News Is George W. Bush's IQ Really 129?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigers2B1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iq Links
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that George W. Bush's IQ is 129, derived from a reported SAT score of 1206 prior to 1974, which correlates to the Otis-Gamma IQ test. Participants debate the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, with some arguing that it indicates potential rather than actual capability. There is a humorous tone as users poke fun at political stereotypes and the perceived intelligence of politicians, particularly in comparison to Bush. The conversation also touches on the implications of IQ in leadership effectiveness, suggesting that intelligence alone does not guarantee successful governance. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexities of measuring intelligence and its relevance in political contexts.
Tigers2B1
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
This post is made mostly in fun since I don't believe that IQ directly translates into intelligence. I do believe, however, that IQ results provide us with an indication of potential. So, in response to all of the board talk regarding IQ, and admittedly, to take a tiny jab at the liberals on what they seem to claim as their own scared turf, as shown in their continuing need to describe conservatives 'dumb' –- I decided to post this --- just in case some of you were still wondering. Contrary to the Democrat's constant drone, Bush might be quite intelligent. At least according to objective measures –

Before the present SAT there was a correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores. (The present SAT has been changed and this correlation no longer exists) If George W. Bush's pre-1974 SAT score was a combined 1206 as reported in numerous sites on the internet –(an SAT score that was "recentered" up in the mid 90s) -- than this SAT score converts to an IQ of 129 on the Otis-Gamma IQ test. The Otis-Gamma test is reported to have a standard deviation of 15, which makes the converted score almost two standard deviations above the norm.

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

Those of you who accept the numbers above –– should also note that the indicated IQ would be in the top 3% of the population. As stated in the linked material, these correlations were developed using a little more than 400 SAT and Otis IQ test takers.

In addition – the actual correlation for the pre-1994 test to the WAIS is +.80. This is higher than some IQ tests have with each other as shown in the quote below. This quote is concerning the pre-1994 SAT. Note the correlations given --

In fact, the test was developed by Princeton professor Carl Brigham, who had been one of the Army I.Q. testing team during the first world war. One of its first applications was by Harvard president James Bryant Conant in his establishment of the Harvard national scholarship program. He was looking for a way to find and admit capable students from parts of the U.S. where the university would not otherwise have looked. Newsweek reports: "There was one point about it on which Conant repeatedly demanded reassurance: was it a pure test of intelligence, rather than of the quality of the taker's education? Otherwise he was concerned that bright boys who had been born into modest circumstances and gone to poor schools would be penalized." Only after being convinced that the SAT was a pure intelligence test did Conant implement its use.
Consider the correlations between various standard tests and the WAIS:

WAIS to Stanford Binet = 0.77

WAIS to Raven's = 0.72

WAIS to Otis = 0.78

WAIS to SAT = 0.80

The designers of the SAT benchmarked it against the Otis; the similarity of correlations between the SAT and the WAIS was no accident. It is no wonder that high IQ societies (including Mensa, Intertel, ISPE, and TNS) have accepted the pre-1994 SAT as proof of membership qualification. TNS is presumably going to continue to accept it, with an adjusted score (to compensate for recent tinkering).

Note also that the quote above states that the SAT was actually benchmarked using the Otis-Gamma IQ test. The Otis test was used in the SAT to IQ conversion cited above.
Here’s the link –

http://members.cox.net/sidelock/pages/Telicom090299.html

Kerry apparently refuses to provide his SAT scores. So comparisons, for whatever they're worth, can't be made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
With an SAT score like that, you would think that he would've made better grades in college. Maybe's he just lazy, but when did lazy become a positive quality of a future president?
 
Tigers2B1 said:
This post is made mostly in fun since I don't believe that IQ directly translates into intelligence.
Me neither.

Contrary to the Democrat's constant drone, Bush might be quite intelligent.
So he has a reason to hide it ?
George W. Bush's (...) score (...) 129

Did you ever wonder what's the average presidential IQ in Europe ?
Jacques Chirac scores much better for instance. Well, he still is a huge mess !
This is totally irrelevant.
 
So Dubya's really a closet genius ?

Now that's busted a big myth for me. I always thought Dubya had a lower than 100 IQ, but now I know his IQ is higher than mine ! :cry:
 
Last edited:
Did you ever wonder what's the average presidential IQ in Europe ?

No, what are they? :-p
 
Gokul43201 said:
So Dubya's really a closet genius ?
Nope, he's been bona fide
 
So , the democrats have been misunderestimating Dubya all along, and that's what screwed up their strategery.
 
Last edited:
yes and that marilyn von whatsherface (the smartest person in the world) can't answer simple problem solving questions correctly.

It doesn't matter if he has an IQ of 190- he still is a horrible public speaker. And the institution of the presidency requires more than just raw intelligence. It's all about image. If you're a genius and you portray the wrong image to the public and rest of the world, it doesn't matter how smart you are. It's all about perception.
 
Please, I am just a messenger. A mere vessel providing you unwanted and perturbing knowledge of Dubya's IQ.
 
  • #10
Tigers2B1 said:
If George W. Bush's pre-1974 SAT score was a combined 1206 as reported in numerous sites on the internet –(an SAT score that was "recentered" up in the mid 90s) -- than this SAT score converts to an IQ of 129 on the Otis-Gamma IQ test.

GBW's IQ 129? I can't imagine he scored too high on the verbal reasoning part of the test, so he must be a GENIUS in visuo-spatial and mathmatical skills (if I'm right in assuming that these make up the test).

No, this sounds like comedy, Tigers2B1. Something along the lines of Peter Sellars' Being There.
 
  • #11
No, number_42, Bush's IQ is calculated from his SAT score of 1206 (Al Gore scored 1355 - just for comparison - not that it means very much).
 
  • #12
Tigers2B1 said:
No, what are they? :-p
In France for instance, our politicians usually have a background that could open them any door in their field. Some of them have the honor of one of the most difficult school to study mathematics (which is Ecole Normale Superieure Ulm, maybe the most difficult level in math before a PhD) and all of them, whatever their background, still have another most difficult school : Ecole Nationale d'Administration beyond this, which is specialized in everything you could imagine for a politician. Of course, this is only the beginning. But the story keeps the same : all those guys could have been making plenty of money. But no, for philosophical reasons, they choose to devote their entire life to thinking of the best way to manage the republic in a democratic way, being aware they sacrifice money. Oh by the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being both democratic and republican. Naming two sides of a political model this way is simply stupid.

Also, when one rich family has two sons, the most successful son in your country goes for business, whereas the failure one takes the remaining politics. Why again ? Money ! Apparently you imagine money is the solution for everything. This is your problem, and unfortunately, it is contaminating Europe. The people now think the real power is no more in politics. We used to think an alternative way was possible. I think the american responsability in establishing free market as the rule of the world today is not funny. It is terrible. More specifiaclly against Georges : the responsability he has in discrediting the UN. Also in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I won't list, because only those two are enough for a people to raise and kick the stupid dangerous cow-boy out of the powerful sit he was given. I usually never post anything here, because my political opinions would probably trigger numerous diatribes.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Just as I suspected! – you've refused to post the IQs of your leaders. Apparently, even collectively, when all added together, they are no match for Bush.

Now look here – it's best you learn this now even if them 'diatribes' scare ya. No European is smarter or meaner than an American, and no American is as smart or as mean as a Texan. So figure, would you rather be an effete, powered wig wearin' European, sipping tea with your pinky held high, or a rough honed Texan, sitting at the dinner table splattered with cow blood? Americans don't drink tea, we throw it off ships. We're wild men, sired by the smallpox. Eating petrified hearts by the bushel and drinking desert sand by the barrel.

Remember humanino – Americans are a breed apart. Most Europeans were 'too scared' to cross the ocean, the thought sent'em all shaking in their big, black, giant buckled shoes. The weak ones died in trying. We're mean, we're tough, we're self-selected and we're self-centered, and we don't like abstract painters. No guy named 'Jacques' will ever whip an American – that's for certain.
 
  • #14
Tigers2B1 said:
No European is smarter or meaner than an American, and no American is as smart or as mean as a Texan.
I never said that. I think you do not take politics as seriously as we do. Alright, this guy plays saxophone, he seems fine !

And by the way, I love americans. I am currently in love with one of yours, top quality. I might also take one of your job. Europe is very far from perfect. We both need to consider what the other is doing better. We are doing better at electing smart guys. It unfortunately seems useless, because de facto the market rules. So in the end, you win. We understood that for a while now. Some of us still do not want to accept this jungle. Maybe you will join us in a few decades when China will ruin your economical power, as they already started to. Maybe in this case, you are going to realize "maybe we need some regulations on the markets". Elementary rules. Share. Make the world a fair place. Not just the best place for your fat ass.
 
  • #15
humanino said:
...Not just the best place for your fat ass.

Look, I know I'm no Jerry Lewis, but I thought you'd like my cheap xenophobic humor. But alas, after 200 years of French military losses a sour attitude is understandable. About the only war you ever won was the French Revolution, and that was because you were fighting yourselves.

Just my two francs –
 
  • #16
I apologize if you took it for yourself. Apparently you did not listen when I told you I make a difference between the governement and the people. I am only saying this guy Georges has proven he has no respect for the rest of humanity. I am not saying kicking him out would have been easy. I am saying please, for the good of the planet equilibrium, do not give a second occasion to ruin the world. As for war :
Boris Vian said:
Le jour où personne ne reviendra d'une guerre, c'est qu'elle aura enfin été bien faite.
"A war from which nobody comes back, would be the first properly done one"
War can always be avoided. Except if one looses his nerves.
 
  • #17
OHHHHHHHHHHHH!

That changes everything!

Forget what he's actually done as President, if his IQ might be around 129, he's got my vote for sure.
 
  • #18
Tigers2B1 said:
Look, I know I'm no Jerry Lewis, but I thought you'd like my cheap xenophobic humor. But alas, after 200 years of French military losses a sour attitude is understandable. About the only war you ever won was the French Revolution, and that was because you were fighting yourselves.

Just my two francs –

Tigers I hope you'll appreciate how well I'm restraining myself from insulting you right now. You'll find yourself sorely outnumbered if you proceed to make comments like that.

And France uses the Euro.
 
  • #19
BuIQ’s of some presidents according to various web sites and sometimes extrapolated scores:

JFK - - - - 119
Nixon - - - 143
Carter - - - genius (?)
Clinton - - 135
Gore (VP)-134
Bush - - - -125

Bush did get a 1206 SAT score with a verbal 566 and a math 640. Because of the dumbing down of the present SAT test he would score higher today.

It seems the higher IQ guys are the one’s that had flawed presidencies, the jury is still out re: Pres. Bush.
 
  • #20
GENIERE said:
BuIQ’s of some presidents according to various web sites and sometimes extrapolated scores:

JFK - - - - 119
Nixon - - - 143
Carter - - - genius (?)
Clinton - - 135
Gore (VP)-134
Bush - - - -125

Bush did get a 1206 SAT score with a verbal 566 and a math 640. Because of the dumbing down of the present SAT test he would score higher today.

It seems the higher IQ guys are the one’s that had flawed presidencies, the jury is still out re: Pres. Bush.
How're you going to label Clinton's Presidency flawed but not JFK? Is it because JFK got it on with Marylin Monroe, and Clinton favored random white-trash?

And I wonder, why aren't Reagan and Bush Sr.'s IQ's listed? I wouldn't doubt Bush Sr.'s relatively high, but Reagan...
 
  • #21
It makes me wonder who took the test for him.
 
  • #22
lol..

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

- George Bush

Anyone who is capable of making such a quote and can't pronounce nuclear is not smart in my book...
 
  • #23
Tigers2B1 said:
...Just my two francs
Smurf said:
..And France uses the Euro.
Even otherwise, that would be 'two centimes.'
 
  • #24
GENIERE said:
BuIQ’s of some presidents according to various web sites and sometimes extrapolated scores:

JFK - - - - 119
Nixon - - - 143
Carter - - - genius (?)
Clinton - - 135
Gore (VP)-134
Bush - - - -125

According to Tigers2B1's link, Gore should be 137 (his SAT score was 1355)

Bush did get a 1206 SAT score with a verbal 566 and a math 640. Because of the dumbing down of the present SAT test he would score higher today.

What about the dumbing down of Bush himself ?

Here's my theory : Bush, as a young man was partying a lot, meeting different people, expanding his mind, and having varied experiences. All these experiences gave him some smarts.

Then one day, he got 'born again', and has since been swallowing the misinformation pills handed out by the church. Now, as a result, he can't speak the language, won't follow the news and will perform fuzzy math.
 
  • #25
wasteofo2 said:
How're you going to label Clinton's Presidency flawed but not JFK? Is it because JFK got it on with Marylin Monroe, and Clinton favored random white-trash?

And I wonder, why aren't Reagan and Bush Sr.'s IQ's listed? I wouldn't doubt Bush Sr.'s relatively high, but Reagan...

JFK! I voted for him. Probably vote for him if he were still here. I recall, maybe incorrectly, that he provided the largest tax reduction (rich-man, poor-man, business) than his predecessor’s ever conceived. Unlike Clinton, he did not disgrace his office and had enough intelligence to be discrete. What he did do that the neo-libs cannot do; is he defied the USSR, put us at the brink of nuclear disaster, because it was the right thing to do. As a result President Reagan was able to bring the USSR to its knees without fear of a 30-second flight of a nuclear missile from Cuba.

As far as white-trash, I like my trash in a full spectrum of colors and I enjoyed a fair sampling! Who am I to complain?


Reagan and Bush Sr. were too old to have taken an IQ or SAT test. Both were college grads, both probably had a lot more than an average IQ.
 
  • #26
GENIERE said:
JFK! I voted for him. Probably vote for him if he were still here. I recall, maybe incorrectly, that he provided the largest tax reduction (rich-man, poor-man, business) than his predecessor’s ever conceived. Unlike Clinton, he did not disgrace his office and had enough intelligence to be discrete. What he did do that the neo-libs cannot do; is he defied the USSR, put us at the brink of nuclear disaster, because it was the right thing to do. As a result President Reagan was able to bring the USSR to its knees without fear of a 30-second flight of a nuclear missile from Cuba.

As far as white-trash, I like my trash in a full spectrum of colors and I enjoyed a fair sampling! Who am I to complain?


Reagan and Bush Sr. were too old to have taken an IQ or SAT test. Both were college grads, both probably had a lot more than an average IQ.
JFK points accepted.

But seriously, maybe Reagan was smart as a young man, but I can not fathom that he was smart as a President. I recently saw a re-broadcast of the second (final) '84 debate between Reagan and Mondale, and that guy was just totally clueless.
 
  • #27
But so is most of the public. And that's why the clueless dude wins.
 
  • #28
GENIERE said:
What he did do that the neo-libs cannot do; is he defied the USSR, put us at the brink of nuclear disaster, because it was the right thing to do. As a result President Reagan was able to bring the USSR to its knees without fear of a 30-second flight of a nuclear missile from Cuba.
Sorry, but I can't help but scoff at that. It worries me the way you say things. "Put us at the brink of nuclear disaster, because it was the right thing to do". no really, say that again to yourself slowly. You'll get it eventually. :smile:
 
  • #29
It's sad to see what drinking and smoking pot can do to a relatively bright man.
 
  • #30
Does anyone actually believe that George W Bush has an IQ of 125? Where is the hard evidence of the test he took? Sure, the guy may be cunning, but that may be more to do with emotional intelligence of a kind, which I would credit him with having. However Reagan - someone who probably had a pretty high EQ in his day, had some charm, which we more typically associate with EQ.

My analysis of GWB's IQ isn't scientific, but going by speeches, actions etc he doesn't strike me as bright in any way, except perhaps in cunning.
 
  • #31
You can guess answers using "enie, meanie, minie, mo" and sometimes, just luck out and get a decent score. I've no doubt whatsoever, that's what happened ! :biggrin:
 
  • #32
All I know is I've taken 20 different IQ tests and had scores ranging from 45 to 192 so I'm not thinking too much of it.
 
  • #33
Tigers2B1 said:
Now look here – it's best you learn this now even if them 'diatribes' scare ya. No European is smarter or meaner than an American, and no American is as smart or as mean as a Texan. So figure, would you rather be an effete, powered wig wearin' European, sipping tea with your pinky held high, or a rough honed Texan, sitting at the dinner table splattered with cow blood? Americans don't drink tea, we throw it off ships. We're wild men, sired by the smallpox. Eating petrified hearts by the bushel and drinking desert sand by the barrel.
:smile:
Except maybe for "a skinny little boy from Cleveland, Ohio... Here to drink your women and chase your beer" - Alex Bevan's "Skinny Little Boy"
 
  • #34
GENIERE said:
What he did do that the neo-libs cannot do; is he defied the USSR, put us at the brink of nuclear disaster, because it was the right thing to do.

He set up the Bay of Pigs disaster and deployed missiles to Turkey, intigating the Cuban Missile Crisis. He then publicly stood up to the USSR while quietly removing the missiles from Turkey.

Not a great strategy, but he did do one good thing that George W. did not. He always had a safe retreat available and that is what pulled us back from the brink of nuclear disaster, not his defiant stand.
 
  • #35
the number 42 said:
Does anyone actually believe that George W Bush has an IQ of 125? Where is the hard evidence of the test he took? Sure, the guy may be cunning, but that may be more to do with emotional intelligence of a kind, which I would credit him with having. However Reagan - someone who probably had a pretty high EQ in his day, had some charm, which we more typically associate with EQ.

My analysis of GWB's IQ isn't scientific, but going by speeches, actions etc he doesn't strike me as bright in any way, except perhaps in cunning.
If the skillful manipulation of words had anything to do with intelligence, Mohamad Ali would be proclaimed a genius.
 
  • #36
No one said anything about "skillful manipulation". And even so, I believe that skillful manipulation of words does have something to do with intelligence - wit and intelligence have a high correlation. It's not the only thing, however, and that's the flaw in you line of "reasoning".

But if you don't have a basic vocabulary, or seem to be oblivious of grammar, or even what constitutes a logical argument, you can't claim to be a man of intellect.
 
  • #37
Robert Zaleski said:
If the skillful manipulation of words had anything to do with intelligence, Mohamad Ali would be proclaimed a genius.

If the skillful manipulation of words was the only measure of intelligence I might agree.

I've met many people who are not articulate but appear to be intelligent in other ways e.g. strong artistic talent, complex mental arithmatic skills etc but GWB is a different matter. Let me put it this way: if he was ordinary joe delivering the mail I would consider it cruel to highlight his fairly obvious lack of intelligence. Come on, guys - who can look at this guy and listen to him speak without thinking 'Thunderbirds are Go'...? An IQ of 129?
 
  • #38
Some bloggers are wondering whether his mind has deteriorated since he was governor of Texas. Apparently when he debated the former governer during his first run for that office he gave every sign of inteligence, responded quickly and flexibly and used big words with ease. Versus now. Daring doctors are offering diagnoses ranging from pre-senile dementia to mad cow disease. Personally I think that if true, it could be due to excessive cocain usage in his thrities. Well known to rot your brain.:)
 
  • #39
Not to mention all the drinking he did...
 
  • #40
I'd like to add a point.

Are you sure Bushes IQ isn't .911? That's a real intelligence problem.
 
  • #41
It doesn't matter if he has an IQ of 190- he still is a horrible public speaker. And the institution of the presidency requires more than just raw intelligence. It's all about image. If you're a genius and you portray the wrong image to the public and rest of the world said:
Or rather, it's all about the De-ception. Bush enjoys being perceived as stupid. It will get him more votes than if he was perceived to be smart; at least this is the case with the average joe, american public. It is also protection for him against his enemies who underestimate him, making his job easier. Reagan is also one to understand this very well.

It may be different now, but when I was young, it wasn't cool to be smart, and most people who vote rermember those days. Young people in general are less likely to vote.

I think this was also part of Clinton's problem in never being fully accepted as a leader. Many people in the south deeply hate him, which interestingly is a demographic that is a bit behind in education. Clinton reportedly has an IQ of 137 (I wish I could remember the source). The 182 reported by the "fake" Lovenstein Institute is bogus.

zoidsoft
 
  • #42
Zoidsoft said:
Bush enjoys being perceived as stupid. It will get him more votes than if he was perceived to be smart; at least this is the case with the average joe, american public...

It may be different now, but when I was young, it wasn't cool to be smart, and most people who vote rermember those days.

I can't agree more. People seem to have a soft spot for 'stupid' while 'intellectual' is about the worst thing you can be labeled.
 
  • #43
Gokul43201 said:
I can't agree more. People seem to have a soft spot for 'stupid' while 'intellectual' is about the worst thing you can be labeled.

Forest Gump was a real hit in this country in 1994. Just another observation that I'm not quite sure of:

It seems to me that the nerds, misfits, blenders in high school became democrats predominately, while the jocks and social climbers became republicans.

I could swear this was true at my high school, but maybe it's peculiar to my experience.

zoidsoft
 
  • #44
Zoidsoft said:
It seems to me that the nerds, misfits, blenders in high school became democrats predominately, while the jocks and social climbers became republicans.

As Larry King said, (in response to a Bill Maher statement that the South is, on average, dumber than the rest of the country), "Can you actually say something like that...I mean, in this day and age ?"

(I wonder what Larry meant ? In this day and age...of political correctness ?)
 
  • #45
I think that this is cultural, not genetic. This is as politically correct as I'm willing to get. The issue that worries me long term is that the USA as a whole does not favor intelligence, as say many other countries, particularly India, japan and China. This means that the US is going against evolution, which in the long term dooms the "american species" to extinction.

zoidsoft
 
  • #46
the number 42 said:
GBW's IQ 129? I can't imagine he scored too high on the verbal reasoning part of the test, so he must be a GENIUS in visuo-spatial and mathmatical skills (if I'm right in assuming that these make up the test).
Either that or he's a walking example of how we don't use our whole brain.
 
  • #47
Zoidsoft said:
I think that this is cultural, not genetic. This is as politically correct as I'm willing to get. The issue that worries me long term is that the USA as a whole does not favor intelligence, as say many other countries, particularly India, japan and China. This means that the US is going against evolution, which in the long term dooms the "american species" to extinction.

zoidsoft

Ha ha...but the Indians, Chinese and Japanese (especially, the intelligent ones) are becoming Americans! I'm sure you see enough of this...at Cornell ?
 
  • #48
Gokul43201 said:
Ha ha...but the Indians, Chinese and Japanese (especially, the intelligent ones) are becoming Americans! I'm sure you see enough of this...at Cornell ?

Actually, there was a report on 60 minutes a couple of months ago about a school in India that was so good (in computer science) that the worst students go to Ivy league schools in the USA as a fall back position (if they flunk out). I wish I could remember the name of the school.

zoidsoft
 
  • #49
I'd comment on this but I don't understand what you and Gokul are arguing about right now, are you saying Americans shun Intelligence and that's why they're getting weaker, are you saying that Chinese, Japanese and Indians are following this trend? or are they on the rise?
 
  • #50
Smurf said:
I'd comment on this but I don't understand what you and Gokul are arguing about right now, are you saying Americans shun Intelligence and that's why they're getting weaker, are you saying that Chinese, Japanese and Indians are following this trend? or are they on the rise?

I wouldn't say that America is getting weaker. Evolution as a trend takes many thousands of years, but nations rarely last that long anyway, so the point may be moot. But as a metaphor, when America shuns education as an important part of life, it is going against the grain of nature.

zoidsoft
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top