IQ and Politics

[scottxyz]

Not sure how relevant this is, given how vague the definition of "IQ" is - but it's been getting a lot of hits on the web.

Some guy put together a list correlating IQ versus red/blue states - turns out the states with lower average IQ went for Bush, and the ones with higher average IQ went for Kerry.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

[keith the dem]

1. Education Level

may be more relevant.

[Thomas Jefferson]

8. Saw that. In other words, Bush supporters are STUPID n/t

[dflprincess]

9. I disagree

I know a several very smart people who, for one reason or another, did not go to college (even a couple who didn't finish high school) and they all voted for Kerry. I don't think the level of formal education correlates with intelligence. Remember, even Bush managed to get an MBA.

[Nicholas_J]

2. Yes notice that only one state that went for Bush...

The state of Virginia, had an average I.Q. that meets the 100 score, which is an average I.Q. Twenty nine of the other states fell below that score. Ten of them fell below 90, which is the score at which is considered low average under most I.Q. classification systems.

Lets look at the ratings:

Very Superior 130 and above 2.2 2.1
Superior 120-129 6.7 8.3
High Average* 110-119 16.1 16.1
Average 90-109 50.0 50.3
Low Average* 80-89 16.1 14.8
Borderline 70-79 6.7 6.5
Extremely Low* ** 69 and below 2.2 1.9

Now lets check the states that went for Bush with the lowest I.Q. scores:

40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush

Now lets check the estimated I.Q.'s of the Presidents of the U.S. since F.D.R.

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)


The average I.Q. of the six Republican Presidents since F.D.R. ias about 115 with Richard Nixon having the highest, and George W. Bush having the lowest.

The average I.Q. of the Democratic Presidents of this period is 156 with Bill Clinton having the highest with an I.Q. of 182, and Lyndon Johnson having the lowest, 126. Jimmy Carter actually released his I.Q. test results and has and I.Q. of 176.

One can see why the states which went for Bush did so and why those that went for Bush with the greatest percentile differnces did so.

It seems that not so great minds think alike

http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~brown/bush.html

These I.Q. ratings have caused great consternation among conservative and in particular freepers. They have developed web sites devoted to debunking the results of intitutes of higher learning that have made these estimates from analyzing the writings and public speeches of these presidents. An important indicator for George W. Bush was that most of writings available for him were done in Crayolas.

Serious now, how comfortable do any of us feel with a president bordering on the very slow in charge of the greatest nation of the world.

Even more frightening, since most of those who voted for Kerry in states that Bush won, like Florida, where I live, must cause tremendous skewing in the state averages.

Not meaning to brag, but I was once a member of Mensa and Intertel, and my girlfreind had an I.Q. that made her elegible as most of the democrats that I have had the opportunity to deal with uring this election process did. I would say as well that from my interactions with everyone on DU, that everyone on the site seems to show an intelligence which I beleve would qualify them for membership as well. I have not seen one post from one person which would not indicate an intelligence level in the Mensa membership range.

But that rather frightens me about the levels of the other residents of my state. Certainly the ten close democrats I know in Duval county must skew this places results considerably. Though it now explains a lot the fact that I have learned to carry fingerpuppets everywhere I go here in order to deal with the locals.

I would truly have loved to see a breakdown of the average I.Q.s in these states by party affiliation, though I doubt that would be possible.


I do not think education level hasmuch to do with it. I know many members of Mensa that have doctorates, as well as many who have 8th grade educations who just could not deal with the boredom of the education system and dropped out and made their own successful way in the world. others like myself, really crapped out in the job world as I had a very difficult time for a long time dealing with supervisors who were dumber than a turnip. In fact promotion in government services rely on it.

[undercover_brother]

3. The IQ numbers of presidents has been disproved at snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

I am not certain of the state by state IQ numbers.

[Nicholas_J]

4. There have been many groups that have estimated the I.Q.s

Of presidents, and while it is difficult, it is not imposible to do so, There are many ways of corelating I.Q.'s even S.A.T. scores, as well as GRE scores can give some idea as to the I.Q. of the person atking them. The places that tried to estimate the I.Q.s proved spot on when Jimmy Carter later released his actual I.Q. test scores. so I would guess that snopes.com is less reliable that the various psychologists who have had a fgood deal of experience trying to estimate the I.Q.'s of people without testing them directly. Many of the places that have done these estimates have had years of experience in trying to estimate the I.Q.'s of people who are simply unable to take I.Q. tests. such as deaf mutes, or people whp are born deaf mute and blind. It is possible to get an accurate determination, and psychometrists have a good deal of experience doing it for people who are not presidents using similar methods used to estimate the presidential I.Q.'s

Though I never went into the field, I have a B.A. in Psychology, (as well as one in Asian History, which means nothing here) and did a lot of experimental psych in estimations of intelligence. I was research assistant to a professor whose main field of study was intelligence and intelligence testing, particularly in developing indirect testing of intelligence and a lot of efforts at eleiminating culture bias in intelligence testing. It was fun.

Off the cuff, and without animosity towards the president, I would say from an objective point, they guy is pretty damned dumb., from a strict intelligence point of view. Not to say that he cant be trained to give a speech or behave in a certain way when he has handlers coaching him for weeks before he has a performance. You can train a chimp to bow and shake people hands upon meeting them, but that does not make them cultured. They are still chimps. I think that pretty much sets the parameters for the presidents intelligence. Low average. he is not too swift on the uptake. Another mark of low intellect is what is attributed to him as stregth of character, making up his mind and sticking to it. Even in the light of facts that indicate that what he is so sure about is not correct.

Listen, this guy was busting agut about Iraw for 18 months before September 11th. He insisted on this wear regardless of all evidence. In fact, he cut off diplomatic efforts through the United NAtions simply becasue it was becoming obvious to everyon that they were not going to find WMD's there.

And the fact that pols have found that those who have supported him also have a difficult time with facts. Regardless of all facts, they simply choose to stubbornly hold to the beleifs that saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. That there are WMD's, That there were links between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. One of the most powerfull signs of low intelligence is simply the inability to alter ones view of a situation as more and more facts are given. Even when the facts are simple, and not diffcult to understand. It is not rocket science. People of very low intelligence tend to not be able to change directions when it is necessary.

It is simply the case of a person who continues to pull a door to try to open it for hours after they have read the sign that is on the door reading Push.

In George Bush's case I would say that the estimates are exceedingly accurate. They seem to correspond with his behavioral patters. He will never give up on any idea that he holds as correct regardless of ever mounting evidence that his view of the situation is incorrect. He simply gets rid of people or forces people away who do not tell him that his ideas are correct. Another indication of a person of low intelligence and another indication of why the state that supported him have as low an Intelligence as his is estimated to be. They cannot deal with nuanced ,detaile problems to nuanced,detailed situations. They simply do not have the capacity to do so. It is rather clear that even in the days of FDR, the average intelligence of the general publiba may have been a few points higher. Or at least more of them fell into the average rangeof 100. First of all, those who choose to pick up and leve their homes to come to a fireign country and start again generally are more intelligent than those who stay behing in bad conditions. They are smart enough to see the consequences of staying, adn smart enough to do well in the new places they move to. As this nations has become less andless a nation of immigrants, and more and more a nation of people who stay put in the same places without expanding their horizons, fearful of changes, it is obvious that the average intelligence has dropped. It is estimated that the average intelligenc in the entire United States is now 98 rather than the test standard of 100. It shows. Americans have become fearful of change, fearful of new things, feaful of those who are not the same as they are. they are extremely subjet to beleive things that justify their opinions, such as the enorous efforts made by televangelists to "PROVE" that Islam is a religion of savages whose scriptures tell them to kill all Christians, Jews, and Pagans who do not convert to Islam It equally explains the reason thaty they cannot differentiate between Iraqi Muslims, an educates, technologically advanced and culturally sophisticated group of Middle Easterners, from the people of in Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan. Pakistan. Or why they think the same of Palestinians, who have to be the most well educated residents of the Middle East. IN fact, even resorting to terroism rather than blindly sitting back and being abused indicates a far higher degree of intelligence than one would imagine. Which is why bin Laden was able to come up with methods to get throuigh U.S. security, and why Bush has been unable to capture him. There are many reasons that point to a lack of intelligence on the part of Bush that go along with his sneakines and willingness to lie in order to accomplish them. A far more intelligen president would be able to clearly give real reasons for going to war with Iraq, and would be fairly sucessful in getting those who ewre not as intelligent as he was to go along with them. The differnece between Kerry who is fairly intelligent, and Clinton who is super intelligent. Clinton is simply dso intelligent that he can translate his complex ideas into more simple forms that those less intelligen can understand. It is also who Clinton is an extremely good extemporaneous speaker, He is ableo to access all the information he isgetting and react to it very rapidly. Kerry is highly intelligent, but not so intelligent as to possess the ability to see the simple within the complex. that takes extreme genius, on a level of an Einstein. I dont have that level of intelligence. I am closer to the Kerry range, I know what I know but I will be damned if I can. communicate it easily to someone who is not as intelligent.

I reiterate, If Bush's I.q. is not 91, it is far more likely to be lower, than higher. its not hard getting into Yale if you are rich and have a legacy in. Its not too hard getting out either if someone else does most of your papers, particularly if you can hire someone to do originals rather than rely on a paper service. I do not doubt that Dubya's degrees belong to someone else. Perhaps even Laura. It aint easy being a Librarian/

[scottxyz]

6. I think this list showed VOTERS' (average) IQs

...not the President's.

[Nicholas_J]

7. Yes it did

Based on averages from departments of educationof thevarious states, and compiled from data over years so that current students are not the only ones included.

Again, it say a lot as to why these people supported Bush while they could not understand kerry. To someone who was even relatively above average in itelligence, Kerry's position could not be considered nuanced at all. The idea that you prioritize who you go after as a result of 9/11 is not all that complicated. If Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda, and there was no evidence of WMD's go after the people who already hit you and are planning to do so again. Go after Saddam after that. Simple isnt it. Going after just one guy who MIGHT make WMD's and MIGHT give them to terrorists in the less smart solution, as you want to go after the guy who is going to shoot, you, not after the guy who sells him the guns, becasue there are other people selling guns.

Even this line of thinking is beyond the ability for the low average intellect to follow. To them, they are all arabs, so hit the one that is easiest to hit, even if he hasnt hit you. OR: "A good towel head is a dead towel head. This is the same mentality that denied civil rights, and the same intellect that switched over to the Republican party because they didnt support.

The reason that they support Bush is simply because they think alike, simply. They cannot goet to more complicated.They see that someone as intelligent as they are is president and they like it.

One of the clearest indicators of Bush' intelligence outside of the bogus lowenstein analysis is an analysisof his vocabulary, whic is about fifty percent of the vocabulary of the average of the presidents of the last 50 years, by observing his speaking and reading anything he has written. He completely lacks the eloquence of any of the presidents of this period. His total vocabulary from simply watching his speeches as Governor and President is around 6000 words. People of slightly above normal intelligence will have a vocabulary of about 10,000 words in daily use. Other factors are that even with an MBA there are no scholarly works which hehas written which could even be used to get an idea of his capabilities at all. Not one other president has ever been so bereft in written works.

Every other president had at least authored a book, or witten some sort o position paper or something of this nature during their pre presidential career. Not G.W.B. I mean how many of you Master Degree grads out there have gotten away with the degree without having to have written some kind of paper in the 100 page range. and at schools a lot less tough than Yale.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. fundies deserve to be called mindless and uneducated

[mbee]

10. Someone can be educated,but uninformed on what is happening

in their government. I think IQ overall has something to do with it, but not college degree. The higher IQ person probably is more interested in the issues maybe!

[RedTail Wolf]

11. Political Science 101, and other thoughts for our party

People with high school educations, Associates or Bachelor Degrees tend to be split with the larger Republican #'s coming from high school and Associates Degrees/ People with advanced degrees Grad school the numbers zoom p for Democrats. The issue of IQ is not as relevant as educational level. The more schooling you have the more progressive you tend to become as you expand your mind and thought process.
This trend has been true for about 20 years and is increasing.

Out job is to relate back to the less educated and make them understand that progressive and liberal ideas help them the most economically and socially. The trick is we have to mean it as a party and in reflect it in our policies. Kerry tried populism but at the same time courted Silicon Valley harder than any other Democratic candidate. The result of Kerry's campaign, no matter where you come down on reasons for loss and blame, can be summed up in these mixed messages. He never got on a core message of about 4 issues and stayed there. Edwards was much more the populist in the field of Dems when the field was cut down. Of course before that it was Dean.
I just answered Terry Mac's survey about suggestions for the Democratic party, if you get one respond. I told him that we need a populist candidate and the best damn managers we can get, people who maybe have WON an election......Duh?
Give him hell, make him take some responsibility for this loss. We need to start working yesterday for the mid terms and a consistent message and STICK to it, It must be a economic populist message. Why did people who are hurting financially cast a vote for a guy who wants to make their bosses richer. and it was because of moral values...I don't buy it....makes no sense unless you convince them effectively that the "trickle" down crap works as Ronald Reagan did and Rove did. We must convince them that trickle down means be pissed on for above!

Finally we have to get kids to vote, by kids we are talking 18-27 year olds . We have to make them understand that voting matters and will have an immediate impact on their lives...not 3-10 years down the line, which it does but they don't see things that way. I have a college student and she voted very unenthusiastically for Kerry because she saw no immediate gratification in it. WAR DRAFT WAR DEATH WAR!!!!!!!! Kerry had a hard time with this issue because he honestly did support the war and then saw that Dean was going to win so he changed his tune.

I tall to kids about the difference in the parties and I hear all the time there is none. My best tool is the dictionary. Look up the words conservative and liberal, then ask the question "Which definition will move society forward, which one do you want your kids to be? Putting it on that level seems to connect. Of course sometimes you get a smart ass who says that the change we are going through in this country is moral decay, I answer back that every advancement in civil rights, science, poverty and many other issues would have not happened under conservative rule. I don't like moral decay but are two same gendered people getting married gonna change that? No. Viagra ads are more explicit than many of the things they site as moral decay.
If we lived under conservative rule for generations, say 50 years, we would not advance socially, scientifically, or in any other way except the gap between rich and poor would continue to widen.

I certainly don't have all or even a fraction of the answers but we are not winning and that calls for change . I urge you to express your views to the DNC and maybe we can put together a coherent strategy to do better in the mid terms....Struggle on

RedTail Wolf