Minimum IQ test for President?

[rain2k4]

Obviously the format of the test would be up for debate. And of course a lot of these tests a slightly subjective or are suited to certian people. Also, I don?t think a test ?qualifies? someone to be President, but there are other minimum requirements (some arguably arbitrary, i.e. age) why not IQ(or SOME test)? I've often thought about this but haven't seen this debated with any seriousness.

The basic idea is based out of my hope/belief that ? the President of the United States is certifiably "smarter" than I am. Know what I mean? I mean he/she is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! I want him/her to be smarter than everyone in my school, the top 1% of the top 1%, etc, etc. This is obviously going to be tied to an anti-bush rant, so ill get this off my chest.
*******************
Anti-Bush rant start

I believe Bush had an SAT score of 1206? Above average for a college student, but taking into account that he had the best schooling, mentoring and most certainly the best aid in preparing for the SAT to begin with, isn?t that shockingly low(for a president)? I personally know a lot of people who had higher scores(including myself, as I can already hear some of you waiting to pounce on that) and with a fraction of the support that George W had. I?m actually shocked that this doesn?t bother more people? maybe it's just me?

Anti-Bush rant end
******************
The only argument I see against is that the 2 party race ensures highly intelligent candidates, but I will point to Bush as an example of where that wasn?t true. Dare I say, Bush beat out his republican counterparts in 2000 because of his family?s influence and not on his own personal merit? Does this not bother more republicans?

As an end note (since I have opened myself up to a healthy bit of flaming), I consider myself to be a moderate Democrat who?s awfully close to being a moderate Republican. I don?t care much for Kerry as I think he is in fact somewhat of the person Bush paints him out to be (i.e. opportunistic etc). And even though more and more of my industry is getting outsourced, I?m a little worried that Kerry(based on his speeches) might be a tad bit more of an ?isolationist? that I would like. I also don't care for Edwards speeches as it seems as if he wants to be the next Dr.Phil(too sappy for me...). I think I am in quite a large group is much more ?anti-bush? then ?pro-kerry?, so NO I?m not a bleeding heart Dem, so please do not disregard this post as a purely partisan ?outburst? ? Anyway, let the flaming begin...

 

[daveshel]

I'm not so sure that intelligence or edudation is that great an indicator of what it takes to be a good president. Clinton was a Rhoades Scholar and still came off as a bubba who couldn't even out-think his little head. But it is sad that the state of politics today is such that a candidate of little ability and few accomplishments is made to look good enough to be elected president. There is a brain trust behind that packaging!

 

[Helenihi]

Nixon was really smart, see where that got us?


We don't need (or want) eggheads in the whitehouse. You get eggheads to lead their various departments, or to serve as advisors. The president should be smart, but more important than being a genius are good people skills, the ability to make decisions, vision, etc.

 

[Jmman]

Carter was one of the smartest Presidents we have ever had, and probably one of the worst also. There is very little correlation between being super smart and being a great "leader".......

 

[LordMagnusKain]

120 is a good minimum IQ
1100 is a good minimum SAT.

140 is a good maximum IQ
1300 is a good maximum SAT

and, of course, this means i can't be presedent.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Nixon was really smart, see where that got us?


We don't need (or want) eggheads in the whitehouse. You get eggheads to lead their various departments, or to serve as advisors. The president should be smart, but more important than being a genius are good people skills, the ability to make decisions, vision, etc.

The president should at VERY LEAST have basic grammar skills.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Nixon was really smart, see where that got us?

up until the end, Nixon was a pretty good president, IMO.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Ill say this, being a liberal, I will say Nixon was half decent if he wasnt a paranoid skitzo. I mean the guy started the EPA, and wanted better foreign relations with China.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Gee. With a test, we might have ended up with Cheney as President!

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Gee. With a test, we might have ended up with Cheney as President!

What do you mean "might have"?

Cheney already is president.

 

[Fingolfin269]

SAT scores don't mean squat anyway. I know plenty of people in my high school who were hungover when taking their test.

(Insert drunken President joke here)

 

[Kipper]

SAT = worthless
IQ = worthless
Standardized testing = worthless

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
120 is a good minimum IQ
1100 is a good minimum SAT.

140 is a good maximum IQ
1300 is a good maximum SAT

and, of course, this means i can't be presedent.

I concur, as you have to be able to spell the position before you can hold it

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Wow, many of you are misguided on so many levels. In truth, IQ from 90-110 is where most people live. As you move significantly below 90 . . . it has meaning . . . typically the lower it goes the more it means. Curiously, the significance is less profound as you move above 110.

SAT, IQ, and other issues

Consistent with the above chart is Lynn and Vanhanen's 2002 book: IQ and the Wealth of Nations. In it they review the scientific literature and conclude that IQ is an important determinant of educational attainment, earnings, economic success, etc. They find in the United States and Britain that the correlation between IQ and earnings for individuals is approximately 0.35. (very close to the 0.33 in the above chart).

And remember . . . these are correlative statistics NOT proof of causation.

Stanford professor Steele finds that the SAT is "in a sense an IQ test" and that "the SAT in fact measures only about 18% (ranging from 7% to 30%) of the factors that determine a person's freshman grades." Corroborating this 18% figure, James Maas found that SAT's accounted for 16% of future academic success at his Cornell. The point of all these numbers is that a large percentage of success is NOT related to IQ. Nevertheless, an increasing number of employers are asking job applicants to provide SAT scores. This is a wise trend in hiring, given that up to 1/3 of success in entry jobs is related to IQ. SAT's now largely test.for IQ, but the new SAT's may correlate more with high school grades than with IQ.

Let's be honest. Bush didn't get into TX Law b/c he lacked the "credentials". He did get into Yale ugrad and Harvard Business b/c he had enough "credentials". Bush got into the TX (and AL) Air National Guard b/c he had enough "credentials". Bush became President b/c he had enough "credentials". I've used "credentials" 4x and I guarantee reasonably intelligent people would surmise that "credentials" exemplified no less than three different traits.

Here's my wish . . . I think Presidents should have a certain level of intellectual curiosity. Under such a regime, even if you lack the knowledge to make the best decision . . . you would still know to FIND and ASK someone that does.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Nixon was really smart, see where that got us?


We don't need (or want) eggheads in the whitehouse. You get eggheads to lead their various departments, or to serve as advisors. The president should be smart, but more important than being a genius are good people skills, the ability to make decisions, vision, etc.

Precisely.

In fact, deception and manipulation is tightly correlated with intelligence, honesty and integrity is not.

IOW, higher intelligence is a virtual requirement in order to be a fairly good to great deceiver and manipulator. That's not to say persons of average intelligence don't attempt to deceive or manipulate, its just that they are relatively bad at it and thus have to find another line of work.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Nixon was really smart, see where that got us?


We don't need (or want) eggheads in the whitehouse. You get eggheads to lead their various departments, or to serve as advisors. The president should be smart, but more important than being a genius are good people skills, the ability to make decisions, vision, etc.

Precisely.

In fact, deception and manipulation is tightly correlated with intelligence, honesty and integrity is not.

IOW, higher intelligence is a virtual requirement in order to be a fairly good to great deceiver and manipulator. That's not to say persons of average intelligence don't attempt to deceive or manipulate, its just that they are relatively bad at it and thus have to find another line of work.

Again you are missing the boat.

If you believe in multiple intelligences (mental, social, athletic, etc) then your argument has merit. For instance, many people say Bush has a high social intelligence and there's little doubt that Clinton has a high social intelligence. Social intelligence (ability to read and interact) is all the typical charlatan needs. Well that and a weak sense of ethics. Now look at how often Bush left others holding the bag (Spectrum 7, Harkken, Arbusto, WMD in Iraq). Bush was not managing partner of the TX Rangers b/c of his high "mental" intelligence. He got that position b/c it was believed he "knew" the right people and could work the right people to get a publicly funded stadium deal in Arlington.

I would love to read any evidence you have showing a tight correlation between deception/manipulation and intelligence. While it seems logical (in a very base kind of common sense manner), the fact that our penal system is filled with hundreds of thousands of people with average-low average-below average intelligence convicted of offenses associated with deception/manipulation does not support your conclusion. The Jeff Skillings and Neil Bushes of the world may steal MORE b/c of their positions of influence +/- intelligence but they are not inherently more likely to steal b/c of their positions of influence +/- intelligence.

 

[tcsenter]

I would love to read any evidence you have showing a tight correlation between deception/manipulation and intelligence. While it seems logical (in a very base kind of common sense manner), the fact that our penal system is filled with hundreds of thousands of people with average-low average-below average intelligence convicted of offenses associated with deception/manipulation does not support your conclusion.

I don't have to provide evidence with you providing it for me. Prisons are full of people who get caught because they are fairly awful in the art of deception and manipulation.

I will amend my statement to avoid further misunderstanding: "Successful deception and manipulation is tightly correlated with intelligence, honesty and integrity is not."

Ask any psychologist with expertise in personality disorders and has encountered a number of highly accomplished (e.g. successful) deceivers. Higher functioning is a common theme among them.

 

[irwincur]

Wow, many of you are misguided on so many levels. In truth, IQ from 90-110 is where most people live. As you move significantly below 90 . . . it has meaning . . . typically the lower it goes the more it means. Curiously, the significance is less profound as you move above 110.

Then there are the many different IQ tests out there. One standard does not apply to all.




About public speaking or speech in general. There are many smart people that are not good public speakers. How many of you could stand in front of a crowd of 1,000, or 10,000, or a nation. Not many from what I have seen. Public speaking has nothing to do with overall intelligence - some people are just better than others, plain and simple.

With the way the left treats the presidents, you would think everyone with a speech impediment is a retard. It is sad that they treat the president like a moron, yet they try to act like they are supportive of kids with similar speech patterns. The left loves people with any educational problem - unless you happen to be Bush. I call BS on that, the left could care less about anyone at this point.


Lastly, getting through an IV league masters program is difficult, no matter who you know. At the masters level it is pure competition and only the best make it through. Your classmates competiting against you for a grade could care less about who you are, or who your family is. They are not going to let you pass them if you did not deserve it. With a greater than 50% failure rate, only the best actually make it to the end.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I would love to read any evidence you have showing a tight correlation between deception/manipulation and intelligence. While it seems logical (in a very base kind of common sense manner), the fact that our penal system is filled with hundreds of thousands of people with average-low average-below average intelligence convicted of offenses associated with deception/manipulation does not support your conclusion.

I don't have to provide evidence with you providing it for me. Prisons are full of people who get caught because they are fairly awful in the art of deception and manipulation.

I will amend my statement to avoid further misunderstanding: "Successful deception and manipulation is tightly correlated with intelligence, honesty and integrity is not."

Ask any psychologist with expertise in personality disorders and has encountered a number of highly accomplished (e.g. successful) deceivers. Higher functioning is a common theme among them.

Dude, I didn't misunderstand . . . maybe you just don't what you are saying.

That's not to say persons of average intelligence don't attempt to deceive or manipulate, its just that they are relatively bad at it and thus have to find another line of work.

It's the last clause that sinks your boat. Above average intelligence people typically steal more (due to access) and are less likely to get caught but the actual frequency of theft (ie who's likely to do it) is unlikely to be a function of intelligence. It's a function of personal character.

I would never consult a psychologist . . . just not necessary . . . I'm a physician scientist in psychiatric research. Hell I know people in the field that are highly accomplished (e.g. successful) deceivers and I've seen children and adults in the criminal justice system that are accomplished (e.g. frequent) deceivers and still others that are highly accomplished (e.g. frequent and successful) but alas it only takes one time to end your run.

In sum, your first claim was vague and inaccurate. Your second claim is less vague but still inaccurate. The quality of your character determines the frequency of theft, fraud, deception, etc . . . and there's likely to be NO correlation between the quality of your character and your intelligence.

George W. Bush has largely deceived/manipulated his way to collect tidy payoffs despite running multiple corporate failures. Neil Bush is arguably far more accomplished if you measure his (success) in the sheer amount of money that's been lost by others (mainly the public). Jeb Bush has few (if any) blights on his record.

If all you meant to say was that "highly intelligent" people are more likely to know more ways to deceive/manipulate and more ways to avoid detection . . . then I agree with you. But such a situation could easily be a weak/low (0.2-0.4). No statistician would call that tight. To the contrary, the actual frequency of fraud may have no association whatsoever with intelligence.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: irwincur
With a greater than 50% failure rate, only the best actually make it to the end.

Wheres your source on that? I happen to know for a fact that one of the reasons Ivys are considered so highly is because they help you succeed.

 

[Puwaha]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
SAT = worthless
IQ = worthless
Standardized testing = worthless

So... subjective testing is a better option?

 

[Wag]

Just because you're smart doesn't mean you have good sense.

 

[tcsenter]

It's the last clause that sinks your boat. Above average intelligence people typically steal more (due to access) and are less likely to get caught but the actual frequency of theft (ie who's likely to do it) is unlikely to be a function of intelligence. It's a function of personal character.

Never did I speak to or imply the matter of FREQUENCY. This you infer from nothing.

I explicitly stated "fairly good" or "great" deceivers, "highly accomplished" deceivers, all premising my statements in terms of success or quality of deception, never frequency of attempt. I actually implied the opposite; "That's not to say persons of average intelligence don't attempt to deceive or manipulate (e.g. frequency), its just that they are relatively bad at it (e.g. unsuccessful) and thus have to find another line of work."

To the last part, I did not say they stopped attempting to deceive. My suggestion was that certain professions and pursuits will be unavailable to them, because if they attempt to venture in them, quickly find they are fairly awful in it. The Peter Principle for deceivers.

That leaving "tightly" the only valid bone you have to pick, which I would agree is, based on the statistical relevance of this term, probably overstating things. But statistically and practically insignificant the correlation is not.

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't know, the guy running the country is pretty damn smart. Never question the intelligence of Dick "Fsck You" Cheney!

 

[rain2k4]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I'm not so sure that intelligence or edudation is that great an indicator of what it takes to be a good president. Clinton was a Rhoades Scholar and still came off as a bubba who couldn't even out-think his little head. But it is sad that the state of politics today is such that a candidate of little ability and few accomplishments is made to look good enough to be elected president. There is a brain trust behind that packaging!

Interesting... I always thought that Clinton was generally percieved as highly intelligent, but with some obvious moral questions about his character, and what the character of the president SHOULD be.

Your last statement about the brain trust is another interesting topic. The president has to rely on his advisors so heavily for his decision making, I wish this was a little more transparent(i.e. who his advisors are, what THEIR views are etc.).