exactly my take on you. Does that feel like a personal attack?

I think your argument also doesn't pass the duck test as I mentioned as I represented allegorically with the pretzel. In order for step 5 to have Internet proof of the kind you seem to desire we would need Bush's medical diagnosis of alcohol related brain damage from tests by his physicians. That is not what I took from FTP's remarks. I clearly saw a case of Occam's razor. If he walks like a duck and talks like a duck he's a duck. The most logical explanation for Bush's astounding linguistic charm is that he has alcohol brain damage. Doesn't mean he does, but the symptoms are consistent according to FTP. It's all well and good to point out that it might not be so long as we recognize what is most likely. That strikes me as what is scientific, and obfuscation of that point sounds more like partisan hack, if you don't mind me saying.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: GrGr
Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

Ah yes, but the independant and free-thinking Liberals are the saviours of us all, no? :roll:

I think they did rather well when the put together the Constitution and founded the country. You sort of have to go all the way back to ancient Greece to find a similar flowering.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: GrGr
Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

Ah yes, but the independant and free-thinking Liberals are the saviours of us all, no? :roll:

Saviours from what or whom? Authoritarian and totalitarian models have never offered much. Neither Fascism nor Communism has much appeal to me.

 

[SickBeast]

Bush may be intelligent with an IQ of 10,000, but he lacks common sense.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: GrGr
Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

Good thing. Policies of appeasement and Social Security are responsible for the majority of the messes that we find ourselves in today.

I'd hardly call Bush's radical economic policies for Social Security nor would I call the US' aggressive foreign policies, like the support for Saddam Hussein, thhe House of Saud and other dictatorships, the build up of the Mujaheddin etc. for "appeasement".

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Interestingly that was exactly my take on you. Does that feel like a personal attack?

Not at all - simply by the very nature of the fact that this is a rather anonymous message board that consists of people who may or may not represent themselves truthfully. Anything I may say or do here only affects cKGunslinger and others' opinions on him, not me "personally." Nothing here can ever "feel like a personal attack" and you will rarely, if ever, hear me claim such.

I think your argument also doesn't pass the duck test as I mentioned as I represented allegorically with the pretzel.

What argument of mine was that again? That is is possible that Bush's linguistic abilites may not be the direct results of his past alcohol use? It has also been shown in studies that being married and having kids reduces a man's intelligence, but where are the rabid claims and accusations that it's Laura's and the twin's fault that Bush fumbles at times? Doesn't that 'fact' support 'my argument?'

In order for step 5 to have Internet proof of the kind you seem to desire we would need Bush's medical diagnosis of alcohol related brain damage from tests by his physicians. That is not what I took from FTP's remarks. I clearly saw a case of Occam's razor. If he walks like a duck and talks like a duck he's a duck. The most logical explanation for Bush's astounding linguistic charm is that he has alcohol brain damage. Doesn't mean he does, but the symptoms are consistent according to FTP.

Ah... "the symptoms are consistent according to FTP" Well, by golly, it must be true! Let us be sure to ignore the simple fact that this is the one claim where FTP has yet to show any proof, yet seems to be the entire basis for his posts.

It's all well and good to point out that it might not be so long as we recognize what is most likely. That strikes me as what is scientific, and obfuscation of that point sounds more like partisan hack, if you don't mind me saying.

I don't mind at all. But I have yet to be convinced of "what is most likely." There has been nothing here to support that claim other then FTP's assumptions and your acceptance of them. Pardon me if I do not readily take that as a likely scenario without futher evidence. You'll find that I am quick to agree with logic, no matter how it affects my positions or opinions. But as of yet, there has not been anything substantial presented that would lead me to conclude that it is likely that Bush's alcohol consumption in the past is the most direct and compelling explanation for his speaking abilities. If someone could somehow manage to make this correlation using validated facts or even generally agreed-upon theories, I will be ready and willing to reconsider my stance.

 

[1EZduzit]

Bring on the debates. We will see how intelligent GWB is there.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: GrGr
Intelligence does not matter when it comes to Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush II. They are but figureheads for a larger reactionary movement deeply entrenched in conservative America. Bush II is a rubberstamp President for reactionary policies that have been planned a long time. Bush is not a policy maker in his own right as FDR or Clinton were.

Ah yes, but the independant and free-thinking Liberals are the saviours of us all, no? :roll:

I think they did rather well when the put together the Constitution and founded the country. You sort of have to go all the way back to ancient Greece to find a similar flowering.

If you are claiming that the current doctrine and policies of the Liberal (Democrat) party are identical or even in-line with those of the Founding Fathers, then you are severely misguided and may be the one who is, in fact, partisan, despite your accusations towards others. Neither of the 2 major Parties can hold claim that they represent the essence or spirit of the Constitution at the time when our nation was founded. To make such a claim shows either simple-mindedness, blind partisanship, or a willful disregard for logic.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
To make such a claim shows either simple-mindedness, blind partisanship, or a willful disregard for logic.

Hey you sound like Bill O'Riely

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Bring on the debates. We will see how intelligent Kerry is there.

We already have seen Bush's solid debating skills in 2000.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Bring on the debates. We will see how intelligent GWB is there.

Will we? Or will we continue to follow our own indoctrined beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary. I assume that no matter what happens during the debates, Kerry supporters will claim victory, and Bush supporters will do the same. I am personally going to watch the debates to see who makes arguments and proposals that most closely match my opinions, not to see who 'wins or loses."

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
To make such a claim shows either simple-mindedness, blind partisanship, or a willful disregard for logic.

Hey you sound like Bill O'Riely

Really? I've never actually watched his show, but you make him sound like an intelligent man. I might have to check him out.

 

[1EZduzit]

I've broken free form my indoctrinated beliefs and I got rid of my Killer instincts also (I killed them, lol).

I will be voting for Kerry no matter how the debates go becasue I beleive we need a change of direction and think he has the leadership skills to give us that change. I still think the debates will likely show who the more intelligent man is. As I stated previously in this thread, I don't think intelligence is the key factor in a leader, I think it is good judgment.

I don't care what your IQ is, if you keep making poor decisions, then your a poor leader.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, I'm a researcher. I know this to be true. Let me know when you have similar experience to compare to mine.

I call "bullshit." I was a researcher - I did drug design and testing of tomoxifin substitutions to see if they were more or less cytotoxic (better at killing cancer cells). Full cytotoxic assay, change chiral centers, substitute functional groups, etc. This was anything but "semantics" - it was clear and to the point: either it was more effective in killing cancer cells or it wasn't. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

If you want to make your research a point then I demand that you produce it. Give me an abstract of your last 3 papers that were published in a peer-reviewed journal and where I can read the full text. And they had better be in chemistry - inorganic, organic, biochem, p-chem, it doesn't matter. But I don't think you actually have any, I think you are making things up again.

Wow, someone ran right up your dress. Tell me, what is the group that reacts from an alcohol molecule. Ah, it's OH-, isn't it? no it isn't So, water and an alcohol have the same functionality. prove this Call them what you want - they can both react the same way. Besides, does it REALLY have anything to do with this issue? Yes, it shows how willing you are to lie and make things up without any regard for the truth. Or is Washington U in St. Louis just a 'red state bible school'? I don't know but if they are going to give you a degree in chemical engineering when you clearly have no knowledge of chemistry I wouldn't think very highly of them.

Here is the difference for the last time: in hydroxide (OH-), not only is the molecule negative charged (the whole -) but it acts as a base and reacts to from some product with OH in it. Never does the H dissociate from the O.

An alcohol, R-OH, is neutrally charged, and reacts by losing an H+ to form a negative O- prone to electrophilic attack.

I demand that you propose 1 chemical test where an alcohol and a hydroxide molecule behave similarly. It is simply untrue and an outrageous claim for you to make - and a claim for which you have not offered 1 piece of evidence.

Stop making the claim because you look stupid.

Oh, and to correct another of your earlier outrageous chemical claims - a hydride is not an H+ molecule. A Hydride is a neautral H molecule (one that still has its electron) which reacts with a metal to form an ionic metal-H compound.

Take, for instance, the most famous hydride - lithium hydride, LiH. Lithium donate an electron to H to form a complete 1s subshell (octet rule), becoming Li+ . H accepts an electron to form a complete 1s subshell (octect rule), becoming H-. This produces the neutral molecule LiH - an ionic compound. Hydrides are very unusual in that H is negatively charged - this never happens outside of hyrdide formation.

So your earlier claim that water makes a "hyrdride" and an "alcohol" ion is just wrong because water forms H+ (not the +, meaning it has lost it's electron) and OH- - neither of which is a hyrdride. But you can still make things up for which you have no actual knowledge.

Can't you realize that your ignorant when it comes to chemistry and the more you argue the more easy it is for me to expose your ignorance. Just quit making youself look stupid.

For Yale. I daresay that Yale has a slightly higher average than than the average school.

Sure, for those who are admitted on academic merit. Not for those who are legacy admits. And if Bush was so brilliant why did he do so poorly at Yale? I think it is reasonable to say that his 10th percentile SAT performance meant that 90% of Yale students were better than him and earned the A's and B's to his C- average. I think he performed as well as anyone would have predicted from SAT score.

Funny, I didn't realize that being the president meant that you were automatically immune to nerves, pressure, and other problems that people commonly encounter when trying to speak publically. As for your 'proof' that Bush is below-average intelligence just because he drank for 20 years, I've not seen it. You showed that brain volume shrunk and recovered, not that intelligence changed. There is no necessary correlation between brain volume/mass and intelligence that I'm aware of - here you going making things up again. Tell me - why in the world would you think that cutting out a large piece of your brain would not have detrimental effects? How can you argue that damaging your brain doesn't make you less intelligent?[/b[. If you can show this, then maybe your theory will have some credence. Until then, it does not.

Actually I already posted a study confirming exactly this. It is on page 3. The relevant part is "These findings lend support for the association of alcohol-related confabulation with visual, as well as previously-documented verbal material among brain-damaged alcoholics." This isn't terribly difficult to understand - if you damage parts of your brain then they no longer work properly. The parts of the brain damaged by alcholism are speech, reasoning, judgement, etc.

But here is what I propose - why don't you offer any evidence of your position. Show me one study that claims "brain damage does not correlate with lower functioning." Just 1.

No, I'm implying that your reverse causation is incorrect. You said that chronic use of alcohol would lead to Bush-like speaking problems, did you not? As I've said before, I believe that there are other possibilities that you're simply ignoring because it's expedient for you to do so.

That is not "reverse causation." That is "causation." No, I believe that my explanation is the most reasonable (it certainly is the only exploration for which evidence has been offered). Sure, there could be millions of reasons why Bush can't speak properly - but why are you avoiding the obvious? And what evidence do you have to support your position?

I choose C - Bush is not an eloquent person. You're begging the question by assuming that your theory is correct without any substantiated proof. His lack of eloquence is not necessarily a result of brain damage, nor is it necessary that someone who has been a public speaker for a long time be eloquent.

Yet another of your logical fallacies. I am not "begging the question" - I present a clear argument with numerous evidence in support of it. Where is your evidence that alcoholism is unrelated and Bush is merely "not an eloquent person." You do understand that such a claim is pure opinion, right, and has no place in any kind of argument about why this is the case. You have merely restated it in different terms.

I like somebody else's "duck test" - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Quite the contrary - I've been stating all along that eloquence and intelligence are not one and the same. You simply choose to ignore it every time I've said it. You equate intelligence with speaking ability, which is a gross non sequitur. Tell me, if you're so opposed to ad hominems and personal attacks, how can you turn around and call me an idiot beceause I went to a 'red state bible school'? I'd hate to have to call you a hypocrite, but the shoe fits rather well in this case.

Where have you ever presented any proof of this? Oh, that's right, you haven't. You would have us believe that Bush is some kind of magical genius in his private little world that none of us get to see. He is obviously intelligent but he hides it very well.

Proof?

What have we learned here?
1. Water has the same functionality as an alcohol (though it may also act as an acid, which it does when it functions as an alcohol) WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? Saying so does not make it true
2. I never said "I never said it." No, you said "my comparison of water intoxication to alcoholic intoxication is an ANALOGY" when you were clearly making a factual statement.The fact that this is an internet forum devoted to politics means that I try to avoid getting into the semantics science is not sematics of what exactly a molecule is called, as it has NO bearing on the topic at hand.
3. I may be an ignorant partisan hack - I'll acknowledge that.
4. You might be an ignorant partisan hack - you won't acknowledge that. Pointing out your lies and logical faults does not make me a partisan hack. Neither does making a claim then backing it up with loads of evidence. Taking a position and being unwilling to change it in the face of evidence to the contrary is what makes you a partisan hack.
5. As soon as you get some scientific research under your belt, come back to me and let me know how black and white the science world really is or is not. I am waiting for your peer-reviewed research.

Oh, and here's a for everyone who wants to lecture me about 'getting owned' or not knowing my chemistry because you simply don't know your chemistry and make ridiculous claims to support your belief that Bush is a brilliant man when nobody is looking. Read what I've said here, then nibble on it for a while.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Actually I already posted a study confirming exactly this. It is on page 3. The relevant part is "These findings lend support for the association of alcohol-related confabulation with visual, as well as previously-documented verbal material among brain-damaged alcoholics." This isn't terribly difficult to understand - if you damage parts of your brain then they no longer work properly. The parts of the brain damaged by alcholism are speech, reasoning, judgement, etc.

Cripes.. took you long enough! That's all I wanted to hear. Of course, "lends support" is not exactly 'proof' and you still haven't given much in the way of a method for anyone to read this material for ourselves, but it's the closest thing you've posted yet. Too bad I had to wade through page after page of petty bickering to get to it. I now officially make it my position that there appears to be a roughly equal chance that Bush's speaking abilities are the results of alcohol or they are caused by something else (such as simply being a poor speaker by nature.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Interestingly that was exactly my take on you. Does that feel like a personal attack?

Not at all - simply by the very nature of the fact that this is a rather anonymous message board that consists of people who may or may not represent themselves truthfully. Anything I may say or do here only affects cKGunslinger and others' opinions on him, not me "personally." Nothing here can ever "feel like a personal attack" and you will rarely, if ever, hear me claim such.

I think your argument also doesn't pass the duck test as I mentioned as I represented allegorically with the pretzel.

What argument of mine was that again? That is is possible that Bush's linguistic abilites may not be the direct results of his past alcohol use? It has also been shown in studies that being married and having kids reduces a man's intelligence, but where are the rabid claims and accusations that it's Laura's and the twin's fault that Bush fumbles at times? Doesn't that 'fact' support 'my argument?'

In order for step 5 to have Internet proof of the kind you seem to desire we would need Bush's medical diagnosis of alcohol related brain damage from tests by his physicians. That is not what I took from FTP's remarks. I clearly saw a case of Occam's razor. If he walks like a duck and talks like a duck he's a duck. The most logical explanation for Bush's astounding linguistic charm is that he has alcohol brain damage. Doesn't mean he does, but the symptoms are consistent according to FTP.

Ah... "the symptoms are consistent according to FTP" Well, by golly, it must be true! Let us be sure to ignore the simple fact that this is the one claim where FTP has yet to show any proof, yet seems to be the entire basis for his posts.

It's all well and good to point out that it might not be so long as we recognize what is most likely. That strikes me as what is scientific, and obfuscation of that point sounds more like partisan hack, if you don't mind me saying.

I don't mind at all. But I have yet to be convinced of "what is most likely." There has been nothing here to support that claim other then FTP's assumptions and your acceptance of them. Pardon me if I do not readily take that as a likely scenario without futher evidence. You'll find that I am quick to agree with logic, no matter how it affects my positions or opinions. But as of yet, there has not been anything substantial presented that would lead me to conclude that it is likely that Bush's alcohol consumption in the past is the most direct and compelling explanation for his speaking abilities. If someone could somehow manage to make this correlation using validated facts or even generally agreed-upon theories, I will be ready and willing to reconsider my stance.

Fair enough and fairly spoken. Clearly we see what we are predisposed to see. I look at the SAT scores, I look at the advanced degree, I make the assumption that they were earned, and then I look at the quoted provided above by kage69 and others and I see either the most stupendous case of stage fright the world has ever seen, or somebody who's thinking isn't now functioning properly. It could be that my bias against Bush idiology colors my opinion, but I don't think that's the case. I actually feel a tremendous pity for the man. Occam's razor cuts a different way for me.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Actually I already posted a study confirming exactly this. It is on page 3. The relevant part is "These findings lend support for the association of alcohol-related confabulation with visual, as well as previously-documented verbal material among brain-damaged alcoholics." This isn't terribly difficult to understand - if you damage parts of your brain then they no longer work properly. The parts of the brain damaged by alcholism are speech, reasoning, judgement, etc.

Cripes.. took you long enough! That's all I wanted to hear. Of course, "lends support" is not exactly 'proof' and you still haven't given much in the way of a method for anyone to read this material for ourselves, but it's the closest thing you've posted yet. Too bad I had to wade through page after page of petty bickering to get to it. I now officially make it my position that there appears to be a roughly equal chance that Bush's speaking abilities are the results of alcohol or they are caused by something else (such as simply being a poor speaker by nature.)

1) Google "PubMed"
2) Go to whatever site
3) Enter your search such as "brain damage alcohol effects"
4) Read the results for yourself - this will be in abstract form

Just a word of caution - a lot of hits were for "pre-natal" or "fetal" alcohol effects (before the baby is born) which clearly have no relevance to the discussion.

But don't take my word for it - check for yourself. It is quite clear that 20 years of alcohol abuse will destroy your brain.

Happy searching.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Fair enough and fairly spoken. Clearly we see what we are predisposed to see. I look at the SAT scores, I look at the advanced degree, I make the assumption that they were earned, and then I look at the quoted provided above by kage69 and others and I see either the most stupendous case of stage fright the world has ever seen, or somebody who's thinking isn't now functioning properly. It could be that my bias against Bush idiology colors my opinion, but I don't think that's the case. I actually feel a tremendous pity for the man. Occam's razor cuts a different way for me.

:thumbsup: I also have a predisposition. I'm not a Yale or Harvard graduate, but I do have a nice engineering degree that I earned through college on academic scholarships. I have a good-paying job where I make very important decisions that ultimately result in live-or-death consequences. I'm not "tooting my own horn," but rather showing that I could be considered a man of education and/or intelligence, and am by my family, friends, and peers. But when it comes to public speaking, you will be hard-pressed to find someone worse.

I'd wager that I'd make even Bush seem eloquent. I mispronounce words, trail off at the ends of sentences, transpose words or whole phrases, get tongue-tied, etc. I even do this when carrying on a casual conversation with my wife or a friend. I use the phone as little as possible, even though I have one on my desk (forwarded to voice mail 90% of the time.) If I absolutely have to use it, I usually jot down what I plan on saying beforehand, because my mind typically goes blank when it comes time for me to speak. Even if I am required to give my name or address or SS number, I write it down, because I often forget even these trivial things when I am forced to speak. Being only 27, I can't exactly blame any of this on 20-years of chronic alcohol abuse.

The point is, anyone who hears me speak, even on a topic with which I am very familiar, would be fully justified is assuming I was an utter and complete moron, but people who know me would not necessarily assume such. Public speaking is not a good indicator of intelligence, in my mind. I am obviously heavily biased because of my 'condition,' but I freely admit that. I can see the points made by the people who think Bush is stupid because of his policies and decision, just not the ones who use his speaking ability as an indicator.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Fair enough and fairly spoken. Clearly we see what we are predisposed to see. I look at the SAT scores, I look at the advanced degree, I make the assumption that they were earned, and then I look at the quoted provided above by kage69 and others and I see either the most stupendous case of stage fright the world has ever seen, or somebody who's thinking isn't now functioning properly. It could be that my bias against Bush idiology colors my opinion, but I don't think that's the case. I actually feel a tremendous pity for the man. Occam's razor cuts a different way for me.

:thumbsup: I also have a predisposition. I'm not a Yale or Harvard graduate, but I do have a nice engineering degree that I earned through college on academic scholarships. I have a good-paying job where I make very important decisions that ultimately result in live-or-death consequences. I'm not "tooting my own horn," but rather showing that I could be considered a man of education and/or intelligence, and am by my family, friends, and peers. But when it comes to public speaking, you will be hard-pressed to find someone worse.

I'd wager that I'd make even Bush seem eloquent. I mispronounce words, trail off at the ends of sentences, transpose words or whole phrases, get tongue-tied, etc. I even do this when carrying on a casual conversation with my wife or a friend. I use the phone as little as possible, even though I have one on my desk (forwarded to voice mail 90% of the time.) If I absolutely have to use it, I usually jot down what I plan on saying beforehand, because my mind typically goes blank when it comes time for me to speak. Even if I am required to give my name or address or SS number, I write it down, because I often forget even these trivial things when I am forced to speak. Being only 27, I can't exactly blame any of this on 20-years of chronic alcohol abuse.

The point is, anyone who hears me speak, even on a topic with which I am very familiar, would be fully justified is assuming I was an utter and complete moron, but people who know me would not necessarily assume such. Public speaking is not a good indicator of intelligence, in my mind. I am obviously heavily biased because of my 'condition,' but I freely admit that. I can see the points made by the people who think Bush is stupid because of his policies and decision, just not the ones who use his speaking ability as an indicator.

Thanks for the profundity and eloquence of your post. I feel like I've met a human being.
For me that's a stupendous treat. I don't know what it is that allows one person to admit weaknesses they may have and others of endlessly defend. But the difference is refreshing. As I just stated in some other thread, it took me years of sweat and blood effort to write a sentence that meant something like what I meant. Hehe, I just flashed on a paper I had to write on Madame Curie, maybe in the fourth grade that I carried around with me for years, the ink smudged with tears. Cheers!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
If you want to make your research a point then I demand that you produce it. Give me an abstract of your last 3 papers that were published in a peer-reviewed journal and where I can read the full text. And they had better be in chemistry - inorganic, organic, biochem, p-chem, it doesn't matter. But I don't think you actually have any, I think you are making things up again.[/b]
Science is not chemistry alone. You said that there are no semantics in science in general. Further, how would my posting abstracts have any effect on this argument? You're attacking my credibility rather than my argument, because you can't attack my argument. The fact is that you still have yet to prove that Bush's alcoholism led to his inability to speak well.

Your whole alcohol != water argument is the pinnacle of stupidity. I'll cede, for the sake of argument, that you're probably right. In fact, I just don't give a rat's, nor does anyone else here. You took one sentence out of all my posts, beat it to death, raped its corpse, then put it in the closet in case you wanted to peruse it again. Who cares?

For Yale. I daresay that Yale has a slightly higher average than than the average school.

Sure, for those who are admitted on academic merit. Not for those who are legacy admits. And if Bush was so brilliant why did he do so poorly at Yale? I think it is reasonable to say that his 10th percentile SAT performance meant that 90% of Yale students were better than him and earned the A's and B's to his C- average. I think he performed as well as anyone would have predicted from SAT score.
Do you know how to calculate an average? It is the sum of ALL scores divided by the number of scores. Therefore, arguing that the average is higher for 'those admitted on academic merit' is beyond ridiculous. You then state that his SAT scores directly translate into a GPA in college. But I'm the one with the gap in logic.

Funny, I didn't realize that being the president meant that you were automatically immune to nerves, pressure, and other problems that people commonly encounter when trying to speak publically. As for your 'proof' that Bush is below-average intelligence just because he drank for 20 years, I've not seen it. You showed that brain volume shrunk and recovered, not that intelligence changed. There is no necessary correlation between brain volume/mass and intelligence that I'm aware of - here you going making things up again. Tell me - why in the world would you think that cutting out a large piece of your brain would not have detrimental effects? How can you argue that damaging your brain doesn't make you less intelligent?[/b]. If you can show this, then maybe your theory will have some credence. Until then, it does not.

Wow, I didn't realize he had actually amputated part of his brain. I thought it just shrunk, then recovered over the decades since his problem, as per your own source. Give me a break. Your brain's volume varies very slightly due to day-to-day pressure fluctuations - does this mean you're smarter or dumber on certain days?

Actually I already posted a study confirming exactly this. It is on page 3. The relevant part is "These findings lend support for the association of alcohol-related confabulation with visual, as well as previously-documented verbal material among brain-damaged alcoholics." This isn't terribly difficult to understand - if you damage parts of your brain then they no longer work properly. The parts of the brain damaged by alcholism are speech, reasoning, judgement, etc.

But here is what I propose - why don't you offer any evidence of your position. Show me one study that claims "brain damage does not correlate with lower functioning." Just 1.

I don't have to support my claims because I never made one. You proposed the theory - it's your job to prove it. This is also known as the burden of proof fallacy, oh wise philosophy major. Further, your source says that 'findings lend support for the association', not that there is definitive proof. Finally, you have yet to show that these findings can be applied to the president, decades later.

That is not "reverse causation." That is "causation." No, I believe that my explanation is the most reasonable (it certainly is the only exploration for which evidence has been offered). Sure, there could be millions of reasons why Bush can't speak properly - but why are you avoiding the obvious? And what evidence do you have to support your position?

You're assuming that your very limited data is convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby making it the obvious reason for Bush to be a poor speaker. What you're failing to understand is that there are millions of people who are poor speakers, and not all of them have had alcohol issues. The much more obvious reason is that he's a poor speaker, plain and simple.

In the end, you're proposing one possibility with one source and ignoring all other possibilities, including the most obvious: he's just not a good speaker. All of the rest of your statements add up to nothing. I don't have to prove that you're wrong, you have to prove that you're right. It's that simple - all you have to do is admit that there's a possibility that you're wrong. I'm more than willing to admit that there's a possibility that you're right, but you have yet to prove it.

 

[LunarRay]

IF Bush were sailing a dingy his individual assets would be essential. He ain't! He's sailing the most complicated vessel one can imagine. The criteria we should look to is beyond Bush... it is who has he hired on as crew. Bush knows what he needs to know to point toward an objective. He has a philosophy as does Kerry and a monkey, I suppose.

The Question ought to be: Do smart people make up better objectives for us less smart folks?