Is a High IQ at a Young Age a Good Thing?

  • Thread starter 12345
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Iq
In summary: So my IQ has definitely fluctuated over time. Although, as stated earlier, most IQ tests raise your score if you are younger.
  • #106
Tigers2B1 said:
Well, I don't know what you think Occam's razor is doing here Njorl - but to be honest, you still don’t provide anything as support for your 'pre-1980 wealthy people' cheat on the SAT bare bones conclusion--- other than your repeating that it is so – and your anecdotal story. Is there sometime, anything, out there on the Net that supports that it was 'common' for 'wealthy people' to purchase their SAT scores 'pre-1980?' Anything??
Not a lot got posted on the net before 1980, what with it not existing an' all.
Tigers2B1 said:
And not to get ahead of ourselves – but after that maybe you can add how you reach the conclusion that Bush must have been one of those 'wealthy' who purchased his SAT score. I mean without concluding simply that because Bush belonged to a certain economic class it follows that he must have cheated ---

Now, I suppose your implication that Bush must have cheated runs like this ---

1. Bush was wealthy pre-1980.
2. *Bush was dumb pre-1980. (your conclusion)
3. *Wealthy people purchased SAT scores before 1980. (your conclusion)
4. Bush could not have made a 1206 on the pre-1980 SAT because he is dumb (conjecture reached from conclusion in number 2)
5. THEREFORE – because Bush being ‘wealthy’ (1) and dumb (2), HENCE - Bush must have purchased his pre-1980 SAT score.
No. You are constructing a strawman.

I am a scientist. I treat it as a scientific problem. There is an observation - George Bush has a recorded score of 1206 for the SAT. There are many possible hypotheses for this:

1. He took the test and scored 1206.
2. He paid someone to take the test.
3. He had the records alterred after the fact.
4. The score is just an internet rumor.
etc.

My tools for verifying any hypothesis are weak. I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig through the necessary records nor interview people who took the exam with him.

My single most reliable tool, my own observations of George Bush, do not support hypothesis number one. I have never seen any evidence that he possesses above average intelligence. My argument was not that he paid someone to take the test, it was that there are other ways of obtaining that score, one of which was the paying of a surrogate.

Tigers2B1 said:
Odd ---

Anyway – it's funny some people mention Bush's Cs and then create unsupported implications that his 1206 must have been purchased - but forget Al Gore's Fs. If you get Cs for just showing – I suppose a fella gets a D for not showing – but how in the heck does a guy get a F?--- must less Gore’s 5 Fs --- I mean, how can you do less than nothing and do it five times ---??

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm
By not showing up.

The difference between Gore and Bush is that Al Gore has a list of accomplishments that display his intelligence. Yes, he has data that tend to undercut the hypothesis that he is intelligent, but he also has solid and reliable data that support such a hypothesis. I have heard him speak, read his writing and seen the fruit of his labor. Weighing such evidence, I consider that the positive evidence far outweighs the negative. For the negative data, there are plausible explanations of erroneous results.

For Bush, the problem is a complete lack of unassailable positive data, and a mountain of solid negative data. Is it possible that George Bush is intelligent enough to score 1206 on the SAT? Of course. I just don't find it to be likely.

Njorl
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Bush's intellect

Just to add another 2 cents to the pot, it seems entirely possible that Bush is both "smart" enough to score a 1206 on the SAT (did they previously make use of the final digit in computing scores? because when I took the SAT in the 80s every score ended in 0...) and "stupid" in other respects. Perhaps this points to the fallacy of assuming "intelligence" is one thing. The SAT is mostly a test of "g." I realize that "g" exists as a mathematical concept, and some people think that "g" is "intelligence," but I remember people from my high school who did well on the SAT that I thought of as not very bright. Perhaps it's just that the people who think of Bush as "stupid" are smarter than he is--it's relative, rather than objective. I mean, 1200 isn't really all that high of a score. Someone without Bush's connections would have had to score a lot higher than that to get into Yale. What makes me think Bush is stupid are the following traits: inarticulate, lacking intellectual curiosity, religious fundamentalist (there are many smart religious people, but Bush believes that the Biblical account of creation is literally true), tends to think in simplistic dichotomies, will never admit that he is wrong about anything. Despite the fact that such traits lead me to believe that an individual is "stupid," they also could be the traits of someone who possesses above average analytical ability but just doesn't use it. And since Bush has never had to use his intelligence to get ahead, perhaps its not surprising that he neglected to develop that faculty. He could be "stupid" in the sense that he doesn't think critically about things, regardless of whether or not he has, or at one time had, the ability to do so.

Waterdog
 
  • #108
Njorl said:
Not a lot got posted on the net before 1980, what with it not existing an' all.

Njorl – please. Posting events that occurred before the Net came into being are found extensively on the Net– Bush's SAT score for example. Gore's grades for another. The events leading to the Great War is a third. The SAT cheating you describe isn’t small potatoes. I mean it resulted in a change in the way this national, widely taken test is administered – no? So - the Net didn't have to exist contemporaneously with any event, especially one like this, for that event to be described or explained fully on the Net. Now IF this common / widespread cheating by wealthy people, which you allege actually occurred, I'd expect there would be some mention. You say "Not a lot got posted" – well present even that small amount. Anything – it doesn't have to be "a lot." The fact that you apparently refuse to provide anything makes this all suspect. With that, I could have waited on your 'rationale' for assuming 'moneybags Bush' cheated --

As to the rest of your post --- it’s all just 'I don’t want to believe Bush scored a 1206 so I’m not going to believe it ---- I’d rather tell myself the Bush cheated to get the 1206' as far as the eye can see. Conjecture on conjecture all the way down. Fine with me – but don’t act as if you have any real support in the wealthy people – Bush is wealthy - SAT cheating scandal scenario you posted --- since all you have is mere subjective opinion - But it’s all OK – Njorl – I’m not trying to convince you just challenge your claim that Bush probably cheated if he got a 1206.
 
  • #109
Waterdog said:
...it seems entirely possible that Bush is both "smart" enough to score a 1206 on the SAT (did they previously make use of the final digit in computing scores? because when I took the SAT in the 80s every score ended in 0...) and "stupid" in other respects. Perhaps this points to the fallacy of assuming "intelligence" is one thing. The SAT is mostly a test of "g." I realize that "g" exists as a mathematical concept, and some people think that "g" is "intelligence," but I remember people from my high school who did well on the SAT that I thought of as not very bright...


I agree, in part, doing well on the SAT or a professionally administered, standardized IQ test doesn't mean you're intelligent. I do think it is a strong indication that you have certain potentials where cognitive ability is concerned. So, yep, you can be 7'3" and not be good a basketball rebounder simply because you don't like basketball -

…Perhaps it's just that the people who think of Bush as "stupid" are smarter than he is--it's relative, rather than objective.

I think that would work better if people had personal experiences with the person they're making judgments about (here it's Bush) rather than viewing and listening to him read prepared speeches, judging his policy decisions from a distance and without full disclosure, watching movies like Unfair in Height 9-11, swimming in blog-eyed synchronized opinion, and watching the medias’ sound bites. Personal experiences allow you to judge directly, in context, and over a longer term ---- otherwise we're viewing someone out of context, short-term, and either through a lens or someone else -

…I mean, 1200 isn't really all that high of a score.

No. But if you're someone who really, really wants to be able to call Bush a moron it's way too high. Unbelievable in fact.

…What makes me think Bush is stupid are the following traits: inarticulate, lacking intellectual curiosity, religious fundamentalist (there are many smart religious people, but Bush believes that the Biblical account of creation is literally true), tends to think in simplistic dichotomies, will never admit that he is wrong about anything.

I have to conclude that these are pretty subjective observations – especially since probably half of the country will disagree come election day. In any event, I see none of what you’ve described.

Inarticulate? So, even if it’s true and not mostly a creation of the media, how’s that related to intelligence. Lacking intellectual curiosity? Same – without personal experience and knowing someone on that level it is very difficult to draw such conclusions. Biblical account of creation? Again, how do you know it’s not true. Note that we’re stuck in the natural world and that discussion concerns the supernatural. So forth and so on ----

Despite the fact that such traits lead me to believe that an individual is "stupid," they also could be the traits of someone who possesses above average analytical ability but just doesn't use it. And since Bush has never had to use his intelligence to get ahead, perhaps its not surprising that he neglected to develop that faculty. He could be "stupid" in the sense that he doesn't think critically about things, regardless of whether or not he has, or at one time had, the ability to do so.

You left out the more objective stuff which indicates otherwise. First, Bush learned to and became a military jet pilot. Graduated from Yale with a BA. Graduated from Harvard with an MBA. (while Gore, the 'smart one, dropped out of law school) Started a number of different types of businesses from oil to baseball. Convinced the voters in Texas to make him governor, was re-elected and was later elected President.

Also - I wonder if IQ / SAT "smarts" is even all that necessary to the "presidency." I'm sure it's on the list somewhere but, like a lot of jobs, leadership skills and projecting an image may matter more in bringing about a 'successful' Presidency. Note that Clinton and Nixon, neither of whom were born to wealth, were considered very smart and had the ‘point to’ evidence in support – Nixon graduated first in his law school class and Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Yet both suffered great shame in office. Clinton was impeached and Nixon resigned to avoid same.
 
  • #110
Tigers2B1 said:
Njorl – please. Posting events that occurred before the Net came into being are found extensively on the Net– Bush's SAT score for example. Gore's grades for another. The events leading to the Great War is a third. The SAT cheating you describe isn’t small potatoes. I mean it resulted in a change in the way this national, widely taken test is administered – no? So - the Net didn't have to exist contemporaneously with any event, especially one like this, for that event to be described or explained fully on the Net.
Are you seriously comparing WWI with cheating on the SAT in importance?
Now IF this common / widespread cheating by wealthy people, which you allege actually occurred, I'd expect there would be some mention.
Why? It's boring, relatively insignificant past history.
You say "Not a lot got posted" – well present even that small amount. Anything – it doesn't have to be "a lot." The fact that you apparently refuse to provide anything makes this all suspect. With that, I could have waited on your 'rationale' for assuming 'moneybags Bush' cheated --
It is called litotes - understatement for dramatic effect. Intelligent people use it to break up the monotony of dealing with closed minds.
As to the rest of your post --- it’s all just 'I don’t want to believe Bush scored a 1206 so I’m not going to believe it ---- I’d rather tell myself the Bush cheated to get the 1206' as far as the eye can see. Conjecture on conjecture all the way down. Fine with me – but don’t act as if you have any real support in the wealthy people – Bush is wealthy - SAT cheating scandal scenario you posted --- since all you have is mere subjective opinion - But it’s all OK – Njorl – I’m not trying to convince you just challenge your claim that Bush probably cheated if he got a 1206.

I made no such claim. That was just you exercising your various strawman construction and mind reading talents, both of which could use some work. You have failed to address my genuine argument.

Njorl
 
  • #111
But if you're someone who really, really wants to be able to call Bush a moron it's way too high. Unbelievable in fact.

Point is, if he got 1200 on his SAT, then he's in, what, I think the top 3% of the population in IQ. My guess is (this is purely a guess) that most of the country does not think that Bush is a moron, that the minority that does think that Bush is a moron are also mostly in the top 3%, and that people who are "media pundits" or write op/ed columns for the New York Times and so forth, in other words the people with the access to get their views out there, also are mostly in that top 3%. But when people say "moron," its hyperbole. I call Bush a "moron" all the time in casual conversation. I don't think he meets the technical definition of "moron" as psychometricians have used it; i.e., I don't think he has a below average IQ. But I think many of the things he says can be aptly described as "moronic," in the colloquial sense that they don't reflect much deep thought or very sophisticated analysis. And this is in comparison to others who have occupied the presidency--Bush seems much less intelligent than his father, to me, even though I disliked their policies about equally. To be sure, there's also a lot of anger in it. I quite literaally hate Bush, even though I've never met him, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rationally, I am capable of seeing that this means that my judgment of him isn't objective. But I doubt too many people do have objective opinions of political leaders.



I have to conclude that these are pretty subjective observations – especially since probably half of the country will disagree come election day. In any event, I see none of what you’ve described.


Of course they are subjective observations. That was the point of my post--I was trying to explain what the subjective observations are that have led me to feel that Bush is a "moron."

I can understand how you can not see some of those things, but not to see that he is inarticulate? Please, what are you watching. Not to see that he views the world in simplistic dichotomies? What are "evildoers?" It's a laughable world view. However, your point that these don't necessarily reflect a lack of basic intelligence I agree with--again, I thought that was one of the points I made in my own post.

You left out the more objective stuff which indicates otherwise. First, Bush learned to and became a military jet pilot. Graduated from Yale with a BA. Graduated from Harvard with an MBA. (while Gore, the 'smart one, dropped out of law school) Started a number of different types of businesses from oil to baseball. Convinced the voters in Texas to make him governor, was re-elected and was later elected President.

Well, with all due respect, none of these things really require exceptional intelligence. He got into Yale because he is a Bush, not on his merits. (Yes, this was true of Gore and Harvard as well--if Gore had been a nobody, he would not have gotten into Harvard.) Once admitted, it's not that hard just to graduate from even the best colleges. Same goes for Harvard Bus School. Have you ever looked into the bus school curriculum? it is not really an intellectual endeavor. MBA programs are more about networking etc than rigorous intellectual work. Which is fine, no reason they shouldn't be, that's the purpose they serve. But getting an MBA is not a sign of intelligence. Learning to fly a jet? OK, whatever, I guess I would say you probably need a slightly above average intelligence to do that, but hand eye coordination and good reflexes are probably much more important. As for the businesses, he didn't "start" a baseball team, he bought one, and the anti-tax crusader then strong-armed the taxpayers into financing a new stadium for him, which made him a lot of money. The rest of his business career was (as pointed out in F911 and many other sources) made open to him because of the family connections. He has zero business achievements to point to. Getting elected governor of TExas? How does that reflect intelligence? There's no doubt that he is able to project himself as a populist and that many voters like him. What does that have to do with his intelligence?

Also - I wonder if IQ / SAT "smarts" is even all that necessary to the "presidency." I'm sure it's on the list somewhere but, like a lot of jobs, leadership skills and projecting an image may matter more in bringing about a 'successful' Presidency.

This I would agree with completely. I think Bush is one of the worst presidents ever, but it's not because of his IQ (and anyway, as I said, I think he probably is above average in IQ, he just doesn't use it.) The president needs to exercise leadership, have a vision, inspire the people, etc. For the policy details, that's why he has advisors. I call Bush a "moron" out of frustration, anger and disgust, but the reason I feel he is a bad president is his lack of ethics, his dishonesty, his anti-environmentalism, his tax policies, his cynical exploitation of thye "war on terror," etc. Not really because of his level of intelligence.

Waterdog
 
  • #112
  • #113
hmmm...my IQ got higher with age from 128 to 148
 
  • #114
So you're 148 years old now? WOW! :tongue2:
 
  • #115
no, I am 156 now, it just changed between 128 and 148
 
  • #116
I guess Jim Beam IS better when it's aged!
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
32
Views
10K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top