PDA

View Full Version : Presidential IQ's



Rich R.
08-26-2004, 08:02 AM
I'm just passing this along. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Subject: Presidential IQ's.

In a report published Monday, April 12,2004, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements:

1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff
2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points.

In order by presidential term:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D] 142,
Harry S Truman [D] 132,
Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122,
John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,
Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,
Richard Milhous Nixon [R] 155,
Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,
James Earle Carter [D] 175,
Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105
George Herbert Walker Bush [R] 098,
William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,
George Walker Bush [R] 091

In order of IQ rating:
182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]
175 . . James Earle Carter [D]
174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]
155 . . Richard Milhous Nixon [R]
147 . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]
132 . Harry S Truman [D]
126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]
122 . Dwight David Eisenhower [R]
121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]
105 . Ronald Wilson Reagan [R]
098 . . George Herbert Walker Bush [R]
091 . . George Walker Bush [R]

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176).

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.

The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-26-2004, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>

...We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."<hr /></blockquote>

If that's the case they should have given him a 50.

I believe he is smarter than he appears. His dad mangled the language too and I don't think anyone accused him of being stupid.

I believe some folks misunderestimate his strategery.

Rich R.
08-26-2004, 09:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> I believe he is smarter than he appears. His dad mangled the language too and I don't think anyone accused him of being stupid. <hr /></blockquote>
According to the figures above, George H. ranks just above George W.
It must be a family thing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Ross
08-26-2004, 09:30 AM
As much as I agree with it's conclusions (/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif), this Presidential IQ thing is a hoax. See www.snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com) and search under "president IQ".

eg8r
08-26-2004, 10:04 AM
LOL, this is pretty funny to me. I agree W and his father were not the most eloquent of presidents. This post also shows that dems are smarter than reps. Well, tell me this, if the Democratic presidents use the english language so well and have such high IQ's why isn't their comprehension of the language as high?

Come on, we have a bunch of Dems on this board alone who still think Bush said Saddam had connections with 9/11. Bush never said that, but all these intelligent libs "heard" it.

I guess all these smarts are thrown out the window when a little common sense is blended in the mix. This is why the intelligent Dems are in the schools and universities, teaching, and the unintelligent Reps are out in the working world (getting rich if you ask the greedy intelligent Dems). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

bluewolf
08-26-2004, 10:09 AM
Does not sound like a very good IQ test to me. The best intelligence tests (though still lacking IMO) assess a sampling of factors of intelligence. Many factors of intelligence are not rated on any IQ test. This leads me to think that ratings of intelligence are speculative at best.

One reason for this is because personality factors weigh into whether a person has published anything, speaks well and even the grades they made in college and scores on various tests which are supposed to measure a person's ability to do well in certain occupations.

While some appear quite intelligent to us, IMO, there are others who are intelligent in other ways, that do not occur to many of us.

Trying to define intelligence is about as futile as trying to define love.

Yeah, it all sounds like BS to me.

Laura

catscradle
08-26-2004, 10:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> As much as I agree with it's conclusions (/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif), this Presidential IQ thing is a hoax. See www.snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com) and search under "president IQ". <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the heads up.

Though I was pleased to see my 8th cousin several times removed with a 147. I'll just pretend that one is accurate. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cheesemouse
08-26-2004, 11:40 AM
Well like dahhhh...

Rich R.
08-26-2004, 11:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> Does not sound like a very good IQ test to me. <hr /></blockquote>
I don't think it is any big secret that there is no such thing as a universally "good" intelligence test.

I wouldn't trust this test, or any other test, that claims to rate someone's intelligence. It just doesn't work.

This came across my computer and I thought I would post it to get a rise out of a few.

It worked. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
08-26-2004, 12:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It worked. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

Ross
08-26-2004, 03:09 PM
Everyone should have immediately known it was a hoax. No way GWB's IQ is that high!

Rich R.
08-27-2004, 07:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Everyone should have immediately known it was a hoax. No way GWB's IQ is that high! <hr /></blockquote>
/ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

nhp
08-28-2004, 09:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Come on, we have a bunch of Dems on this board alone who still think Bush said Saddam had connections with 9/11. Bush never said that, but all these intelligent libs "heard" it. <hr /></blockquote>

Unless 70% of this country are "libs", then you are wrong. The Bush administration had 70% of americans thinking Saddam was connected with 9/11. Here is an example of the impression Bush or Cheney was giving off:

United States President George W Bush now says Saddam Hussein did not have any hand in the September 11 attacks - and that the Iraqi leader had no connections with Osama bin Laden.

"We have had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," CNN quoted Bush as saying on Wednesday.

This contradicts the earlier US claim that Hussein was hand-in-glove with bin Laden. In fact, the president had justified the American war against Iraq saying Baghdad had unconventional weapons and strong links with bin Laden's international terror network, Al Qaeda.

The CNN report said the president's comment follows an opinion poll which says nearly 70 per cent Americans believe that Hussein's regime, which US-led forces brought down in April, was linked to the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed 3,000 people.

Interestingly, US Vice-President Dick Cheney continued to encourage the belief that Hussein helped bin Laden, saying on NBC television that Iraq was the 'geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'


That's got nothing to do with intelligence, it was extremely poor usage of wording by the Bush administration if they are trying to *clearly* /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif say that Saddam was connected to Al Qaida but *not* 9/11.

eg8r
08-29-2004, 12:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Unless 70% of this country are "libs", then you are wrong. The Bush administration had 70% of americans thinking Saddam was connected with 9/11. Here is an example of the impression Bush or Cheney was giving off:
<hr /></blockquote> Whether or not an exact percentage of people are of either political side of the spectrum does not make what I said any more or less factual (Besides the fact I don't remember the CCB doing a poll, so where did the 70% come from). I was referring to the libs on this board, that much should have been evidently clear to you.

On to the second part of your first paragraph, you are falling into a pit arguing something I never said. Is this a common theme or what?

I was very clear in mentioning the name of a single man, and I was very clear in what I thought members of this board "think" they heard.

Bush gets bashed for not being intelligent, poor misuse of the english language, etc, but all you people bashing him over this still cannot comprehend the most simple parts of the language.

I said, Bush, NOT CHENEY, THE MEDIA, OR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. If that is not any more clear then I just don't know what to say.

Bush never said Saddam had a part in 9/11. He never said it. If you and 70%, or whatever estimate/percentage you want to use, want to believe Bush said it because of an "impression" you received then fine. But at least state it is that and not fact. Bush never said it.

Please quit preaching about impressions and all this other crap that just is not there, find a speech of Bush's in which he states Saddam participated in what happened on 9/11 and then you will have some ground to stand on, until then the mantra is nothing more than a bunch of noise.

eg8r