Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: U.S. Presidental IQ Hoax
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 8, 2012
Author: Wikipedia
Post Date: 2012-05-08 12:59:41 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 404
Comments: 28

The U.S. Presidential IQ hoax was a mid-2001 e-mail and internet hoax that purported to provide a list of estimated IQs of the U.S. Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.[1]

The hoaxThe hoax email showed Bill Clinton having the highest IQ (182) and George W. Bush the lowest (91). However, the numbers claimed in the email were fabricated, and the sociologists and institutions (e.g., the "Lovenstein Institute") quoted in the article do not exist (a "Lovenstein Institute" website displays the "report", but it was created after the report's release).[2] The techniques purportedly used to measure IQ of the presidents are not recognized means of measuring IQs. The hoax also contains other factual errors.[1] When the hoax was debunked, it appeared to be a personal attack on Bush because of its timing and its listing Bush's IQ as exactly half that of Clinton's.

Reports about the hoaxPerhaps because the perception of George W. Bush having low intelligence is common and had been cited by the media[3] as well as by politicians, including a spokesperson for Tony Blair,[4] the hoax report was widely taken to be true. The British newspaper The Guardian, for example, quoted the report in its diary section of July 19, 2001 and used it to belittle Bush, although the paper published a retraction two days after the Associated Press drew attention to the error.[5][6] Other mainstream media news outlets to fall for the hoax included Bild (Germany), Pravda (Russia), and the Southland Times (New Zealand) as well as a few small U.S. newspapers. The hoax came back to life in March 2007 in Spanish-language media when the Press Agency EFE distributed a piece referring to it. Dozens of media (primarily in their online versions) reproduced EFE's text. Among newspapers publishing the hoax were El País (Spain's leading newspaper),[7] ABC and La Vanguardia.

Origin of the hoaxAbout.com reports that linkydinky.com was the original source of the spoof.[8] Indeed, linkydinky's page on the hoax calls the report "our hoax".[9] A copy of the spoof in full can be found there.

IQ estimations by academicsIn 2001 political psychologist Aubrey Immelman made an IQ estimation of G. W. Bush based on the SAT Reasoning Test results of Bush (1206) and Al Gore, who achieved IQ scores of 133 and 134 in his school years: "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."[10]

A 2006 study analyzing presidential IQs by Dean Keith Simonton of U.C. Davis appeared in the journal Political Psychology. Simonton's study analyzed the results of varied and often subjective historical material using the tools of historiometry. It estimated IQs for all US presidents, and validated the headline of the hoax, which stated Bush's was the lowest of any president in the last 50 years, though it estimates his IQ considerably higher (by more than two standard deviations) than the 91 suggested in the hoax report. It rated G.W. Bush second to last since 1900, with an estimated IQ of 125 (the estimates ranged from 111 to 139). Bush's estimated IQ was only higher than those estimated for Grant (120), Monroe (124), and Harding (124). The same study estimated president Bill Clinton's IQ at 149, behind only those of Kennedy (151), Jefferson (154) and J. Quincy Adams (169).[11]

The methodology of Simonton's study was questioned by Thomas C. Reeves who refers to an actual IQ test by Kennedy with a score of 119.[12]


Poster Comment:

This is for those who fall for hoaxes and don't even know it.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

#7. To: Turtle (#0)

Estimating IQ scores - especially of people who are long dead or who never took an aptitude test (at least one where you'd know their score) - is a very shaky project. About 60 years ago some shrink made a list of the estimate IQs of a whole bunch of famous people, leaving some (like Sir Isaac Newton) in the dust and some others (like Mozart) at the top of the pile. It turns out that his method consisted of counting up the stories about various clever things they had done AS CHILDREN. If there were a lot of stories they got high IQs, otherwise low IQs. The question of how trustworthy the stories were didn't enter into it. Those who had grown up in relative isolation, those whose childhoods had not been written up by admirers, those who didn't accumulate child prodigy stories, were downrated. Of course Mozart got the top honors; his family was making a living exhibiting him as a young child - they encouraged such stories.

So guessing at the IQs of famous men is very unreliable guessing. Someone like George W. Bush might have had a fairly high IQ - he grew up with well-educated parents in a culturally enriched home, among articulate people, and so forth. But a bare IQ score doesn't prophesy success at Everything; Mozart might have been a great disappointment as an engineer or a chemist.

Shoonra  posted on  2012-05-08   17:50:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Shoonra, Turtle (#7)

So guessing at the IQs of famous men is very unreliable guessing. Someone like George W. Bush might have had a fairly high IQ - he grew up with well-educated parents in a culturally enriched home, among articulate people, and so forth. But a bare IQ score doesn't prophesy success at Everything; Mozart might have been a great disappointment as an engineer or a chemist.

Even straightforward written IQ tests are not entirely reliable. My father, later a commercial pilot and flight instructor, was classified by the USMC test, during WWII, as an imbecile. Turned out they later discovered that the test had an unconscious bias in favor of a city vocabulary as opposed to a country vocabulary and the two were not the same. Thus the assumption that people who lived in the country were stupid.

And Mozart might just as easily been a genius at engineering or chemistry (which was just being invented as a science during his lifetime). Genius is difficult to quantify because it exists in realm well above the human norm - which is why geniuses are frequently disliked and even hated given our societal bias in favor of mediocrity.

"Genius does what it must
Talent does what it can
Me, I do what I get paid to do." ;-)

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-05-08   18:06:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Original_Intent, Shoonra, Turtle (#9)

My father, later a commercial pilot and flight instructor, was classified by the USMC test, during WWII, as an imbecile. Turned out they later discovered that the test had an unconscious bias in favor of a city vocabulary as opposed to a country vocabulary and the two were not the same.

Bullshit.

Many from rural areas fought. Lots of them were farmers. Did they classify them as "imbeciles" too? Or was it just your dad.

Xenu is getting angry and is looking for another million kittens...

PSUSA2  posted on  2012-05-08   18:11:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: PSUSA2 (#10)

Bullshit.

I see you are down to your usual standards.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-05-08   19:46:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Original_Intent (#12)

Bullshit.

I see you are down to your usual standards.

Perseverent Gardener "“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent posted on 2012-05-08 19:46:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

I love you guys.

tom007  posted on  2012-05-08   21:03:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 15.

#17. To: tom007, BSUSATOO (#15)

He's just upset because he's overflowing with hate and does not like being called on his B.S., and that I run rings around him when I feel like bothering with it. Generally I don't except when he is being a particularly nasty boy. And regular as clockwork, twice a day, he will actually come out with a sentient thought that is not clouded by irrational prejudice. I actually even agree with him once in a while, but don't tell him that he wouldn't believe it.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-05-08 22:45:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest