24 Least Intelligent U.S. Presidents Ranked By IQ
Well, actually ...
If their IQ estimates are correct, then JFK was the dumbest American President. The lowest one mentioned in the article was U.S. Grant, and the article estimated that he had an IQ of 120.
But we know JFK's exact IQ, so no estimate is necessary. He was tested at 119 by Choate, his prep school.
We know only two others for sure.
Richard Nixon was tested at 143 when he was at Fullerton High.
We don't exactly have IQ test results for George Bush, but we have pre-1974 SATs, which can be converted to IQs. There was a pretty close correlation between SAT and IQ in those days. The correlation was dependable enough that MENSA accepted SAT scores for membership at that time. Over the years the tests have been revised, the correlation has all but evaporated, and MENSA no longer accepts SAT scores in its admission process. George W Bush scored a 1206 on the tests, which translates to an IQ of 129 on the Otis scale, 127 on Stanford-Binet. (MENSA required a 1250 on the pre-1974 SAT, so Dubya fell just below.)
I began this comment by writing "If their IQ estimates are correct ..." By the way - they aren't. For example, Nixon was officially tested, and the article's estimate isn't even close.
Remember also that there's more to being smart than just raw IQ scores. If you don't exercise and develop your intelligence and it gets rusty.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the impression that Dubya or JFK were in the habit of reading Plato's Parmenides of an evening to really get to grips with Zeno's paradoxes of motion.
I.Q tests were originally devised only to determine the top quintile and the bottom quintile, anything in between can't be determined by I.Q scores, and as was written above, I.Q tests hardly capture all forms of intelligence, especially the softer so-called Emotional Intelligence, and intelligence like creativity or lateral thinking abilities.
ReplyDeleteI think I.Q tests (even the full tests) are about as worthwhile as pop psychology and it doesn't surprise me that one of the things they were originally used for was to make it hard for non English speakers to enter the United States, which, I believe, annoyed the creator of the test no end.
I meant to write 'anything in between can't be accurately measured by I.Q tests.'
ReplyDeleteI've taken two full I.Q tests years apart. It should also be added that I.Q tests scores for an individual can range quite a bit when taken years apart. A full I.Q test is broken down into two components, 'verbal intelligence' and 'spatial intelligence.' Verbal intelligence covers such thing as logic whereas spatial intelligence covers such things as ability to judge distances and the like.
On my second test, I had an overall score of 110, which falls in the meaningless middle, but it split between a spatial intelligence of 80 which is referred to as mildly impaired and a verbal intelligence of 140 which is at the low end of the top quintile, so it is significant, and is at the low genius level.
The person giving me the test said that he had never personally recorded such a large gap and he had never even read about such a large gap, but he said that gaps like that (though not as large) are consistent with people who have what used to be referred to as Asperger's.
None of these things surprised me, though being regarded at the low genius level in regards to verbal intelligence was nice to hear.
In my case, I prior to this preferred listening to hockey games on the radio rather than watching them on television and I had already preferred text based information to all other forms.
Should have said 'the person scoring the tests' not the person who delivered them.
ReplyDeleteI should point out in terms of stereotyping, it's often said that people with Asperger's are the best people to do software coding because of their obsessive attention to detail.
I have other reasons besides this test to be pretty sure I have asperger's, including an obsessive attention to detail, and I get completely lost trying to do even simple coding. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but, I always prefer to regard how things fit on a bell curve, or in this case overlapping bell curves.
It could very well be true that, in general, people with Aspergers (and maybe other forms of Autism as well) are best able to do software coding, but there are a lot of people with Asperger's who can't code and there are a lot of people who don't have Asperger's (or any other form of Autism) who are excellent at coding.
I personally think if everybody saw things in terms of their fit on a bell curve, there would be a lot less stereotyped thinking.
In social science, the bell curve is sometimes referred to as a 'continuum.' I don't really like that term because it was hijacked in Canada by some of the far left so called Social Justice Warriors (before that became a term.) I forget the details, but, there was a far left law professor who came up with the idea derived from bell curves that all men are capable of violence against women, it was just a matter of where they fit on the 'continuum.' I'm sure that's true, but if it's looked at on a bell curve, the amount of men who are capable of violence but who would actually carry it out would be a bell curve heavily skewed to the left. Her argument, based on no evidence at all, was for some reason, accepted by the Canadian Supreme Court in some major decision over something.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, one last comment.
ReplyDeleteI meant to write above that it's likely that a greater percentage of those with asperger's are better at coding, not that people with asperger's are likely best at coding. Those are two separate things.
Clearly the most important intelligence or skill that an I.Q test can't determine is problem solving ability. In general, that's probably the most useful thing a person can have.
Even verbal intelligence can only measure the ability to analyse data, but problem solving requires the ability to synthesize data, and I.Q tests certainly don't measure that.