Log in

View Full Version : Bush Lowest IQ of All Modern Presidents



Skeptic
17th January 2005, 15:40
REPORT FINDS GEORGE W BUSH HAS LOWEST I.Q. AT ONLY 91 OF ALL PRESIDENTS
FOR LAST 50 YEARS! / BUSH Sr COMES IN 2nd AT 98 / CLINTON (I.Q. 182) ,
CARTER AND KENNEDY WERE THE SMARTEST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS / NIXON WAS
THE SMARTEST REPUBLICAN AT I.Q. 155 –

FLASHBACK: In January, 2001, The IO front-paged a short article
entitled, "G.W. may be dumbest president in U.S. history."

Though a certain amount of research went into that article and we
believed it to be accurate, many of our conservative readers were
angered by the allegation.

Having just survived eight years of Bill Clinton, they reasoned that we
ought to at least give the Texas Republican a chance; anything had to be
better than Clinton.
Now, as the mantra evolved to, "Anything but Bush," it turns out Bush is
the dumbest president -- at least of the last 50 years.

In a report published August 2, 2004, the Lovenstein Institute of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, released the results of a four-month study into
the intelligence quotient (IQ) of President George W. Bush. The IQ is
used to measure a person's capacity for learning.

Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has been rating the mental
capacities of presidents and making its research, including presidential
IQs, available to the education community.

Not being able to give a standard test to determine a president's IQ,
the Lovenstein Institute bases its determination on scholarly
achievements, writings fully credited to the president in question,
their public speaking ability and command of the English language. Other
more subtle psychological factors are also considered.
The data is then scored with the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence
ranking. According to statements in the report, there have been twelve
presidents over the past 50 years, from FDR to GW Bush who were all
rated in the manner described above.

The study determined the following IQs of each president and claims the
figures are accurate to within five I.Q. points:

147 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)

132 - Harry Truman (D)

122 - Dwight D. Eisenhower ®

174 - John F. Kennedy (D)

126 - Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

155 - Richard M. Nixon ®

121 - Gerald Ford ®

175 - James "Jimmy" E. Carter (D)

105 - Ronald Reagan ®

098 - George H.W. Bush ®

182 - William J. Clinton (D)

091 - George W. Bush ®

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155.

President G.W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an
IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156,
with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon
B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
No president other than Jimmy Carter (D) has released his actual IQ,
176.

According to the report, President G.W. Bush's low ratings were due to
his lack of spoken communications skills as made apparent in reviewing
his public statements, his limited vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush
versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of
scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any
body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.

The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive
at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress
confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under
their belt, and most had written several white papers during their
education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein
said.

"He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it
more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily
on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

The study was originally commissioned February 13, 2001, and released on
July 9, 2001, to subscribing member universities and organizations
within the education community.
-----------------------------------------
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307

Email: [email protected]

Web:

http://idaho-observer.com/

http://proliberty.com/observer/
----------------------------------------
CHIEF INMATE G W BUSH DECLARES NATION AN ASYLUM / PROZAC-POPPING PREZ
RECOMMENDS MANDATED MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING FOR ALL AMERICANS! –
From the August 2004 Idaho Observer


WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recent weeks President Bush has been
characterized by staffers as "erratic" and subject to "wide mood
swings." It has also been reported that the commander-in-chief has been
taking "strong antidepressants" under orders from White House physician
Col. Richard J. Tubb since July 8, 2004.

The president was apparently under the influence of "Prozac" last month
when he announced a sweeping mental health care initiative recommending
the screening of every American for mental illness and treatment with
expensive psychotropic drugs.

The original story last June 4 claiming that President Bush's mental
health was a matter of grave concern among White House staff came from
Capitol Hill Blue -- a D.C.-based scandal sheet that has a reputation of
being more sensational than accurate in its reporting.

Capitol Hill Blue then came out with the story of the president being
prescribed Prozac which has since been supported by observations of
prominent George Washington University psychologist Dr. Justin Frank in
his book, "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President." Dr.
Frank believes the president is "an untreated alcoholic with
megalomaniac tendencies."

Dr. Frank's work has been supported upon peer review. Scandal sheets and
expert opinions aside, the president confirms concerns about his mental
well-being almost every time he opens his mouth in public.

At the August 4 signing of a $417 billion defense appropriations bill,
the commander-in-chief was widely reported as stating in the bill's
defense, "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."

Close scrutiny of President Bush's business career indicates that, under
his leadership, companies he directed went bankrupt; close scrutiny of
his political career reveals a pattern of providing financial benefits
for certain special interest lobbies with business ties to the Bush
family.

Considering the chemical, pharmaceutical and military nature which
predominate those special interests, one could attribute the president's
previous comment as a "Freudian slip." If it was, what type of a "slip"
would the following comment be:
"We must always remember that all human beings begin life as a feces. A
feces is a living thing in the eyes of God who has endowed that feces
with all the rights and God-given blessings of any other human being."

Bush made the statement above at a pro-life rally in Tampa, Fla., June
17, 2004. The crowd reportedly listened in shocked amazement as the
president mistakenly said "feces" instead of "fetus" several times.



http://proliberty.com/observer/20040806.htm

Invader Zim
17th January 2005, 15:56
I may have missed it, but do you have a link to the first artical.

It is also good practise to post an exert from an artical, then the link, rather than the whole artical. Some copywrite rules are dodgy.

Pawn Power
17th January 2005, 16:01
IQ test are bogus, however Bush is a stupid idiot and Clinton is suppose to be really smart, even though he is and asshole.

encephalon
17th January 2005, 22:45
I sincerely doubt Clinton has an IQ of 182.. nor do I believe Bush has an IQ of 91. My brother suffers from tubular sclerosis, has had half of his brain cut out, and still has an IQ of 88. Although I sincerely hate everything Bush stands for, the article is obviously a piece of poorly made anti-bush propaganda, and one that glorifies democrats.

And yes, IQ tests are bogus. Such tests rarely examine anything but mathematical and visual pattern-matching skills. Many types of intelligence exist.

IQ tests are a convenient method of maintaining the status of the ruling class. By showing that the upper-bourgeoisie have supposedly "higher intellect" than those of the poor masses, although a few select exceptions exist, they can convince people their ruling status is justified without any other questions, and if someone comes to power who works against their interests they can defame him/her by assigning a low IQ. It is for the most part an arbitrary number where intellect and ability is concerned. Don't take it too seriously.

act_5
17th January 2005, 22:57
bush is still and idiot, no doubt
but iq tests are complete bull
they prove your ability to learn
not how much you actually know

so it really doesnt matter how much can know
its how much you do. :D

redstar2000
17th January 2005, 23:34
We intuitively recognize that there are inequalities in human "intelligence"...some folks are obviously "smarter" than others.

But that doesn't count as "science" (in the eyes of some folks) until you "put a number on it".

The number doesn't have to be accurate.

The project to "determine" a ranking of humans in intelligence by devising tests to achieve that purpose has not been very rewarding when measured against actual intellectual achievements.

But if IQ tests have been disappointing, what are we to make of IQ estimates?

I think everyone has known for a long time that George W. Bush was not the brightest light in the marquee; that Dick Chaney is, for all intents and purposes, the "real president"; that people like Rumsfeld and Rice make a far greater contribution to policy decisions in the Bush regime than Bush himself, etc.

There's no need to "put a number" on these observations to make them seem "more scientific".

Bush, et.al., do not do what they do "because" of their "limited intelligence".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

(R)evolution of the mind
18th January 2005, 00:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:34 AM
But that doesn't count as "science" (in the eyes of some folks) until you "put a number on it".

It is a sad tendency in today's society that comparison of everything must be dumbed down to a single number. Price, IQ, school grades, stars in a review, you name it.

NovelGentry
18th January 2005, 00:30
My brother suffers from tubular sclerosis, has had half of his brain cut out, and still has an IQ of 88.

Just note that this IQ test may be using a different scale than the one your brother has taken. If I'm nost mistaken Mensa defines genius as 140 while other IQ scales place it higher, some MUCH higher.

encephalon
18th January 2005, 03:24
ust note that this IQ test may be using a different scale than the one your brother has taken. If I'm nost mistaken Mensa defines genius as 140 while other IQ scales place it higher, some MUCH higher.

IQ Tests are standardized and "verified" by a group of shrinks. Anything outside of this circle--which is kept secret so people supposedly can't "cheat"--is not considered an IQ test. Those given in a medical context are standardized.

The very essence of an IQ test lies in the understanding that 100 is representative of "average" intelligence, and individual scores vary roughly 10 points--i.e. if someone scores 100 they will generally have a range between 90 and 110. Anything below 80 is considered--as far as I know universally--representative of someone who would have a very difficult time taking care of themselves without help.

You are correct. Mensa defines genius level around 140. This is the most widely recognized number representing "genius." All scales, however, are based on 100 being average with a 10 pt. variation. It usually varies between 140 and 160 for consideration as "genius level."

The fact that they are simply estimating IQ's makes it even worse..

And, once again, other than pattern-matching ability IQ tests fail to measure intellect, and are extremely euro-centric. By IQ test standards, anyone outside of western culture is too dumb to live. It's usefulness is in justifying the ruling class (and the culture that bears it), not accurately representing intellect.

Rage Against the Right
18th January 2005, 03:48
I also don't think Bush has that low of an IQ. He may have a fucked set of morals but that doesn't make his dumb, barring his speaking abilities. I don't care if he was a presidents son, no one completley stupid gets to fly a fighter jet on their own. A lot of his military budddies that didn'nt like him still contribute to the fact that he actually did graduate top of his flight school class.

(R)evolution of the mind
18th January 2005, 10:16
IQ would more appropriate stand for "IKnowWhatYouThought Quotient". Except for the simplest and most obvious of number and pattern sequences, there are often many plausible answers, and either the "right" answer depends on you having a certain background (e.g. more complex number series requiring a certain degree of mathematical sophistication), or knowing what the maker of the test thought (non-obvious pattern sequences). Some word tests require you to remember a huge number of words to find a fitting one. Although even the concept of intelligence is vague, I claim that this has nothing to do with it. How fast you can do the test also does not necessarily have anything to do with intelligence. The sort of tasks that require the "greatest minds" are often very tedious thinking, and whatever quick answers one might able to provide depend on the experience more than anything else.

act_5
18th January 2005, 11:51
A lot of his military budddies that didn'nt like him still contribute to the fact that he actually did graduate top of his flight school class.

And monkeys can pilot a spaceship but it doesnt mean they dont whip feces at each other! :D

Severian
18th January 2005, 17:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:40 AM
NIXON WAS
THE SMARTEST REPUBLICAN AT I.Q. 155 –
So would you prefer Nixon then?

Who cares how smart Bush is...unless you're worried that the strategies of the evil empire may not be the best possible to serve its interests....

captain donald
18th January 2005, 22:48
Hmmm i hear scientists count points of for choking on pretzels? Also, brainwashing more than 50% of the USA isnt easy, its like saying hitler was an idiot, when he was just a really smart asshole. eh?

praxis1966
18th January 2005, 23:25
I hate to tell you this Encephalon, but I don't care if you do doubt that Clinton had an IQ of 182 or not. The guy only missed two questions on his SAT exam. It's pretty hard to do that without a ridiculously high intelligence.

As far as doubting that Bush's is that low, any psychologist will tell you that mastery of a person's first language is the single strongest indicator of intelligence without benefit of testing. The guy can't complete a sentence, and has trouble remembering simple cliches. Take for example the occasion where he said, "Fool me once shame on you," then he pulled a Porky Pig before mixing up the rest with the line from the Who song "We won't get fooled again." My mother, who teaches learning disabled 6th graders, don't seem to have any trouble memorizing similar sayings.


Anything below 80 is considered--as far as I know universally--representative of someone who would have a very difficult time taking care of themselves without help.

This statement is inaccurate as well. Last fall I coached soccer with a guy who teaches physically and mentally handicapped students. He had a little girl, an eighth grader, in his class who had down's syndrome and an IQ in the mid-50s. He seemed to think that at some point she would be able to hold a simple job and take care of herself. I trust his judgement since he's been in the field for over 20 years. Also, according to what I've been told by school guidance counselors and psychologists alike, 70 is the demarcation point between learning disability and mental retardation.

Don't get me wrong, I have my issues with IQ tests as well, but that's a horse of a different color (or a horse different in barns, as Bush would say). All I'm saying is that I don't doubt these results.

NovelGentry
19th January 2005, 00:25
To encephalon

I'm not trying to justify IQ tests, or the results given in the report. I was just saying it should be kept in mind. And certainly Bush has obvious below average intelligence. Thus if 100 represents the average, I would definitely agree he'd be in the 90s. As far as scaling up (towards genius) or down (towards mental retardation), that is what I'm trying ot say should be kept in mind. In the same way that I don't think it's possible to say Clinton was a genius, I don't think it's possible to say Bush is actually mentally disabled in anyway out of a normal "slow" individual.

NovelGentry
19th January 2005, 00:27
unless you're worried that the strategies of the evil empire may not be the best possible to serve its interests....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

As if Cheney and Rumsfeld would ever allow Bush to run the country.

NovelGentry
19th January 2005, 00:28
Also, brainwashing more than 50% of the USA isnt easy, its like saying hitler was an idiot, when he was just a really smart asshole. eh?

They said Bush's IQ was 91, not Rove's.

Rage Against the Right
19th January 2005, 02:04
Hmmm i hear scientists count points of for choking on pretzels?
Not that it matters, but I was there when it happened, I saw it, it as funny!

Militant
19th January 2005, 03:20
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp#presiq

Sorry, but that study is bogus.

Note: you can't link directly to the page, but it is the third from the top, for all you 80 iq pointers out there.

pandora
19th January 2005, 08:12
Oh that is hilarious! :lol: And to think the London Guardian as well as the Associated Press didn't do it's research. Well at least we have one member who either did or remembered the incident. I think that proves a lot for I.Q. it means little unless you are willing to do the research. And that includes as far as helping communities into asking people how to best serve them. Many intellectuals of supposed good I.Q. make this mistake, I hope to not do so when I serve.

Cheers to all, and yes you can increase your I.Q., for instance by learning to read, learning new languages and skills, in fact they are now learning some brain matter even regenerates in working with victims of strokes. Your brain can create new pathways as you open up you understanding. Amazing!

I.Q. has been predominantly used for disinfrachisement of people. I've worked with those who are mentally disabled who have very low I.Q.'s, I have seen people lose jobs because social services told their employer they had an I.Q. of 72 and should not be operating a fork lift. This is very sad, there was a time when a person could learn to do his job well without someone supposedly more intelligent depriving them of that job based off their assumption of their mental abilities. We are entering a world where those who are more affluent will use test scores of unfair tests that are culturally biased to push disenfranchisement.

I've taken the I.Q. test when i was being psychoanalyzed for having a safety pin in my ear and having blue hair as a punk rocker, I scored well, I would guess many here would score better than I. It's unimportant, I recognized by the vocabulary in the vocab part that the test was culturally biased, as you had to be exposed to certain terms more common in upper class white bougeois society to get the top score. Now also many exams rely upon access to higher mathematics courses, many of which are not open to all students, or impoverished schools.

Hero_of_the_Revolution
19th January 2005, 08:15
This is Bullshit,...
Bush's IQ is much more less than that......

encephalon
19th January 2005, 08:34
I hate to tell you this Encephalon, but I don't care if you do doubt that Clinton had an IQ of 182 or not. The guy only missed two questions on his SAT exam. It's pretty hard to do that without a ridiculously high intelligence.

No, it's hard to do that with a ridiculously effective or refreshed memory. Idiot Savants do such things with ease on a daily basis, yet ask them to tie their own shoe and they are dumbfounded. People can actually study for an SAT exam and increase their scores significantly. Does this mean that they have increased their intelligence? No. They have memorized concepts that weren't in memory before that are likely to be on the test.

A Commodore 64 could ace the SAT exam, given the right program and form of input. Yet, to my knowledge, a commodore 64 is definitely not intelligent.

Standardized tests, in any form, can not effectively measure intelligence. They can measure specific attributes, such as memory, but little more.


As far as doubting that Bush's is that low, any psychologist will tell you that mastery of a person's first language is the single strongest indicator of intelligence without benefit of testing. The guy can't complete a sentence, and has trouble remembering simple cliches. Take for example the occasion where he said, "Fool me once shame on you," then he pulled a Porky Pig before mixing up the rest with the line from the Who song "We won't get fooled again." My mother, who teaches learning disabled 6th graders, don't seem to have any trouble memorizing similar sayings.

Ohhhhh.. you think this is all accidental. My mistake. I'd suggest looking into speeches he made in Texas years before he was president. There is a notable difference; the question is why? Did he suddenly get stupified?

Regardless, speech is not an indicator of IQ.


...70 is the demarcation point between learning disability and mental retardation.

As I said, there is a ten point variation. An IQ of 80, in practical terms, is not significantly different than one of 70.

Has anyone considered the fact the Bush and his cronies might WANT the public to think he's dumb?

praxis1966
19th January 2005, 10:36
No, it's hard to do that with a ridiculously effective or refreshed memory. Idiot Savants do such things with ease on a daily basis, yet ask them to tie their own shoe and they are dumbfounded. People can actually study for an SAT exam and increase their scores significantly. Does this mean that they have increased their intelligence? No. They have memorized concepts that weren't in memory before that are likely to be on the test.

That's a nifty trick. I don't think I could have effectively trivialized the difficulty of a test such as the SAT in so few words. Stephen Hawking can't tie his own shoes, so based on your logic I suppose he must be an idiot savant. The fact is, you and I could probably never in our lifetimes memorize enough information to score that highly on the SAT.


A Commodore 64 could ace the SAT exam, given the right program and form of input. Yet, to my knowledge, a commodore 64 is definitely not intelligent.

First of all, I doubt it has the hard drive capacity. Second of all, even if it did, this is still a false analogy. A computer will regurgitate whatever you progam it to unlike human memory which is fallable. High intelligence is nearly always coupled with an extensive memory, low intelligence the opposite. I understand what you are saying, though. Multiple choice tests cannot measure anything aside from memory. However, when Clinton studied at Oxford I'm sure he had to write an essay or two in order to demonstrate comprehension.


Ohhhhh.. you think this is all accidental. My mistake. I'd suggest looking into speeches he made in Texas years before he was president. There is a notable difference; the question is why? Did he suddenly get stupified?

How nice of you to post links on a topic so obviously difficult to research. I'm sure if I tried I could come up with some transcripts of his speeches, but video of him actually giving them? Somehow I doubt it.


Regardless, speech is not an indicator of IQ.

It's good to know you're such an expert on the matter. Tell me, where did you receive your doctorate in psychology? I'm assuming you did your dissertation on this subject since you seem to be able to speak so knowledgably on it. In any event, if you reread my earlier post you may notice that I used the phrase "mastery of one's first language" not the word "speech" as have you. The two are by no means one in the same.

Anyhow, just to clear the air, I don't believe IQ tests are a good measure of the totality of one's intelligence, only those kinds of intelligence which lend themselves well to traditional academic learning. They are not, however, completely devoid of worth. Instead, I would argue that they are of limited capacity.


I.Q. has been predominantly used for disinfrachisement of people. I've worked with those who are mentally disabled who have very low I.Q.'s, I have seen people lose jobs because social services told their employer they had an I.Q. of 72 and should not be operating a fork lift. This is very sad, there was a time when a person could learn to do his job well without someone supposedly more intelligent depriving them of that job based off their assumption of their mental abilities. We are entering a world where those who are more affluent will use test scores of unfair tests that are culturally biased to push disenfranchisement.
There are also thousands of cases each year in the United $tates where people who are mentally disabled which receive government assistance, receive specialized services in schools, etc. based in part upon IQ testing. I would agree that these benefits need to be expanded, however. Nevermind that I think what happened to the person you mentioned is a tragedy and I'm surprised they didn't file an ADA lawsuit.

To conclude I'd just like to say that there isn't a thing any of you people can say that will convince me that Bush isn't a dumbass. I've just seen entirely to much evidence to the contrary. I've long thought that the reasons the Republican Party brain trust (Carl Rove et al) backed him from day one were two fold: (A) Electability due to name recognition and (B) his stupidity would allow the men behind the curtain to manipulate him more easily.

trex
19th January 2005, 11:10
Amazing...clinton has exactly twice as much IQ as Bush the lesser....hmmm.......

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp#presiq
(3rd one down. thanks, militant)

as to stop some of this arguing. Wanna know who had the highest IQ? Nixon. Hands down over both Clinton and Carter. That's what real numbers prove.

Oh! Bush's real IQ is here, based off the SAT scores. They say he got 124 and Gore got 134. Kerry had 122. What's yours?
http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

(R)evolution of the mind
19th January 2005, 11:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:36 PM
In any event, if you reread my earlier post you may notice that I used the phrase "mastery of one's first language" not the word "speech" as have you. The two are by no means one in the same.

It would seem to me that most verbal IQ tests measure one's memory and knowledge in the language, not problem solving capabilities. One could very well have a high score in logic and pattern tests but score badly in verbal tests, because one does not use fancy language so much. Also the fact that many people use english as much as or even more than their native languages make these tests a bit dubious. If you mostly read and write english, how well can you know your native language compared to someone who reads and writes it a lot? And yet, such a person hardly is at the level of a native english speaker in the language.

encephalon
19th January 2005, 18:33
That's a nifty trick. I don't think I could have effectively trivialized the difficulty of a test such as the SAT in so few words. Stephen Hawking can't tie his own shoes, so based on your logic I suppose he must be an idiot savant. The fact is, you and I could probably never in our lifetimes memorize enough information to score that highly on the SAT.

Steven Hawking has a Physical Disability disabling him from doing such physical activities. Idiot Savants do not. You've taken the argument out of context: idiot savants are proof that things such as SAT scores do not accurately measure ones intelligence.


First of all, I doubt it has the hard drive capacity. Second of all, even if it did, this is still a false analogy. A computer will regurgitate whatever you progam it to unlike human memory which is fallable. High intelligence is nearly always coupled with an extensive memory, low intelligence the opposite. I understand what you are saying, though. Multiple choice tests cannot measure anything aside from memory. However, when Clinton studied at Oxford I'm sure he had to write an essay or two in order to demonstrate comprehension.

First off, you misunderstand how a computer works, for hard drive space is irrelevant. And High intelligence is not always coupled with an excellent memory. Einstein was quite forgetful. The "absent-minded professor" syndrome is based off of the coupling of low mid-term memory yet a considerable amount of critical-thinking ability. The organization of memories is more critical than the number of memories.

As for Clinton at Oxford, this is completely irrelevant, most especially if one considers that Bush graduated from Yale. College is a measure of one's
perseverence, and what that perseverence is aimed towards, not one's intellect.


It's good to know you're such an expert on the matter. Tell me, where did you receive your doctorate in psychology? I'm assuming you did your dissertation on this subject since you seem to be able to speak so knowledgably on it. In any event, if you reread my earlier post you may notice that I used the phrase "mastery of one's first language" not the word "speech" as have you. The two are by no means one in the same.

One simply has to know a subject to speak knowledeably of it, not obtain a doctorate thereof. Autodidactism, with or without a degree, is an effective means of study. The acquisition of knowledge is entirely separate from societal certification, based on many more qualities than knowledge.

And, if you wish, I will state it in the same manner as you have: mastery of one's first language is not an indicator of intelligence either. People exist that show a mastery of language, yet little else.

Skeptic
20th January 2005, 22:27
I apologize the email I sent out about Bush's IQ appears to be a hoax. It was a good enough hoax to fool The Guardian, (see (http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,3604,523939,00.html) below). The Guardian published a retraction two days after the Associated Press drew attention to the error and other mainstream media news outlets to fall for the hoax included Bild (Germany), Pravda (Russia), The Hillsboro Argus (Oregon, USA), The News Sun (Illinois, USA) and the Southland Times (New Zealand).

I found it believable because Dr. Helen Caldicott (the antinuclear activist) personally interview Ronald Reagan and clinically diagnosed the President as having an IQ of about 100. I figured that George's Bush's IQ would be about the same or lower and that his mental state is much more unstable even though, we know from hindsight, that Reagan had a diseased mind.--Skeptic


In mid-2001, a hoax list of estimated IQs of the U.S. Presidents from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to George W. Bush was circulated via email.

The hoax email shows Bill Clinton having the highest IQ (at 182) and George W. Bush the lowest (at 91). The numbers claimed in the email were not backed up by any evidence but appeared plausible to some people. (Clinton's top ranking may have seemed more plausible due to his having been a Rhodes Scholar.) When the hoax was debunked, it appeared to many as a personal reproach on Bush due to its timing and the fact that Bush's IQ was reported as exactly half of Clinton's. Nevertheless, personal slurs upon sitting U.S. Presidents have been common fare in the United States at least since the administration of John Adams.

Perhaps because the issue of George W. Bush's intelligence has been a popular one, particularly amongst his political opponents, the hoax report was taken to be true in some quarters. The British newspaper The Guardian, for example, quoted the report in its diary section of July 19, 2001 and used it to belittle Bush (see [1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,3604,523939,00.html) below). The Guardian published a retraction two days after the Associated Press drew attention to the error.

Other mainstream media news outlets to fall for the hoax included Bild (Germany), Pravda (Russia), The Hillsboro Argus (Oregon, USA), The News Sun (Illinois, USA) and the Southland Times (New Zealand).

About.com reports [2] (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm) that linkydinky.com was the original source of the spoof. Indeed, their page on the hoax [3] (http://www.linkydinky.com/BushIQ.shtml) calls the report "our spoof". A copy of the spoof in full can be found there.

The sociologists and institutions quoted in the article do not exist. The techniques used to measure the IQ of the Presidents are not recognized means of measuring IQs. The hoax contains other factual errors — see the Snopes article ([4] (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm)) for further details.

[edit]References
The Guardian falls for the hoax (http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,3604,523939,00.html)
About.com on the origin of the spoof (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm)
linkydinky.com page - the apparent source of the spoof (http://www.linkydinky.com/BushIQ.shtml)
Debunking the IQ hoax on snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm)



Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidents_IQ_hoax"

Urban Legends
Origins: No,

this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.
The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register http://www.lovenstein.org/ and erecting a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute.

The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs — note that Bill Clinton's IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush's — while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.)

[Some noticeable errors: Although the study includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died in office in 1945, the report is described as covering presidents in office "over the past 50 years." Also not true is the claim that "all the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt" — some of them authored no books until after becoming president, and George W. Bush did have a book to his credit before being elected president, 1999's A Charge to Keep. Plus, if there's a "Swanson/Crain" system for ranking intelligence, nobody else seems to have heard of it.]

In any case, IQ is a dodgy enough concept even when measured by tests designed for the purpose — trying to guess not just relative rankings but specific IQ scores based solely on writings and speeches is bound to be error-prone. Based on President George H. Bush's extemporaneous speech-making, for example, he couldn't "speak with clarity" to save his life, but he was clearly far more intelligent than the insultingly low IQ assigned to him above. And a recent article reports President Kennedy's IQ as 119, far below the genius-level 174 ascribed to him here.

Update: As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001.

Gary Trudeau's 26 August 2001 Doonesbury comic strip features an invisible George W. Bush being told about his ranking on the presidential I.Q. ladder by an underling. (This strip appeared on the Doonesbury web site on 2 September 2001).

Karl
21st January 2005, 02:58
still, if you watched to presidential debates, its pretty apparent he's, well, stupid on the grounds of not really knowing what he says in his defense and the fact that he was obviously pissed everytime kerry nailed him on anything but iraq

encephalon
21st January 2005, 06:45
you are manipulated much easier than you should be.

jacobthehun
21st January 2005, 06:54
As far as I am aware IQ tests go on achademic thingys not real life skills so Bush may have had a low achademic score but he could have been rich in real life skills.

NovelGentry
21st January 2005, 08:34
I apologize the email I sent out about Bush's IQ appears to be a hoax.

Well you, Skeptic, sure as hell don't live up to your name.

:lol: Just messin' with ya.

Severian
21st January 2005, 19:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:34 AM

As far as doubting that Bush's is that low, any psychologist will tell you that mastery of a person's first language is the single strongest indicator of intelligence without benefit of testing. The guy can't complete a sentence, and has trouble remembering simple cliches. Take for example the occasion where he said, "Fool me once shame on you," then he pulled a Porky Pig before mixing up the rest with the line from the Who song "We won't get fooled again." My mother, who teaches learning disabled 6th graders, don't seem to have any trouble memorizing similar sayings.

Ohhhhh.. you think this is all accidental. My mistake. I'd suggest looking into speeches he made in Texas years before he was president. There is a notable difference; the question is why? Did he suddenly get stupified?
Good point - Bush's folksy little mistakes have been pretty effective in making him seem a "man of the people" despite his actual class background. A lot of liberals have played into this by proclaiming him stupid, and presumably themselves smarter, acting exactly like the "liberal elitists" that many conservatives frequently speak of.

Thanks for the snopes link, Militant.