What's makes a president's IQ below average?

[andyintpcentral]

Such as bush.
He is low in IQ and intelligence than other president,He's father's existence means he can get in the seat more easily.
Makes the president selection more independ on candidate's own power(something more related to their own intelligence).

[rek]

andyintpcentral for president 2008!

[Ellipsis]

Such as bush.
He is low in IQ and intelligence than other president,He's father's existence make he can get in the seat more easily.
Makes the president selection more independ on candidate's own power(something more related to their own intelligence).

"Means" should be there right?

Anyway....I agree with this and it was said more then 100 years ago....

Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.
Robert Louis Stevenson
Scottish author (1850 - 1894)

[V Profane]

Idiot quotient? Wut? Well whatever, I'm an atheist, so I'm not a real American. But that might be due to irredeemable Englishness, and faggotry.

Yeah okay, that was his Daddy, but I've no reason to believe he thinks anything different. Jebus don't make no trash.

[Hustler]

Pretty sure I've read somewhere that his IQ is above 100. 112 or something like that.

[V Profane]

It is over 120.

It's over 9000!

[andyintpcentral]

He's IQ when he at school is below 100 according to the record if I am remember this correctly.
Anyway, I think the decisions he made can reflects he's IQ best.

[V Profane]

He's IQ when he at school is below 100 according to the record if I am remember this correctly.
Anyway, I think the decision he made can reflects he's IQ best.

Unless English is not your first language, you're in a very brittle, transparent house.

[!diom]

I read that Bush's IQ was 119. That score would make him about average on this forum.

[Dark Razor]

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes.htm)

[demagogic_schizoid]

it's pretty hard to believe that people with low intelligence (as if IQ is worth anything anyway - the cleverest people you know in real life aren't the ones with highest IQ's)) get to hold office twice. If you believe that someone who does things you hate is simply stupid, then ultimately you are letting them get off lightly.

[Prothero]

He's IQ when he at school is below 100 according to the record if I am remember this correctly.
Anyway, I think the decisions he made can reflects he's IQ best.

His IQ was below 100 in a widely distributed email a couple of years ago. It included a number of former Presidents with higher IQs to prove its point. As I recall, Clinton had the highest rating, Bush the lowest, with the rest being closer to Bill in order to show just how dumb the current President is. The problem was, the numbers were made up.

I'm not sure what IQ has to do with poor decisions. INTPc has a relatively high IQ base, yet there are many threads that establish the bad decisions, past and present, that we are capable of making.

As for his second term. That's what happens when the opposing party insists on picking candidates that lack appeal to the moderates on either side.

[dubbeltop]

What's makes a president's IQ below average?

A president that has a thick skull

[andyintpcentral]

it's pretty hard to believe that people with low intelligence (as if IQ is worth anything anyway - the cleverest people you know in real life aren't the ones with highest IQ's)) get to hold office twice. If you believe that someone who does things you hate is simply stupid, then ultimately you are letting them get off lightly.

You have hit the point, I bet you are clever than bush.

The problem was, the numbers were made up.

I'm not sure what IQ has to do with poor decisions. INTPc has a relatively high IQ base, yet there are many threads that establish the bad decisions, past and present, that we are capable of making.

As for his second term. That's what happens when the opposing party insists on picking candidates that lack appeal to the moderates on either side.
INTPs are excellent at finding the faults of others, and you are a good example ;)

[Zephyrus055]

I would not doubt that Bush has a low IQ, because his speech is not articulate, he appears to believe in popular abstractions, and his strategic ideas are on the surface asinine.

However, being an advocate of Elite Theory, Bush's decisions must somehow benefit the elite in some way, because the people who have power must necessarily be those with economic and policy-making power, regardless of election results. My guess is that they decided to install a fool so they could blame the problems they created on him. This would still likely make him stupid, because people installed from the nobility in this way tend to be stupid.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I would not doubt that Bush has a low IQ, because his speech is not articulate, he appears to believe in popular abstractions, and his strategic ideas are on the surface asinine.

However, being an advocate of Elite Theory, Bush's decisions must somehow benefit the elite in some way, because the people who have power must necessarily be those with economic and policy-making power, regardless of election results. My guess is that they decided to install a fool so they could blame the problems they created on him. This would still likely make him stupid, because people installed from the nobility in this way tend to be stupid.

lol, that's quite a classic story. people said the same about Isabela Peron in Argentina, including those in my family who like to defend her as just a puppet. I still don't buy it - how many people would give everything to be the foremost servant of the elite, to have that kind of power, legal protection, fame, wealth, etc. The one who gets the job isn't stupid.

[Ferrus]

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes.htm)
'I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.'

SP, much?

[Zephyrus055]

lol, that's quite a classic story. people said the same about Isabela Peron in Argentina, including those in my family who like to defend her as just a puppet. I still don't buy it - how many people would give everything to be the foremost servant of the elite, to have that kind of power, legal protection, fame, wealth, etc. The one who gets the job isn't stupid.
Look at the Holy Roman Emperors, and the people the nobles often elected to the position. So surely, as is supported by History, there are people who want to be "first among equals." Secondly, it is in the interests of the nobility that the person at the helm is weak.

[bonsai]

I personally don't care if a president is a card carrying member of Mensa or not, I care if he can do his job.

[Ferrus]

Look at the Holy Roman Emperors, and the people the nobles often elected to the position. So surely, as is supported by History, there are people who want to be "first among equals." Secondly, it is in the interests of the nobility that the person at the helm is weak.
Don't forget the post-Stalin Soviet Union too. There it was useful for the military and bureaucratic elite to have idiots or weaklings ruling in order to consolidate their oligarchy. China has moved in this direction, to a degree, as well.

[Zephyrus055]

Don't forget the post-Stalin Soviet Union too. There it was useful for the military and bureaucratic elite to have idiots or weaklings ruling in order to consolidate their oligarchy. China has moved in this direction, to a degree, as well.
Yeah good point, very good modern examples. Thanks.

[Jennywocky]

Snopes comments (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) on Bush's IQ as per the nefarious e-mail.

His SAT score that I've seen quoted a number of times (but have not seen the source for is 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math).

In any case, it's not the size of the tool but how you wield it that counts, right?

[LastRailway]

I personally don't care if a president is a card carrying member of Mensa or not, I care if he can do his job.

I think that the main job of a president is to hold a public image, and I think the one mentioned does not do such a good job on that. I doubt if Bush or any other USA president is too much involved in the decision-making

[LC333]

Snopes comments (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) on Bush's IQ as per the nefarious e-mail.

His SAT score that I've seen quoted a number of times (but have not seen the source for is 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math).

In any case, it's not the size of the tool but how you wield it that counts, right?

I believe that SAT's are sneaky IQ tests. They are very difficult to improve on. Honestly, I got a 1200 on my practice SAT, and after a nice few hundred dollars that mummy and daddy shelled out for an SAT class I get....guess what....a 1200 on the real SAT's (740 verbal..460 math). And I really tried to improve too! Anyhow, his IQ is probably about 125 or 126 based on his chart. Here is the chart...

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx

So anyhow, now I have publicly embarrassed myself before you all by admitting that the Pres and I are probably at about the same intelligence level (if you believe in the predictive value of SAT's for intelligence.) Honestly though, that's not brilliant but it's not really stupid either. It still puts you in about the 95th percentile for the population. If only I could lend him some verbal IQ points and he could lend me some math points, I might be able to work in a financial field someday and he might globally humiliate the nation less often with his "Bushisms."

[stopharian]

His IQ was below 100 in a widely distributed email a couple of years ago. It included a number of former Presidents with higher IQs to prove its point. As I recall, Clinton had the highest rating, Bush the lowest, with the rest being closer to Bill in order to show just how dumb the current President is. The problem was, the numbers were made up.

I'm not sure what IQ has to do with poor decisions. INTPc has a relatively high IQ base, yet there are many threads that establish the bad decisions, past and present, that we are capable of making.

As for his second term. That's what happens when the opposing party insists on picking candidates that lack appeal to the moderates on either side.


I personally don't care if a president is a card carrying member of Mensa or not, I care if he can do his job.

Mensa Requirements for Sat submission during Bush's period are 1300 he got a 1206.....


Such as bush.
He is low in IQ and intelligence than other president,He's father's existence means he can get in the seat more easily.
Makes the president selection more independ on candidate's own power(something more related to their own intelligence).


Nobody bothers to question an email which quotes clinton as an IQ of 185 and Bush at 95 ??????

The same email gives Kennedy a 174 or something when he had verified Otis- whatever testing done which gave him a 119.






Bush gets bad rap on intelligence

By Aubrey Immelman
Times columnist
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ...
? W. B. Yeats, "The Second Coming"

A week from today, the sun will rise on the second Bush presidency in a generation, in what for some may be a day of trepidation. Does Bush the Younger have what it takes to lead the nation in the new millennium?

It's a question that transcends concerns about George W. Bush's conservatism or a path to power marred by youthful indiscretions. It's not about ideology or character; it's a question of cognitive capacity.

The Spanish physician Juan Huarte in 1575 proposed one of the earliest recorded definitions of intelligence: learning ability, imaginativeness and good judgment. Undoubtedly, the mantle of the modern U.S. presidency imposes a steep learning curve and demands vision, wisdom and discretion.

Equally clear is this: Sheer intellectual brilliance does not cut it in the Oval Office.

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential.

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman ? railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster ? or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough ? and, doggone-it, people must like him.

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students ? hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient ? an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

The feisty, sometimes-irreverent Bush's mental acuity may lack a little of the sharpness of his tongue, but plainly it is sharp enough. The real test for the president-elect will be whether he possesses the emotional intelligence ? the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impulse ? to steer the course.

Aubrey Immelman is a political psychologist and an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. You may write to him in care of the St. Cloud Times, P.O. Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302.

[Jennywocky]

I believe that SAT's are sneaky IQ tests. They are very difficult to improve on. Honestly, I got a 1200 on my practice SAT, and after a nice few hundred dollars that mummy and daddy shelled out for an SAT class I get....guess what....a 1200 on the real SAT's (740 verbal..460 math). And I really tried to improve too!

I have seen stats (in mags like US News and World Reports) showing a more sizeable increase in test scores for people who have taken the "classes" (which is why there is so much debate over whether or not SATS are the best measure for college aptitude... and why some colleges heavily consider other aspects of prospective students than their SAT scores today)... but in general, I know that my SAT was only 10 points higher than my PSAT, despite my subjective feeling I had aced my SAT. <_<


Anyhow, his IQ is probably about 125 or 126 based on his chart. Here is the chart...
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx


It would not surprise me. I don't think he is an idiot in terms of pure brainpower. I think his personality and motivations and beliefs play a large role in his priorities when evaluating problems and he does not really channel his brainpower into purely cognitive solutions like INTPs tend to. He also is not very articulate on his feet in terms of presenting a cognitive or formalized argument for/against something. Again, not one of his strengths. (He is more the "get in there and apply force/tactics to resolve the issue" -- not "articulate the problem and choose the best long-term most efficient strategy" -- so we do him and ourselves no favors by expecting it from him.)


So anyhow, now I have publicly embarrassed myself before you all by admitting that the Pres and I are probably at about the same intelligence level (if you believe in the predictive value of SAT's for intelligence.)

Yes, it's true, isn't it? "In America, ANYONE can be President!" So your day will come. :)

[Madrigal]

it's pretty hard to believe that people with low intelligence (as if IQ is worth anything anyway - the cleverest people you know in real life aren't the ones with highest IQ's)) get to hold office twice. If you believe that someone who does things you hate is simply stupid, then ultimately you are letting them get off lightly.

Yeah, I agree with this. In the average person's mind, "making the right decision", politically, means making the smart decision. There are smart decisions and stupid decisions, not decisions related to conflicting interests. So, it lowers political debate to claim that a world leader makes the decisons he makes because he is stupid. You can't get to the bottom of the issues that way. This outlook is perfectly functional to the system's survival. It's not uncommon for other functional elements such as the Democrats to stress this aspect, to the detriment of political debate.


I would not doubt that Bush has a low IQ, because his speech is not articulate, he appears to believe in popular abstractions, and his strategic ideas are on the surface asinine.

However, being an advocate of Elite Theory, Bush's decisions must somehow benefit the elite in some way, because the people who have power must necessarily be those with economic and policy-making power, regardless of election results. My guess is that they decided to install a fool so they could blame the problems they created on him. This would still likely make him stupid, because people installed from the nobility in this way tend to be stupid.

Uh, you watched Saturday Night Live too much. Seriously.

Bush may have been a good candidate for the Republican party because of his last name, or maybe even that charisma he has that you Americans love so much. ;) In any case this speculation is largely irrelevant, since the economical, political and military results of the Bush administration should not be analyzed as a result of Bush's personal weaknesses, but as a strategic plan that responds to a specific sector's interests. Anything else is just cheap personalism - hardly political debate.

[Zephyrus055]

Uh, you watched Saturday Night Live too much. Seriously.

Bush may have been a good candidate for the Republican party because of his last name, or maybe even that charisma he has that you Americans love so much. ;) In any case this speculation is largely irrelevant, since the economical, political and military results of the Bush administration should not be analyzed as a result of Bush's personal weaknesses, but as a strategic plan that responds to a specific sector's interests. Anything else is just cheap personalism - hardly political debate.

Never watched it, lol. But I agree, Bush's decisions are not necessarily stupid, but they serve the interests of various sectors of the American upper class. And my point is that when a ruler appears to be too much under the influence of an elite, especially when it is at the detriment of the country, it is not unreasonable that the ruler is weak.

[Madrigal]

Never watched it, lol. But I agree, Bush's decisions are not necessarily stupid, but they serve the interests of various sectors of the American upper class.

We agree then!


And my point is that when a ruler appears to be too much under the influence of an elite, especially when it is at the detriment of the country, it is not unreasonable that the ruler is weak.

This is where I differ with you, does he do things at the detriment of the country because he is weak, or because he's functional to certain interests (including his own class and family interests)? The elite which he is a part of and to which he responds may be failing in strategic aspects, but attributing this to stupidity just isn't political.

Anyway yeah, I'm sure youtube should have some Bush stuff on SNL. ;)

[Zephyrus055]

This is where I differ with you, does he do things at the detriment of the country because he is weak, or because he's functional to certain interests (including his own class and family interests)? The elite which he is a part of and to which he responds may be failing in strategic aspects, but attributing this to stupidity just isn't political.
I think you misunderstand me. I meant that a strong nobility or plutocracy will often pursue its own interests - to maximize profit - even if it is detrimental to the country. Additionally, I think that it is indicative of a weak leader when he/she is highly influenced by an elite and decisions are made at the expense of the country. Not that it is necessarily true, but often it is.

Or maybe you have brought forward a new possibility I did not consider. Maybe Bush is not so much a puppet, but a collaborator with other elites and is himself profiting from these efforts as well. Their strategic failures would also reflect on the group and not Bush himself. Anyway, a possibility to entertain.

[xNTP]

Below is an article by Dean Keith Simonton, a researcher and prolific writer at UC Davis who researches creativity and genius. He's also authored some interesting books. Here's his crappy homepage (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/) that he made himself. He's totally full of himself; it's quite awesome.

He estimates W's IQ to be over 115 close to 120, which is near the average for college students. He's among the lowest in IQ for Presidents, which is more pronounced because he followed Clinton, who had one of the highest. He scores among the lowest (from what I can remember) on Openness to experience, lower than most politicians. He's also low on a construct called "Intellectual Brilliance" which is assessed using 14 dimensions. I tried to highlight the most interesting parts. The graphs are impossible to read, unfortunately.

Dean Keith Simonton, "Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance,
and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives" Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2006.

SUMMARY

Individual differences in intelligence are consistently associated with
leader performance, including the assessed performance of presidents of
the United States. Given this empirical significance, IQ scores were
estimated for all 42 chief executives from George Washington to G. W.
Bush. The scores were obtained by applying missing-values estimation
methods (expectation-maximization) to published assessments of (a) IQ
(Cox, 1926; n = 8), (b) Intellectual Brilliance (Simonton, 1986c; n = 39),
and (c) Openness to Experience (Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004; n = 32).
The resulting scores were then shown to correlate with evaluations of
presidential leadership performance. The implications for George W. Bush
and his presidency were then discussed.

KEY WORDS: Presidential leadership, IQ, Openness to Experience,
Intellectual Brilliance, intelligence

Perhaps no individual-difference variable has more practical consequences
than does general intelligence. This impact is witnessed at five levels of
specificity. First, at the broadest level of applicability, intelligence
is closely associated with the cognitive complexity necessary for meeting
the demands of modern life (Gottfredson, 1997). Second, and more
specifically, cognitive capacity is the best single predictor of job
performance in a wide range of occupations (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert,
2005). Third, and yet more narrowly, individual differences in
intelligence correlate positively with leader performance (Bass, 1990;
Simonton, 1995). For instance, according to one meta-analysis of 151
independent samples (Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004), the overall
correlation is .27 (when corrected for range restriction). Fourth, this
association holds for a more specialized form of leadership, namely the
performance of political leaders (Simonton, 1990). For example, a
historiometric study of 342 European monarchs found that intelligence
correlated .32 with eminence and .67 with leadership (Simonton, 1984; see
also Simonton, 1983, 2001a). Fifth, and most specifically, assessed
intelligence has a positive correlation with the performance of U.S.
presidents (Simonton, 1986c, 1988, 2001b), where performance was based on
surveys of presidential experts, including both political scientists and
historians. In fact, out of more than two dozen individual-difference
variables examined, intelligence was the only one to display consistently
positive correlations with all available measures of presidential
greatness (Simonton, 1992; cf. McCann, 1992). Indeed, it constitutes the
only direct individual-difference correlate of performance once
situational factors are taken into account (Simonton, 1991b, 1992; see
also Simonton, 1986a, 1996). Intelligence is a crucial component of leader
performance, in part, because it is associated with other advantageous
attributes, such as charisma and creativity (Simonton, 1988).

Given that most presidents of the United States died long before the
advent of intelligence tests, it is imperative to specify the basis for
the scores used in these investigations (Simonton, 1986c, 1987).
Assessment began by extracting personality descriptions from several
biographical sources for 39 presidents from Washington through Reagan. All
identifying information was then removed to produce anonymous biographical
profiles. Several independent judges used these profiles in conjunction
with the Gough Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) to rate the
presidents on 300 descriptors, obtaining reliable assessments for 110
adjectives (cf. Deluga, 1997, 1998; Historical Figures Assessment
Collaborative, 1977). These latter measures were then subjected to a
factor analysis that obtained 14 distinct dimensions. One of these factors
included such items as "intelligent," "wise," "inventive," "interests
wide," "artistic," "curious," "sophisticated," "complicated," and
"insightful" (but not "dull" or "commonplace"). Moreover, a factor score
defined by the linear composite of these items yielded a measure having an
internal-consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of .90 (Simonton,
1986c). The resulting factor was then interpreted as assessing the chief
executives on Intellectual Brilliance.

This measure was then validated a number of ways. For example, the
variable correlates with objective biographical events, such as the chief
executive?s preelection publication record (Simonton, 1986c), a variable
that prior research showed was associated with presidential greatness
(Simonton, 1981). In addition, Intellectual Brilliance correlates with
alternative assessments of presidential intellect. For instance, the
measure has a correlation of .80 with Thorndike?s (1950) intelligence
evaluations of 10 chief executives based on his reading of pertinent
biographical data (Simonton, 1986c).

Even more significant for our current purposes, Intellectual Brilliance
correlates .70 with the IQ scores that Cox (1926) had calculated for eight
U.S. presidents as part of Terman?s (1925-59) classic study of the
relation between intelligence and achievement (Simonton, 1986c). These IQ
scores, though extracted from biographies using historiometric methods,
used an entirely different operational definition of intelligence and
therefore focused on contrasting sources of information. In particular,
Cox compiled chronologies of childhood and adolescent achievements to
detect any signs of intellectual precocity. Using a team of independent
raters, the ages at which certain accomplishments appeared were compared
with the average ages at which those achievements would be expected in the
general population. The IQ scores were then defined according to the
traditional concept of the intelligence quotient as 100 ? MA/CA, where MA
is mental age and CA is chronological age (extended from Terman, 1917).
The method was applied to only eight chief executives because the sample
consisted of 301 leaders and creators from numerous nations and periods of
history (Cox, 1926). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the IQ scores
for this sample correlated .25 with individual differences in eminence
(using an archival space measure devised by Cattell, 1903; cf. Simonton,
1986c). Furthermore, high IQs in Cox?s (1926) sample are linked with
traits that have a close affinity with those defining Intellectual
Brilliance, namely, originality of ideas, profoundness of apprehension,
pervasive cognitive activity and drive, and intellectual versatility (Cox,
1926; Simonton, 1976; White, 1931).

The Intellectual Brilliance assessment was validated much later via a
totally divergent methodology (Simonton, 2002). Rubenzer, Faschingbauer,
and Ones (2000) assessed the 41 U.S. presidents prior to George W. Bush on
the NEO, a standard measure of the "Big Five" personality dimensions
(Costa & McCrae, 1992a,b). The assessment was executed by having
recognized experts on specific presidents rate their subjects on the items
making up the key facets and factors of the NEO. From these questionnaires
useful measures were obtained for all of the NEO scales, at least for a
subset of 31 chief executives for whom sufficient ratings were available.
The resulting measure of special relevance here is Openness to Experience,
a cognitive proclivity that encompasses unusual receptiveness to fantasy,
aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. In the general
population this factor is positively associated with intelligence (Bates &
Shieles, 2003; Gignac, Stough, & Loukomitis, 2004; Harris, 2004). In the
specific case of presidents, as well, Openness correlates .71 with the
Intellectual Brilliance factor (Simonton, 2000, 2002). In other words,
Intellectual Brilliance has almost the exact same correlation with
Openness as it does with the Cox (1926) IQ scores. Thus, it is very likely
that the three measures, despite their distinct origins, are all tapping
into the same underlying construct--each president?s broad intellectual
breadth, power, and energy.1 As further support for this conjecture, the
Openness scores also predict the performance ratings that the presidents
receive from historians and political scientists who have expertise in the
American presidency (Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000). In fact, not
only does Openness predict presidential success better than any other Big
Five factor, but it correlates with "ethics on the job" as well (Ones,
Rubenzer, & Faschingbauer, 2004).

1 Some would argue that general intelligence (or Spearman?s g) can be
psychometrically discriminated from Openness (e.g., Costa & McCrae,
1992a,b). From this perspective the high correlation observed between
Openness and the other measures may be suspicious because it is more than
double the correlation usually observed in the general population.
However, the two constructs may be more closely related in samples of
presidents because of how such individuals are recruited to enter and
succeed in politics. There is a precedent for such a selection effect in
the fact that the power and achievement motives are more highly correlated
among presidents than in the population at large (Winter, 1973, 1987).
Thus in the case of U.S. chief executives (and perhaps other political
leaders) high general intelligence may be more strongly linked with the
qualities associated with Openness.

Most recently, Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004) published the book
Personality, Character, & Leadership in the White House in which they
could elaborate and extend the findings reported in Rubenzer,
Faschingbauer, and Ones (2000). Among the many additions in this later
publication is the inclusion of NEO scores for George W. Bush, thereby
enlarging the sample of assessed presidents from 31 to 32. This
enlargement provided the impetus for the current investigation.
Specifically, the goal is threefold. First, by applying modern statistical
methods for reconstructing missing values, I provide estimates of IQ,
Openness, and Intellectual Brilliance for all 42 presidents. Second, these
objective (even if tentative) estimates will be correlated with the most
up-to-date measure of presidential performance for the 41 presidents for
whom ratings are possible. Third, the association from this result will be
used to predict George W. Bush?s most likely performance rating were it
based on intellectual ability alone.

Method

The sample consists of all presidents of the United States from George
Washington to George W. Bush. Although Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd
President of the United States, he was only the 42nd U.S. president
(because Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms as the 22nd and 24th
president of the United States). Hence, the sample size is 42 rather than
43.

Intellectual Capacity Measures

The factor scores for Intellectual Brilliance were taken from Simonton
(1986c, p. 154). All presidents between Washington and Reagan were
assessed (n = 39), the scores having been standardized to a zero mean and
a unit standard deviation (i.e., z scores). The Openness scores came from
Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004, pp. 26, 200, 302). These scores have a
hypothetical range of 0 to 100, and the actual range is very close to
that. Even though presidents from Washington to George W. Bush were
assessed, 10 presidents could not be reliably scored because of the
unavailability of appropriate experts, thereby reducing the sample size (n
= 32). Finally, IQ estimates were adopted from Cox (1926) for the small
subset of presidents who were of sufficient renown to make it into the
sample of 301 geniuses (n = 8). Actually, there were four estimates for
each president. First, IQs were calculated for two periods of biographical
data, the first from birth to age 17 and the second from age 18 to age 26.
These were identified by Cox as IQ I and IQ II. Second, the raw IQ scores
for each of these periods were corrected for measurement error (see Cox,
1926, pp. 82-83, for the specific formula). This statistical correction
for attenuation was deemed necessary because some biographies had more
adequate information than did others. Hence, each period has both
uncorrected (U) and corrected (C) IQ scores. The outcome is four IQ
scores: I-U, I-C, II-U, and II-C.

The original scores on Intellectual Brilliance, Openness to Experience,
and the four Cox (1926) IQ estimates are shown in boldface in Table 1.
These numbers have been rounded off to the first figure to the right of
the decimal point. Table 2 shows the basic statistics for each measure,
including the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). It should be observed
that the four IQ estimates differ in three systematic ways. First, the
corrected scores (C) tend to be larger than the uncorrected scores (U).
This is not surprising given that the correction for attenuation is
supposed to have this consequence, but it does raise the issue of whether
the corrected scores might be too high. Second, the first-period estimates
(I) tend to be smaller than the second-period estimates (II). Third, the
dispersion, as indicated by the standard deviations, tends to be larger
for the first-period estimates (I) relative to the second-period estimates
(II).2

2 Because these IQs were based on the old definition of the intelligence
quotient as a ratio of mental to chronological age (rather than the modern
definition of IQ in terms of the normal distribution), the scores have no
pre-set standard deviation (16 or 15 in most modern tests). Nonetheless,
the standard deviations for the entire sample tend to be between 14 and 15
(Simonton, 1976).

Lastly, it is worth noting that although the presidents range tremendously
in Openness, the mean for the group falls in the low end of the
distribution.

Leadership Performance Measure

The measure of presidential leadership was based on the ratings or
rankings contained in the following 12 sources: the Schlesinger (1948)
survey, the Rossiter (1956) rating, the Schlesinger (1962) second survey,
the Bailey (1966) rating (as quantified by Kynerd, 1971), the Maranell
(1970) survey, the Chicago Tribune Magazine poll (as reported in Murray &
Blessing, 1983), the Porter poll (also as reported in Murray & Blessing,
1983), the Murray and Blessing survey (1983), the Siena Research Institute
survey (Kelly & Lonnstrom, 1990), the Ridings and McIver (1997) survey,
and a survey conducted by C-Span (C-Span Survey of Presidential
Leadership, 2000). When necessary, the original scores were inverted so
that higher numbers signified greater presidential performance. All 12
measures were then standardized to produce z scores (i.e., M = 0 and SD =
1). The average of these dozen standardized measures defined the indicator
of each president?s leadership performance (or "presidential greatness").

Table 1. Original and Imputed Scores for 42 Presidents
IQ estimates

President/ Intellectual brilliance /Openness /
[IQ Estimates] I-U/ I-C/ II-U/ II-C

Washington 0.3 14.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0
J. Adams 0.6 61.0 120.0 150.0 145.0 155.0
Jefferson 3.1 99.1 145.0 160.0 150.0 160.0
Madison 0.6 62.0 120.0 150.0 135.0 160.0
Monroe -1.4 3.7 109.0 120.7 128.2 138.6
J. Q. Adams 1.2 98.0 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0
Jackson -0.6 0.5 110.0 120.0 130.0 145.0
Van Buren -0.3 31.0 119.4 132.9 135.1 146.0
W. Harrison -0.1 31.5 120.3 133.6 135.5 146.3
Tyler 0.2 37.9 122.9 136.6 137.2 148.1
Polk -0.6 21.0 116.0 128.7 132.7 143.4
Taylor -1.2 9.0 110.8 122.7 129.3 139.8
Fillmore -0.7 46.0 120.8 136.7 137.4 149.0
Pierce -0.3 37.0 120.6 134.8 136.3 147.4
Buchanan -0.8 5.0 111.9 122.8 129.4 139.6
Lincoln 0.8 95.0 125.0 145.0 140.0 150.0
A. Johnson -1.2 8.0 110.8 122.7 129.3 139.8
Grant -1.4 2.3 110.0 115.0 125.0 130.0
Hayes -0.1 31.5 120.3 133.6 135.5 146.3
Garfield 0.9 52.9 129.0 143.5 141.2 152.3
Arthur 0.9 52.9 129.0 143.5 141.2 152.3
Cleveland -0.5 23.0 116.9 129.6 133.3 144.0
B. Harrison -0.7 30.0 117.5 131.4 134.3 145.4
McKinley -0.6 20.8 116.0 128.6 132.7 143.4
T. Roosevelt 0.9 56.0 129.7 144.6 141.8 153.0
Taft 0.0 1.0 114.5 123.8 129.8 139.5
Wilson 1.3 64.0 133.0 148.3 143.9 155.2
Harding -2.0 10.0 107.8 121.1 128.4 139.9
Coolidge -1.5 17.0 111.4 124.8 130.6 141.6
Hoover 0.5 8.0 118.0 127.5 132.0 141.6
F. Roosevelt 0.9 45.0 127.4 140.9 139.7 150.5
Truman 0.2 1.7 115.5 124.6 130.3 139.8
Eisenhower -0.7 29.0 117.3 131.1 134.1 145.1
Kennedy 1.8 82.0 138.9 155.7 148.2 159.8
L. Johnson -0.2 7.0 114.8 125.2 130.7 140.6
Nixon 0.4 14.0 118.9 129.2 133.0 142.9
Ford -0.6 8.0 113.3 124.4 130.2 140.4
Carter 0.0 77.0 130.2 149.0 144.4 156.8
Reagan 0.4 10.0 118.0 127.9 132.2 141.9
G.H.W. Bush -0.3 18.0 116.5 128.4 132.6 143.0
Clinton 1.0 82.0 135.6 153.6 147.0 159.0
G.W. Bush -0.7 0.0 111.1 121.4 128.5 138.5

Note. Original scores are in boldface, estimates in regular font. All
statistics are rounded off to one
decimal place. Intellectual brlliance is expressed by z scores with a mean
of 0 and a standard
deviation of 1 (from Simonton, 1986c). Openness is expressed as a
percentage score ranging from 0
to 100 (from Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004). The four IQ estimates
originate in Cox (1926) and
represent standard IQ scores with a hypothetical mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 16. The
latter represent four estimates: I-U (ages 0-17, uncorrected), I-C (ages
18-26, corrected for data
reliability), II-U (ages 0-17, uncorrected), and II-C (ages 18-26,
corrected for data reliability).

Table 2. Basic Statistics for Original Measures

President/ Intellectual brilliance /Openness
I-U I-C II-U II-C

n 39 32 8888
Minimum 2.0 0.0 110.0 115.0 125.0 130.0
Maximum 3.1 99.1 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0
M -0.0 35.4 127.5 142.5 140.6 151.9
SD 1.0 32.5 18.7 19.3 12.7 13.9

In line with previous research demonstrating the impressive expert
consensus on the differential reputation of the U.S. presidents, the
resulting 12-item composite had an internal-consistency (coefficient
alpha) reliability of .99, which is as close to perfection as can be
expected for real data (see also Simonton, 1986b, 1991a). As further
validation of this measure, it was correlated with published ratings of
supposed components of presidential leadership. In particular, the
greatness measure correlated positively with Maranell?s (1970) assessments
of presidential prestige (r = .95), strength (r = .96), activity (r =
.90), and accomplishments (r = .97) and with Ridings and McIver?s (1997)
assessments of presidential leadership (r = .93), accomplishments (r =
.94), political skill (r = .90), and appointments (r = .90). Hence, the
leadership criterion reflects the essential features of presidential
performance.

Results

The first step in the analysis was to use the observed scores in Table 1,
indicated in boldface, to reconstruct the missing values (Little & Rubin,
2002). This was possible for three reasons. First, every president has at
least one score that is not missing. Second, statistical tests indicated
that one could not reject the null hypothesis that the scores are "missing
completely at random" (MCAR = 5.03, df = 4, p = .284). That is, the scores
seen in Table 1 can be said to be representative of the population of
scores rather than having some selection bias. Third, the six measures are
highly intercorrelated, indicating that there is enough redundant
information to predict (or impute) the missing scores with a reasonable
degree of accuracy...

[xNTP]

The magnitude of this redundancy is shown in Table 3, which gives the
Pearson product-moment correlations using pairwise deletion (i.e., each
correlation is calculated across all cases for which both scores are
available). It should be immediately obvious that the six variables are
assessing the same underlying quality of cognitive power. Not only are the
four Cox (1926) scores highly intercorrelated, but also all four are
strongly correlated with both Intellectual Brilliance and Openness to
Experience. The smallest correlation is that between the last two
variables, yet even this is high enough to suggest considerable overlap
between the two constructs. What renders these strong associations all the
more remarkable is that the variables are based on three disparate
methodologies: ratings based on personality profiles extracted from
biographies (Intellectual Brilliance), evaluations obtained by surveying
biographers (Openness), and scores calculated from chronologies of early
childhood and adolescent accomplishments (IQ). Although each technique
will have its own distinctive methodological advantages and disadvantages,
the methods still converge on a consistent overall assessment.

Table 3. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations among Original Measures

Variable 12345

1. Intellectual brilliance
2. Openness .69
3. IQ I-U .71 .74
4. IQ I-C .82 .92 .84
5. IQ II-U .72 .80 .94 .92
6. IQ II-C .70 .81 .81 .94 .89

Note. All correlations are significant at the p . .05 level or better
except for that between Intellectual Brilliance and IQ II-C
(p = .054).

The missing values were imputed using the Expectation-Maximization (EM)
algorithm that constructs the complete data matrix according to the
patterns displayed by the nonmissing scores (Little & Rubin, 2002). This
iterative procedure uses the maximum-likelihood criterion to compute the
missing values. Because it takes into consideration the entire data
structure, EM has been shown to be superior to alternative imputation
procedures, such as regression (see, e.g., Gold & Bentler, 2000). The EM
algorithm was specifically implemented via the Missing Value Analysis
module in SYSTAT 11 (SYSTAT 11, 2004, vol. 2, chap. 7). The outcome is
shown in Table 1, the imputed scores given in regular font. The
reconstructions are greatest for the four IQ estimates, least for the
Intellectual Brilliance scores. Although the IQ scores must therefore be
considered more tentative and approximate than the other two scores, they
do have the asset of a substantive meaning comparable to scores on
standardized IQ tests. That renders them more interpretable to a broad
audience.

To obtain a better idea of the nature of these imputed values, Table 4
provides the basic statistics for the completed data matrix. Overall the
results are fairly similar, except that the IQ estimates have lower means
and standard deviations. Because far more missing values are estimated for
the IQ scores than for the Intellectual Brilliance and Openness measures,
the replaced values are more likely to regress toward the mean and to
reduce variance. Although it is not obvious from mere inspection, the
scores on all six measures appear to be free of any political bias. In
particular, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that Democratic and
Republican presidents have the same expected intelligence. This null
result holds whether the sample includes all presidents since Jackson
(when the Democratic Party began) or just all presidents since Lincoln
(when the Republican Party began).

Table 4. Statistics and Leader Performance Correlations (rs) for Measures
with
Imputed Values (N = 42)

President Intellectual brilliance Openness
I-U I-C II-U II-C

Minimum -2.0 0.0 107.8 115.0 125.0 130.0
Maximum 3.1 99.1 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0
M -0.0 33.4 121.0 134.4 136.0 146.8
SD 1.0 29.6 10.9 12.5 7.6 8.3
r .56 .34 .34 .35 .32 .31

Note. The rs are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. All
coefficients except the last are significant at the p . .05 level, and for
the last (p = .054). The correlation for Intellectual Brilliance is
significant at the p . .001 level.


But how do these reconstructed scores correlate with the leadership
performance criterion? The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
are given in the last row of Table 4. It is evident that all six measures
are positively correlated with presidential leadership, and all measures
but one have about the same effect size (viz. about 10% of the variance is
shared). Moreover, with that one exception, the correlations are about the
same size as Ones, Rubenzer, and Faschingbauer (2004) found between
Openness and their assessment of presidential success. The lone departure
from the general pattern is Intellectual Brilliance, which has a
correlation noticeably larger than the other five. Hence, if it was
necessary to identify a single predictor variable, this would be the
measure of choice. This explanatory superiority may help explain why it
has consistently emerged as a significant predictor in a series of
investigations published between 1986 and 2002 (e.g., Simonton, 1986c,
1988, 2001b, 2002). These studies also indicate that the impact of
intelligence on greatness has not changed over the course of U.S.
history.3 That is, its predictive power has neither increased nor declined
with time. For instance, an early study of 36 presidents obtained a
standardized partial regression coefficient of .26 (Simonton, 1986c) while
a much later study of 41 presidents obtained a coefficient of .29
(Simonton, 2002), a trivial difference. This temporal stability would not
hold if either (a) the cognitive assessment of recent presidents was more
or less reliable than the assessment of earlier presidents or (b) the
structural association between intelligence and leader performance had
weakened or strengthened in the U.S. modern presidency.

3 Contrary to what has been suggested in some leadership research
(Simonton, 1985), presidential greatness is not a curvilinear, inverted-U
function of Intellectual Brilliance (Simonton, 1986c). Instead, the
function is positive and linear. This is not to say that exceptional
intellect cannot be a liability: Highly intelligent presidents are much
less likely to win election by landslide victories (Simonton, 1987).

Discussion

Ever since George W. Bush was elected to the presidency, questions have
emerged about his general intelligence (Sailer, 2004). Although some of
these attacks were nothing more than internet hoaxes, and others were
founded solely on his frequent verbal slips, still others were based on
more serious speculations, such as attempts to estimate his IQ from his
reported performance on the SAT (Immelman, 2001). The results reported in
Table 1 provide a more objective and quantitative means to address this
issue. Two points should be clear from the imputed IQ scores.

First, Bush is definitely intelligent. The IQ estimates range between
111.1 and 138.5, with an average around 125. That places him in the upper
range of college graduates in raw intellect (Cronbach, 1960). Admittedly,
this average is influenced by Cox?s (1926) corrected scores, which may be
overestimates. Yet even if we focus on just the uncorrected IQs, the range
is between 111.1 and 128.5, with a mean around 120, which is about the
average IQ for a college graduate in the United States. In addition, the
figure is more than one standard deviation above the population mean,
placing Bush in the upper 10% of the intelligence distribution (Storfer,
1990). These results endorse what has been claimed on the basis of his SAT
scores and his Harvard MBA, namely, that his IQ most likely exceeds 115
(Immelman, 2001). He is certainly smart enough to be president of the
United States (Simonton, 1985).

Second, Bush?s IQ is below average relative to that subset of the U.S.
citizens who also managed to work their way into the White House. In fact,
his intellect falls near the bottom of the distribution. When compared
with twentieth-century presidents from Theodore Roosevelt through Clinton,
only Harding has a lower score (at least on three of the four estimates).
A similar conclusion is suggested by the Intellectual Brilliance measure,
albeit in this case there are now two twentieth- century presidents with
lower scores, namely, Harding and Coolidge. Moreover, Bush?s IQ falls
about 20 points--more than one standard deviation--below that of his
predecessor, Clinton, a disparity that may have created a contrast effect
that made any intellectual weaknesses all the more salient. Clinton?s
intellectual attainments as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate,
his demonstrated capacity for mastering impressive amounts of complex and
detailed information, his verbal eloquence and fluency, and his logical
adroitness and sophistication--at times, as during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, verging on sophistry--places Clinton head and shoulders above his
successor in terms of intellectual power.

Needless to say, it can be argued that the Intellectual Brilliance and IQ
estimates are biased downward. George W. Bush may be much smarter than
Table 1 implies. The counterargument must aim at the score he received on
Openness, a score that provided the only information for the imputation of
his IQ and Intellectual Brilliance estimates. This score placed him at the
very bottom of the distribution of U.S. presidents. Indeed, the score puts
him toward the bottom of the general population as well. One reason to
question this placement is that Rubenzer and Faschingbauer obtained Bush?s
NEO scores in a different manner than they did for the preceding
presidents. As they expressed it, "We depart here from our usual method;
rather than having biographers rate the president, the authors read
biographies and then rated him. This was done for one simple reason: None
of the few biographers available returned our questionnaires" (2004, p.
301). Although these assessments were supplemented somewhat by a
last-minute questionnaire response received right before the book?s
publication they warned "Although we did eventually obtain three raters,
greater caution is called for here in reading our results" (pp. 301-302).
After all, "None of us have a deep knowledge of Mr. Bush comparable to the
presidential experts that provided the other ratings" (p. 302). Thus, the
authors themselves claim that their scores, including the Openness
assessment, can only be considered tentative.

Even so, there are several reasons for suggesting that the numbers
reported in last row of Table 1 are not unreasonable. To begin with, it is
likely that his Openness score would not be higher than his father?s,
whose score of 18.0 put his IQ estimates in the low end of the
distribution as well. If anything, the son?s score should be lower given
that his intellectual curiosity appears to be noticeably more restricted
than his father?s. As one national correspondent for United Press
International put it, "despite being the scion of an elite family with
worldwide connections, Bush?s hobbies appear limited to not much more than
running, fishing and baseball" (Sailer, 2004, p. 2). In fact, with respect
to the Intellectual Brilliance evaluation, it would seem that the younger
Bush does not make the impression of having wide interests or of being
especially artistic, curious, sophisticated, complicated, and insightful.
The same holds for the Openness measure. Presidents who score high on this
assessment tend to rate high on the following facets: (a) Openness to
Fantasy--"Vivid imagination and rich fantasy life; dreamy," (b) Openness
to Aesthetics--"Deep appreciation of art, music, poetry, beauty; artistic,
original," (c) Openness to Feelings--"Receptivity to own inner feelings
and emotions. Experience emotions fully and value them; excitable,
spontaneous," (d) Openness to Actions--"Willingness to try new activities,
go new places, do things differently; wide interests, adventurous," (e)
Openness to Ideas--"Intellectual curiosity, willingness to consider new
ideas; idealistic, inventive," and (f) Openness to Values--"Readiness to
reexamine (or reject) social, political and religious values;
unconventional" (Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004, p. 12). At best,
according to the three raters, Bush only shows some proclivity for one
facet, namely, Openness to Feelings, and many close observers of the
president would probably agree (see, e.g., Suskind, 2004).

Finally, Bush?s low Openness score is corroborated by a totally
independent methodology: content analytical measures of integrative
complexity. Applied to verbal materials such as speeches (with identifying
material deleted), this objective technique gauges the extent to which the
individual can differentiate multiple perspectives on an issue and
integrate those perspectives into a single coherent point of view
(Suedfeld, Guttieri, & Tetlock, 2003; Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert,
1992). Low scorers on integrative complexity can only see things from a
single perspective--their own--and so no integration is necessary. One
analysis showed that Bush?s pre-9/11 baseline complexity was appreciably
lower than that of Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain during
the same period (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002). Bush?s specific score is
indicative of someone who discusses issues without taking alternative
points of view into serious consideration. Significantly, the score that
Bush received is markedly below that of every single elected U.S.
president from McKinley through Carter inclusively (as reported in
Tetlock, 1981). In addition, his score is below that of most U.S. senators
and Supreme Court justices, albeit under certain circumstances it stands
at about the same level as highly conservative senators and justices
(using statistics reported in Tetlock, 1983; Tetlock, Bernzweig, &
Gallant, 1985; Tetlock, Hannum, & Micheletti, 1984).

Yet these outcomes cannot simply be attributed to his being a conservative
Republican: Bush?s integrative complexity is also comparable to (a)
extreme abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates in antebellum United
States (as contrasted with free-soil Republicans and Buchanan Democrats;
Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994), (b) hard-line communists in the Soviet
leadership (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989), and (c) the extremist Islamic
Fundamentalists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership (Suedfeld &
Leighton, 2002)--with the notable exception of Osama bin Laden, who is
lower still. Even more tellingly, Bush?s score does not change with the
political conditions, unlike what usually holds for successful political
and military leaders (e.g., Suedfeld, Corteen, & McCormick, 1986; Tetlock,
1981), but rather stays consistently low (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002), and
thus reveals a trait-like stability. Given the objective nature of these
integrative complexity scores, their apparent lack of political bias, and
their prima facie connection with both Openness to Ideas and Openness to
Values, the overall Openness score Bush received in Table 1 may not be too
far off the mark.4

4 For the 11 presidents for which measures were available, integrative
complexity correlated .58 with Openness to Experience, suggesting that
they overlap conceptually, albeit the former variable is supposedly more
responsive to situational influences whereas the latter purports to
represent a stable trait.

If we assume that Bush?s scores on Intellectual Brilliance, Openness, and
IQ are in the right ballpark, then his expected presidential leadership
would be lowered. The predicted disadvantage is most apparent in the case
of Intellectual Brilliance because this measure has the highest
correlation with performance as judged by historians and political
scientists best qualified to evaluate U.S. presidents.5 Specifically, on
the basis of this trait we would predict that Bush?s ultimate standing
with posterity will fall about two-fifths of a standard deviation below
the mean (i.e., -0.7 ?.56 =-0.39). This would put him on about the same
level as Jimmy Carter (Simonton, 2002). In terms of the presidential
rankings, he would come in 26th out of 42 chief executives. To be sure,
intellect is not by any means the only predictor of presidential
leadership. Many other variables are involved as well, including both
personality traits (McCann, 1992; Ones, Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004;
Winter, 1987) and situational factors (Kenney & Rice, 1988; Nice, 1984;
Simonton, 1987, 1993). Some of these variables can raise his final
assessment to that of an average, and even above-average, chief executive
(but see Immelman, 2002). Yet the conclusion remains, however tentative at
this point in time, that Bush's intellect may be more a liability than an
asset with respect to his performance as the nation's chief executive. His
strengths most likely lie elsewhere.

5 In fact, when entered into a multiple regression equation that includes
five other predictors of presidential greatness (years in office, war
years, assassination, scandals, and war hero), only Intellectual
Brilliance emerges as a significant predictor (b=.29, p . .01, versus
b=.19, p . .05, for the other five intellect measures).

(Bibliography omitted.)

[rek]

I think everyone misses the point that Bush has made so clearly: no one person should ever have the kind of power we allow our presidents to have.

It's funny because when one side is in power they work their ass off to extend the reach of their position, only to bitch and moan about that power they helped create when it slips into someone else's hands.

Bush, or any other president, should never be aloud to do the things that they are. Regardless of what their IQ may or may not be and much more importantly: regardless of if you agree with their actions or not.

The idea that any one person could ever represent over 301 million people well enough to justify such extreme control over them is just plain stupid. I don't care what party they are in, or how pro/anti war they are, or even if they are me; no president should have the power to do what bush does, what clinton did, what the previous bush did, etc. Period.

[Dark Razor]

I found this gem that I need to share with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno&NR=1

[Madrigal]

I think you misunderstand me. I meant that a strong nobility or plutocracy will often pursue its own interests - to maximize profit - even if it is detrimental to the country.

I think you misunderstand... period. An elite making decisions for their own profit and at the expense of the country? Uh, happens all the time, Zeph. :blink: I wasn't even trying to make a point of that.

[booyalab]

Such as bush.
He is low in IQ and intelligence than other president,He's father's existence means he can get in the seat more easily.
Makes the president selection more independ on candidate's own power(something more related to their own intelligence).

Do you say that because he's inarticulate? Because that would be delightfully ironic.

[immortalmack]

Such as bush.
He is low in IQ and intelligence than other president,He's father's existence means he can get in the seat more easily.
Makes the president selection more independ on candidate's own power(something more related to their own intelligence).

Being the average person.

[Lateralus]

I believe that SAT's are sneaky IQ tests. They are very difficult to improve on. Honestly, I got a 1200 on my practice SAT, and after a nice few hundred dollars that mummy and daddy shelled out for an SAT class I get....guess what....a 1200 on the real SAT's (740 verbal..460 math). And I really tried to improve too! Anyhow, his IQ is probably about 125 or 126 based on his chart. Here is the chart...

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx
I only took the SAT once (back in 1991) and got a 1300 (800 math, 500 verbal). I've always hated vocabulary. If I had bothered to actually learn useless words, I could have scored quite a bit higher.

[NoahFence]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Sarlith/IntDump.jpg

[outmywindow]

Here is the chart...

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx


Interesting link. I think I've seen this before at some point in the distant past, but I had completely forgotten the 'results.'

[sorabji_66]

Such as bush.
He is low in IQ and intelligence than other president,He's father's existence means he can get in the seat more easily.
Makes the president selection more independ on candidate's own power(something more related to their own intelligence).



no he isn't.

he's brighter than Gore and twice that valley over Kerry.

(oh sorry, i guess i should have learned by now that every Democrat has an IQ above Goethe's and every Republican has one around 50....)

[omnirook]

Unless English is not your first language, you're in a very brittle, transparent house.

Nonsense. Ignorance has nothing to do w/intelligence. Some of the best educated people in the world are among the stupidest people who have ever lived. The streets teem w/intelligent people whose grammar shows that they have little education. A homeless man who has survived on the streets for 20 years is most likely more intelligent than the well-heeled office workers who snub him every day; he lives by his wits, whereas his "betters" live in debt, on over-drawn credit.

If the OP was a done by a person who is just learning English, well, then, the most important pre-requisite for fluency has been met: the post was intelligble, despite its grammatical flaws.

[sorabji_66]

He estimates W's IQ to be over 115 close to 120, which is near the average for college students. He's among the lowest in IQ for Presidents, which is more pronounced because he followed Clinton, who had one of the highest. He scores among the lowest (from what I can remember) on Openness to experience, lower than most politicians. He's also low on a construct called "Intellectual Brilliance" which is assessed using 14 dimensions. I tried to highlight the most interesting parts. The graphs are impossible to read, unfortunately.



Clinton had a high IQ in political weaselness. certainly not in smarts.

a hoax on the internet in W's first term put Willy up amongst the highest humans ever, before it was easily quashed.

who is seriously considered a very intelligent President?

Wilson? Nixon?

[Rice-Tactics]

I think he could be considered as having "text book smarts" but based on what he's done there is definitely something that he's lacking. Plus... there's the Buhism's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism