Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Condor
[He certainly didn't volunteer for the draft!

You're referring to Bush???

No, actually Bush served honorably and would have gone to RVN had he been ordered to. He just avoided duty in Texas. According to records, he even volunteered for RVN as an F 102 driver, I think. If you are looking for a draft dodger, go back a few years to Clinton, the Daddy of the Democratic Party.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Harvey

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s

Credibility issues, here. The source for this "article" is on Vdare.com. At the bottom of the page, you'll see the site is a member in good standing of the Ring of Conservative Sites.

Mr. Sailer also wrote another article, Analysis: How smart is Bush? The last four paragraphs of this article from the same author are revealing:

Simonton told UPI, "In raw intellect, Bush is about average" for a president.

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of "openness to experience."

Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running, fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people who could fill them.

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I hear you,' but he really can't."

I repeat, Bush drives jets! You gotta think faster than your velocity to arrive alive.

Bush stopped flying jets because he couldn't keep up.

I think he had made his bell curve before he stopped. He just got bored with them because they were so slooow!

 

[nCred]

Since when can you calculate IQ based on SAT scores? You measure IQ with IQ-tests. Anyway some people with high IQ are really ignorant, once you´re over a certain level of iQ, say 110 then you can be a better president then someone with 150.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.

Total BS formula . . .

For SAT scores before 1996 -- before the "re-centering," which raised the average SAT back to 500 -- Detterman provides this formula: (.126 X SAT Combined Score) - (.0000471 X SAT Combined Score X SAT Combined Score) + 40.063 = IQ. (data in charts "a" and "b" below)

In essence, you plot an IQ surrogate against SAT which produces a "formula" . . . but that formula models a population NOT an individual. For any given person, the output of the formula is meaningless. I would bet the farm that Bush would not score 1SD above the mean on the Stanford-Binet, WAIS, or Weschler. Curiously, all of the "guessing" by these alleged IQ "experts" produce strikingly similar results . . . if you always use the same flawed logic . . . it's not surprising you produce the same biased result with replication.

Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Here's a good analogy, my wife has big boobs and Anna Nicole Smith has bigger boobs. But only a fool would say ANS's big boobs would produce appropriate nutrition for my newborn. But, but, but . . . I thought breast size correlated with milk production??

What about good high school grades and matriculation at Yale? How about good college grades and matriculation at Harvard Business School? A VERY strong population correlation falls apart when you talk about certain individuals.

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.

This puts a cap on the BS comparison. No expert in intelligence testing would tell you that mid-120s is different from about 120. It's like saying you know for certain that more people voted for Bush than Gore in Florida. If the difference between scores is within the margin for error of the test . . . the scores are IDENTICAL. It is statistically impossible to distinguish them. You gain statistical power as you replicate the result but if it's a bad test . . . like most of the tests cited . . . you wind up with multiple bad assessments . . . which is again useless.

In sum, the only way to know if Kerry is likely to score higher than Bush on an IQ test . . . is to have them take the same test multiple times and then compare the results. If you made it a battery of tests then you could avoid potential biases (such as Bush being penalized by a test with a high verbal content).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: nCred
Since when can you calculate IQ based on SAT scores? You measure IQ with IQ-tests. Anyway some people with high IQ are really ignorant, once you´re over a certain level of iQ, say 110 then you can be a better president then someone with 150.

Well it depends on what you are calling IQ. What most of the alleged experts were claiming was that standardized IQ tests, the various military assessments cited, and the SAT quantify a component of "g" which is the general intelligence factor. Technically, "g" is supposed to be independent of experience but only good tests truly have that characteristic.

I've taught Kaplan review for MCAT, DAT, and GRE. None of which would be called an IQ test by a true psychometrician but all have comparable merit to calling the SAT an IQ test. My best group of students improved their score on the MCAT by an average of 1SD. They did NOT get smarter. But they were much better at taking the test. In addition, anyone that was compelled to read a lot "say attending an elite prep school" would likely score higher on the test than their actual "intellect" would imply.

It is curious how global warming, 2nd hand smoking risk, and various other phenomenon are commonly branded as "junk science" by the twits right of center . . . yet somehow this detritus is worthy of recognition.

 

[nCred]

.

 

[vital]

speakin of IQ
average iq of voters

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: nCred
Since when can you calculate IQ based on SAT scores? You measure IQ with IQ-tests. Anyway some people with high IQ are really ignorant, once you´re over a certain level of iQ, say 110 then you can be a better president then someone with 150.

Well it depends on what you are calling IQ. What most of the alleged experts were claiming was that standardized IQ tests, the various military assessments cited, and the SAT quantify a component of "g" which is the general intelligence factor. Technically, "g" is supposed to be independent of experience but only good tests truly have that characteristic.

I've taught Kaplan review for MCAT, DAT, and GRE. None of which would be called an IQ test by a true psychometrician but all have comparable merit to calling the SAT an IQ test. My best group of students improved their score on the MCAT by an average of 1SD. They did NOT get smarter. But they were much better at taking the test. In addition, anyone that was compelled to read a lot "say attending an elite prep school" would likely score higher on the test than their actual "intellect" would imply.

It is curious how global warming, 2nd hand smoking risk, and various other phenomenon are commonly branded as "junk science" by the twits right of center . . . yet somehow this detritus is worthy of recognition.

The same can be said about the SAT though. I didn't take the SAT that long ago and after taking a "tutoring" session I scored nearly 150 points higher the second go-around, after learning "SAT techniques" ... pretty lame study. But the aformentioned state/average IQ link is pretty interesting