I’m not voting for Barack Obama because he’s black. I’m voting for Barack Obama because he’s brilliant.
__Oprah Winfrey, 2008
Perhaps no topic has fascinated the HBD blogosphere more deeply than the IQ of President Obama, with some bloggers estimating his IQ might be as ordinary as 116 and others estimating it might be as spectacular as 150. But as many of you know, a few years ago, some actual data was unearthed. Ultra-influential blogger Steve Sailer cited sources claiming that:
…during the 1987-88 academic year, ten African-American students from Columbia University applied to law school. Only two earned LSAT scores above the 63rd percentile, and those each had scores in the 94-98th percentile–i.e. scores between 42 and 45 on the 48-point scale then in use (166 to 171 on today’s 180-point scale). The other students earned scores that would have been extremely unlikely to qualify for admission, even considering factors such as affirmative action. Other demographic data from LSAC–including the fact that there were only two 27-year-old African-American students five years out of college that year who achieved scores in that range–further suggest that Obama’s LSAT scores were among the two from Columbia in the 94-98th percentile.
But as a responsible journalist, Sailer cautioned:
This sounds pretty reasonable, although I haven’t checked the methodology or sources…Of course, there’s a big assumption that Obama wasn’t one of the 63rd percentile or lower applicants, but assuming he was one of the two very bright black applicants from Columbia who applied to any law school doesn’t seem unreasonable.
If we assume LSAT takers resemble college graduates intellectually, and thus have a mean IQ of 112.8 and a standard deviation of 13.7 (the distribution for Americans with 16+ years of schooling on the WAIS-III), then we can start assigning Obama some possible IQ scores. If Obama was indeed one of the two top black law applicants from Columbia, then he had a score in the 94-98 percentile of LSAT takers (+1.53 SD to +2.06 SD above the LSAT population), so IQ 134 to IQ 141. On the other hand, if Obama was no better than the 63rd percentile, then that would imply a score no higher than +0.33 SD above the LSAT population), so IQ 117 or less. So which is more likely, an IQ pushing 140, or an IQ below 118?
Evidence for an IQ around 140
1) Academic achievements: Obama graduated in the top 15% of Harvard; the most prestigious university in the world. Emminent law professor Laurence Tribe described Obama as the best student he ever had, out of thousands of students. While such over-the-top praise calls Tribe’s credibility into question, there is no disputing Obama got above average grades at Harvard.
2) Speaking ability: When Obama brings his A game, he can be extremely verbally skilled. Although liberals tend to exaggerate his brilliance to a ridiculous degree, even some extremely bright anti-Obama conservatives have acknowledged his talents.
For example, following Obama’s February 9, 2009, press conference, political analyst Dick Morris told Fox news host Bill O’reilly: “It was a refreshing change to see a president this articulate, this fluid, this intellectually dexterous. I don’t agree with much of what he said, but he was obviously very impressive.”
While conservatives often mock Obama for mindlessly reading a teleprompter, the press conference Morris praised showed Obama’s ability to extemporaneously answer questions from the media about complex topics.
3) Writing ability: British literati member Jonathan Raban crowned Obama “the best writer to occupy the White House since Lincoln”. Considering that writing is just something politicians do on the side rather than a skill they’ve obsessively practiced, it’s likely a good estimate of their verbal IQ, and if Obama was really the best of the last 28 presidents, then his verbal IQ would be at the 96.4 percentile of the presidential distribution. Assuming U.S. presidents have an IQ mean around 130 and SD around 12, then the 96.4 percentile of this group should be a verbal IQ of 152.
I remember English novelist Martin Amis telling talk show host Charlie Rose how angry he gets when people criticize Obama; that it was the equivalent of them insulting a member of his family. Amis was just so thrilled to have a true writer in the white house that he couldn’t stand to see Obama disrespected. Similarly, writer Jonathan Franzen told Oprah that Obama was his hero. However skeptics argue that Obama’s best writings were largely written by 1960s activist Bill Ayers.
4) High IQ physique: As I’ve previously discussed, weight/height ratio is negatively correlated with IQ, so Obama’s unusually low body mass index is very mildly indicative of high IQ, though it may have more to do with his East African ancestry.
5) High IQ temperament: Obama seems unusually good at staying calm, cool, and collected under pressure, earning him the nickname “No Drama Obama”. Hysteria is associated with low IQ, and Obama is the opposite of hysterical.
6) Adaptability I love to define intelligence as the mental ability to adapt whatever situation you’re in to your advantage. Obama displayed great adaptability in rising up to become the most powerful man on Earth, despite being black and having a Muslim name in post September 11th America. Of course skeptics argue that being black actually worked to his advantage, but that argument is mostly made retrospectively. Not long ago, the idea of a black president was considered unimaginable.
7) High IQ genes
A blog commenter who sometimes uses the name “Jorge Videla” stated:
…as noted by LotB, senior Obama must’ve been very smart himself. never mind the Harvard degree in econ. one of Obama’s half brothers earned a masters in physics from Stanford.
so either 100% black senior Obama was smart or he had a taste for and the ability to attract smart white women.
On the other hand, Obama also has a half-brother found living in a hut, suggesting the family also has some low IQ genes.
8) Opposed the Iraq war: The decision to invade Iraq was arguabley the worst decision in recent American history, so Obama showed good judgement on this most important issue by opposing it.
Evidence of an IQ below 118
On the other hand, there’s also evidence Obama isn’t brilliant, as another blog documents.
1) He was a mediocre high school student. A blogger named Vox Popoli states:
Obama graduated from my mother’s alma mater, where everyone takes the various college prep tests. He was not a National Merit Scholar, a National Merit Semifinalist or an Outstanding Participant. This indicates a ceiling on his SAT percentile…
It’s also worth noting that despite qualifying for affirmative action, attending an elite private school, being raised by upper middle class grandparents, having a father who attended Harvard, and being willing to travel far from home for college, Obama ended up at Occidental instead of an elite college. This may indicate his SAT scores were not great.
2) JFK’s tested IQ was 119. As commenter “Pincher Martin” noted, Obama has a lot in common with JFK. Both were handsome charismatic Democrats who offered hope and change and got elected President of the United States. Both are credited with writing outstanding books and both attended Harvard. If JFK managed all that with an IQ below 120, maybe Obama did too.
3) He’s an uneven debater. Obama notoriously flopped in his first debate against 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney and a 2008 Observer.com article noted the sharp contrast between Obama’s ability to give a great speech and his ability to debate:
Obama’s political star was launched when he delivered a dazzling address on national television at his party’s convention in 2004. His oratory was mesmerizing, his message inspiring, and his appearance and manner made him an instantly likable figure to millions of Americans. That Obama—Big Speech Obama—is tailor-made for television.
But then there’s Debate Obama, a hesitant, stuttering, easily rattled and mostly unsmiling public performer who litters his platitudes and “uh’s” and misses countless opportunities to throw his opponents’ taunts back in their faces. Debate Obama unwittingly affirms Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that he lacks the seasoning to withstand the scrutiny of a fall campaign and leaves those who have only seen Big Speech Obama wondering, “Is this really the same guy?”
4) He seems to have an unimpressive spatial IQ. He describes himself as “not very good at video games” and he’s compared his bowling skills to the special Olympics.
5) He shows problems with general knowledge. The ability to correctly answer general knowledge questions is one of the strongest indicators of IQ and it’s an ability Obama sometimes appears to lack. At times he’s seemed confused about the number of states in America, the size of the national debt, the pronunciation of certain words, and even his own birthday. While he may have pretended to not know the size of the debt because he didn’t want to admit how big it was, and his other mistakes were likely influenced by fatigue, it does make me doubt he’d do well on Jeopardy.
Knowledge problems have sometimes emerged in the very field he studied. Right-wingers claim Obama somehow used powerful connections to get into Harvard, and although his grades were good, Obama’s legal knowledge was questioned when he stated the following in 2012:
Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”
This caused one blogger to write:
Lochner v. New York is one of the most important cases in Constitutional Law. How could someone who was supposed to be a professor of Constitutional Law at a top-14 law school not know that Lochner v. New York was about the Supreme Court overturning a New York STATE statute and not a federal statute? And then he was thirty years off because Lochner was decided in 1905.
I used to think Obama earned his magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, but now I have to wonder.
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh went on an amusing rant about Obama’s law school grades:
6) No evidence of math talent. Despite having an economist father and a physicist half-brother, there’s no evidence Obama has inherited the family math genes. On the contrary he jokes that he can’t help his daughters with ninth grade math. Interestingly Bill Clinton also claimed he couldn’t help his daughter with math homework beyond the eighth grade.
7) No evidence of large brain size. A photograph of Obama in the Situation Room during the Osama Bin Laden raid made his head look so tiny that conspiracy theorists speculated the image was photosphopped.
(Credit: Official White House photo by Pete Souza)
Social conservative Bryan Fischer stated:
I encourage you to go look at that picture, look at the size of his head compared the size of the head of everybody else in the room. Even people standing in the back of the room, their heads are bigger than his head.
In addition, Obama has stated that as a kid, he was bullied for having big ears. This suggests he might not have a big head, because the smaller the head, the bigger the ears appear by comparison. Indeed a community of severely small headed people (microcephalics) in Pakistan are known as the “rat children” because their ears are too large for their heads, creating a rat-like appearance.
8) Low IQ habits: For someone who’s supposed to be a constitutional professor and literary writer, it is somewhat surprising to learn that Obama smokes and is obsessed with sports. Smoking is negatively correlated with IQ, as are low brow media preferences. On the other hand, Obama does appear to be a fan of literary novels.
Expected IQ of a Harvard magna cum laude
Having reviewed the evidence that Obama has a genius IQ (around 140) or merely above average IQ (below 118), it’s time for me to make a decision. I think people doubt Obama’s intelligence, largely because he’s considered black, so it’s instructive to ask how smart people would consider Obama if they stopped viewing him as a black American, and just viewed him as an American. What would be the expected IQ of an American who graduated magna cum laude at Harvard and then on top of that, went on to be president of the United States?
There are about 271,000 former Harvard students living in America, and of those, only about 41,000 could have graduated at the top 15% of whatever they studied there. Assuming Harvard’s the best school in America, and assuming there are about 226 million Americans old enough to be former Harvard students, that means Harvard’s top students are the top one in 5512 most academically successful Americans. Since some are even beyond that, that puts them the top one in 11,000 on average. In other words, if we forced American academic success to fit a Gaussian curve, with primary school dropouts on the far left, and your average American in the middle, Harvard’s top students would be +3.73 standard deviations (SD) to the right. Given the 0.65 correlation between IQ and academic success, we would expect a magna cum laude Harvard student to have an IQ of 0.65(3.73 SD) = 2.42 SD or IQ 136.
This may sound kind of low, because based on their SATs and LSATs, Harvard students seems to have IQ equivalents of around 140, and the top Harvard students should be smarter still. But keep in mind that because Harvard students are specifically selected for high SAT or LSAT scores, they probably regress to the mean on official IQ tests. For example, a sample of Harvard students had a mean IQ around 130 when given an abbreviated version of the Wechsler. If the mean of Harvard students is 130, you’d expect the magna cum laude types to be only somewhat higher (IQ 136ish), given that the correlation between IQ and grades, especially at the university level, is very far from perfect.
IQ of Harvard magna cum laude who becomes President of the United States
An average IQ of 136 suggests Harvard magna cum laudes are brilliant, but a Harvard magna cum laude who then goes on to become arguably the most powerful man on Earth, is likely even smarter still, because he was able to adapt to not only school, but life. How much smarter? Assuming only about one in 19 million Americans becomes President of the United States, and normalizing the distribution, becoming President makes you 5.33 SD more powerful than the average American. Assuming the correlation between IQ and power, is similar to the correlation between IQ and income (about 0.4), we would expect the average U.S. president to have an IQ of 0.4(5.33 SD) = 132, and indeed if you average the few known IQs of American presidents, you get a figure very close to that.
Of course the average U.S. president was not a top student at Harvard, and the average top Harvard student is not a U.S. president. What would be the expect IQ of an American who achieved both those honors?
In order to answer that question, we must use a technique that an incredibly brilliant Promethean taught me many years ago: Multiple regression. Assuming a 0.65 correlation between IQ and academic success, and a 0.4 correlation between IQ and power, and assuming a 0.4 correlation between academic success and power, the following equation can be built, which allows you to predict one’s IQ from both variables independent of one another:
IQ = 0.58(academic success) + 0.17(power)
Thus a person who is +3.73 SD in academic success, and +5.33 SD in power, the equation would be:
IQ = 0.58(3.73 SD) + 0.17(5.33 SD)
IQ = 2.16 SD + 0.91 SD
IQ = 3.07 SD
So statistically, a Harvard magna cum laude who goes on to become the President of the United States should have an IQ of +3.07 SD or IQ 146. Of course this analysis is based on Americans as a whole. It ignores Obama’s race.
What happens when race is factored in?
For as long as IQ tests have existed, blacks Americans have scored about 15 points lower than white Americans. One interesting fact is that (partly because of affirmative action) this same 15 point IQ gap even exists among elites. On page 374 of his book Coming Apart Charles Murray reported the following IQs for educated Americans:
Whites with a bachelors degree: IQ 113.3
Blacks with a bachelor degree: IQ 99.1
Whites with a masters degree: IQ 116.9
Blacks with a masters degree: IQ 101.7
Whites with a PhD or professional degree: IQ 125.6
Blacks with a PhD or professional degree: IQ 112.2
As can be seen, at each level of accomplishment, blacks score roughly 15 points lower than whites. So if the theoretic average white Harvard magna cum laude who becomes president of the United States would have an IQ of 146, a black Harvard magna cum laude President of the United States would be expected to have an IQ 15 points below 146, so 131. However since Obama is a second generation African immigrant, and the children of these highly selected African immigrants score only about 10 points lower than whites, let’s deduct only 10 points from 146. And considering he’s half white, let’s instead deduct only half of those 10 points, which gives an IQ around 140 (smarter than more than 99.5% of Americans). Although 140 is an extremely high estimate, especially given some of the dumb things Obama has said, on balance, I think it’s believable.
…as are low brow media preferences…
like:
Oprah
horror movies
Wolf Blitzer
anything on a big screen tv
pp gets her prole on again:
as a matter of fact all tv other than sports at the highest level and all movies are considered stupid by non-proles.
these include the Olympics and the World Cup and not much else.
in a scene from Barbarians at the Gate Tulsa native and LBO-meister Henry Kravis is depected watching NFL football. that’s actually realistic. or as the greatest movie director ever, Kubrick, said of tennis, it was higher drama than any movie. etc.
sports high brow?
you shall not decide what is high brow and what is low, based on what you are interested in…
The overall estimate is more or less correct based on the ‘usual’ assumptions of HBDers.
Although you must differentiate between the skill level of Harvard undergraduates and Harvard graduates. Law school candidates and others at that level have been tested twice.
1) alone outweighs the bottom 5. Anon grading, cutthroat environment, smart individuals.
The ‘general knowledge’ prong is silly. All smart individuals make errors and gaffes. The Lochner mishap demonstrates an overall approach to the law more than it does any particular deficiency. The principle in Lochner was that a right to economic due process or “liberty to contract” existed and curtailed the government’s — state or federal — ability to regulate commerce. So to fuss about whether it was a state or federal law is beside the point. If the state police power couldn’t violate this right, any federal law that violated the right would have also fallen.
Would Obama look good saying that while arguing the case on appeal? Of course not. Outside of that context does it matter? No….if anything it may indicate that he is more concept-oriented than particular-oriented.
—-
Meanwhile….
Is your final defense of your nutrition theory that studies showing only .8-1.4 SD depression in cases of severe malnutrition have failed to account for upward IQ regression?
‘But then there’s Debate Obama, a hesitant, stuttering, easily rattled and mostly unsmiling public performer who litters his platitudes and “uh’s” and misses countless opportunities to throw his opponents’ taunts back in their faces. ‘
This is also stupid. People thought Obama’s debating was ‘bad’ because people don’t listen to debates. They just go off of demeanor and apparent confidence. Garbage.
Not only that, but Mitt Romney is no slouch. He went to Stanford, then to Harvard Law School. He enrolled in one of the first JD/MBA programs in the United States and graduated cum laude from HLS — back then it was top third.
So if Obama seemed “less smart” than usual, it may have been simply that his competition was much better.
Regardless, the public scored 2/3 of the debates for Obama.
“misses countless opportunities to throw his opponents’ taunts back in their faces”
Telling. Why engage with dolts?. ‘
why don’t you have your own blog?
I mean you seem to be the most prolific commentor I have ever seen…you are writing at least 1000 words a day.
If it’s a serious question……
Off-the-cuff comments are very easy and take almost no time.
I also type very fast. 120 WPM last I checked. Never took a typing class or anything…it just seemed to make sense that to be at all efficient on a computer, one would need to look at the screen. So an extemporaneous 1000 words takes me a little over 10 minutes total.
Unfortunately, WMC is right. It is very prole. I have learned to hide my typing ability.
Barack Obama Sr.’s childhood:
“Jacobs tells Fresh Air’s Dave Davies that the president’s father grew up in an extremely strict household. His father, Onyango, who later changed his name to Hussein, regularly beat his wives and children with a four-pronged whip. He also forced his children to recite long lists of memorized facts before their meals.”
“Barack Obama Sr. would have to recite his math tables while standing at the table before he could have any food,” Jacobs says. “[Math] was a relatively new concept for Onyango … and he wanted his son to have this skill.”
“And when Obama Sr. later went to the village school, he was immediately recognized for his strong math abilities. A principal described him to me as the smartest boy in the school,” says Jacobs. “He was particularly good at math, even then. That would become his trademark and he would go on to become an economist, but even as a boy he excelled with numbers.”
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/11/137553552/president-obamas-father-a-bold-and-reckless-life
We can just add that to the Escalante, Kaczynski, Feynman, Faraday, and Mill file.
Barack Obama Sr. was something of a cad, drunk, etc…..Harvard made it difficult for him to complete his Phd because of his personal issues.
“Harvard administrators, the memo stated, “were having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”
An earlier INS memo from McKeon said that while the elder Obama had passed his exams and was entitled on academic grounds to stay and complete his thesis, the school was going to try and “cook something up to ease him out.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53968.html
law school applicants are not typical of college graduates. whatever the graduate or professional school, applicants as a group are above the mean of college graduates. it’s even true in the case of education. how far above the mean? idk.
and of course pp makes yet another mathematical blunder by equating LSAT percentiles with the deviation score of IQ tests.
one is normally distributed by construction. the other is not.
namely the applicant distribution has a short left tail and a long fat right tail. that is, retarded people don’t apply to law school, but IQ 160 people do.
so maybe Obama isn’t as smart as Elliot Spitzer who mad a perfect score on the LSAT and a near perfect score on his SAT. so Spitzer, the whore-r, is what an IQ 160 looks like.
law school applicants are not typical of college graduates. whatever the graduate or professional school, applicants as a group are above the mean of college graduates.
Wrong. Many who write the LSAT do not end up graduating from college despite their ambitions. There’s no evidence they are smarter than college grads on average & may even be dumber
and of course pp makes yet another mathematical blunder by equating LSAT percentiles with the deviation score of IQ tests.
one is normally distributed by construction. the other is not.
Wrong. Both are normally distributed by construction; what you meant to say is that a distribution that is normalized in a sub-population (LSAT takers) is not nessecarily normal with respect to the normalized general population.
I agree, but with the absence of better data, it’s the default assumption.
namely the applicant distribution has a short left tail and a long fat right tail. that is, retarded people don’t apply to law school, but IQ 160 people do.
Unlikely to be a big issue except for the most extreme scores
And you’d be surprised by how many very low ability people write the LSAT; those who grew up in high crime neighborhoods are especially interested in law.
And a lot of people give up on the LSAT or go in poorly prepared which lengthens the far left tail
Many 160 IQs would rather study math & science than law which shortens the far right tail.
We can speculate all day, but in the absence of data, normal distributions are a reasonable default assumption for this purpose
‘Many who write the LSAT do not end up graduating from college despite their ambitions.’
If we took the pool overall of those who go to college versus those who go to college and take the LSAT, I’m pretty sure the former pool would have a higher dropout rate than the latter.
‘& may even be dumber’
Highly unlikely.
‘And you’d be surprised by how many very low ability people write the LSAT; those who grew up in high crime neighborhoods are especially interested in law.’
What % these low ability people go to 4 year institutions, make it to year 3, and take the LSAT?
‘And a lot of people give up on the LSAT or go in poorly prepared which lengthens the far left tail’
It depends on what you mean by ‘poorly prepared.’ Very few individuals go in with zero or trivial preparation.
‘Many 160 IQs would rather study math & science than law which shortens the far right tail.’
160 verbal IQs would rather study law. 160 math IQs would rather study math and science.
What % these low ability people go to 4 year institutions, make it to year 3, and take the LSAT?
I think you’d be surprised. I once asked a university psychologist what was the lowest IQ she had ever seen in one of the university students she worked with. Her answer was in the 70s. And yet this girl with a borderline retarded IQ went on to not only graduate from university, but get a Masters degree.
There is enormous range of IQ among university students; indeed Rushton and Jensen have written about entire colleges in the American South where the average student performs like a 10 year old on reading and math tests, implying an IQ in the low 80s.
There are also students with learning disabilities, students from deprived backgrounds, students who are new to English, students who give up in frustration, all of whom would extend the left tail of the distribution of the LSAT
‘ I once asked…’
Not really. I’m sure there are outliers. But compared to the general college population? Much less.
I will say I enjoyed Spitzer versus Ron Paul
Notice that when Ron Paul is duly schooled, Ron Paul pretends to have “won,” “You’re a lawyer, you should understand.” Ah….
I don’t agree with Ron Paul that taxes are theft but he held his own against Spitzer despite being much older (ability declines with age)
Debating ability grows with age, until frailness sets in so you no longer speak as fast. Look at Reagan, look at Mccain the way he handled audiences of youths. Don’t look at Obama by the way who’s only got friendly audiences.
He only held his own in the sense that he didn’t start crying on the spot. He attempted to justify his position with what “the founders thought.” This is what’s known as an argument from original intent and it implicates the constitution. That argument loses force when there’s an actual amendment in the constitution to one effect or another. It’s akin to arguing that the founders never contemplated that the constitution would end slavery and then being shown that indeed, there is an amendment duly ratified to that effect. NOW TECHNICALLY, there’d be a decent counter-argument to the example I gave, but it doesn’t apply to the Spitzer-Paul discussion.
Here is a great example of the difference between smarts and norms — Glenn Beck, HS graduate “tertiary educated” Christology (admittedly it was Yale, but he got in on special recommendation many years after he had a radio show) class.
31:00-37:00
A norm asks a very norm question “why are political parties at loggerheads, derp?” Glenn Beck gives a HS answer. Spitzer gives a grownup answer and gives a civics lesson. This has nothing to do with the merit of his viewpoint, btw, in either this vid or the Ron Paul vid. It’s just an obvious difference.
He attempted to justify his position with what “the founders thought.” This is what’s known as an argument from original intent and it implicates the constitution.
It’s also what’s known as an appeal to authority. The founders are defining figures of American values, so their opinion should be given weight.
The fact that the constitution was later changed doesn’t retroactively change the opinions of the founders.
Spitzer was preaching to the choir. What he should have said was “taxes are not theft because the government creates the infrastructure for us to earn our incomes, and they’re entitled to part of it.”
‘It’s also what’s known as an appeal to authority. The founders are defining figures of American values, so their opinion should be given weight. ‘
And it accordingly loses force because their opinion is primarily useful in interpreting the constitution. So their opinions remain unchanged but much less persuasive: without that crucial tether, you’re just blah blah blahing. Ron Paul understands this, which is why he’s momentarily phased.
‘“taxes are not theft because the government creates the infrastructure for us to earn our incomes, and they’re entitled to part of it.”’
No, that’s vulnerable to many lines of attack along the lines of “only because they force us to let them, and inefficiently at that.”
fazed dur
And it accordingly loses force because their opinion is primarily useful in interpreting the constitution.
You’re reaching. Ron Paul didn’t even mention the constitution. It was Spitzer who cited it. And Spitzer had no rebuttal for Paul’s point about how the taxes of productive individuals were spent on a highly questionable war and were being spent on entitlements the country can’t afford nor did Spitzer have a rebuttal to Paul’s claim that you’re guilty until proven innocent; instead he just blathered on about how he pays his taxes with pride like a good little boy who never questions his government.
Ron Paul understands this, which is why he’s momentarily phased.
He was momentarily fazed because Spitzer confused the issue by going off on some esoteric tangent about the constitution instead of focusing on the issue: Is taxation theft?
Look at Reagan, look at Mccain the way he handled audiences of youths.
I haven’t studied the debate skills of those two individuals but I strongly suspect the ability to think quickly, abstractly and flexibly declines with age, although to some degree older people compensate by having had more years to acquire knowledge, but the ability to absorb it and retrieve it probably also declines.
You seldom see really old people in shouting matches. If you’re over 70 and on tv you are either a presidential candidate, and old hero like Chomsky, or that’s it. Ron Paul would have retired if a there was someone to fill his shoes.
Citing the Founders as an appeal to authority only works in an area where the Founders are most strongly accepted as authorities — i.e. interpreting the constitution. Take what ‘the founders thought’ outside context, and their opinions are simply much less persuasive. It’s taking the appeal to authority from ‘not fallacy’ to ‘fallacy,’ in one stroke, i.e. smart.
‘no rebuttal for Paul’s point’
Because that point is irrelevant. Unwisely spending or disposing of one’s rightful property does not mean that having that property is wrong or that the property was acquired wrongfully.
‘you’re guilty until proven innocent’
Because it’s a non-sequitur. ‘Taxes are theft because you are presumed guilty til proven innocent.’ That attacks the process rather than the right itself. A flawed process does not mean the right, privilege, etc. is corrupt or deficient: property is theft because I am not presumed to have anything I say I have, I must demonstrate that I actually own it. Doesn’t follow.
‘Spitzer confused the issue by going off on some esoteric tangent about the constitution instead of focusing on the issue: Is taxation theft?’
Nope. Ron Paul: Income taxation is theft because the founders…. Spitzer: there’s an amendment authorizing the income tax (founders now irrelevant). Ron Paul: irrelevant points that fail to demonstrate taxation is theft.
Ron Paul: destroyed and reduced to parroting oft-heard, but in this context, tangential talking points.
Citing the Founders as an appeal to authority only works in an area where the Founders are most strongly accepted as authorities — i.e. interpreting the constitution.
No, the founding fathers are American icons. Their opinions matter independently of the constitution. And when the constitution changes, it does not reflect the founding father’s original vision.
Because that point is irrelevant. Unwisely spending or disposing of one’s rightful property does not mean that having that property is wrong or that the property was acquired wrongfully.
No it’s very relevant. The government has the right to tax because they’re supposed to represent the people and do what’s best for the country. If they’re spending the money on some other agenda, that’s clearly theft.
Because it’s a non-sequitur. ‘Taxes are theft because you are presumed guilty til proven innocent.’ That attacks the process rather than the right itself.
If the right is being exercised in a way that steals from others (by forcing them to jump through hoops to prove they have a right to their own money) it’s theft.
‘No, the founding fathers are American icons. Their opinions matter independently of the constitution. And when the constitution changes, it does not reflect the founding father’s original vision.’
Mmmhm, appealing to ‘icons’ rather than ‘actual respected in-use authorities’ is much less persuasive, period.
‘ If they’re spending the money on some other agenda, that’s clearly theft.’
Assuming all of that is true (I don’t) —> I give money to Bill to spend on behalf of my best interest. Bill spends the money on what he believes is in my best interest, but it does not turn out to be so. Therefore, Bill must be a thief. Does. Not. Follow.
‘If the right is being exercised in a way that steals from others (by forcing them to jump through hoops to prove they have a right to their own money) it’s theft.’
This does not render the right itself ‘theft,’ pumpkin.
Keep in mind I’m overlooking the fact that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ only applies to criminal trials (tax audits are civil affairs), which completely removes any persuasive force to the point, because that may be a bit of specialized knowledge.
Mmmhm, appealing to ‘icons’ rather than ‘actual respected in-use authorities’ is much less persuasive, period.
A constitution that’s been changed from the original vision of the founding fathers is also much less persuasive.
Assuming all of that is true (I don’t) —> I give money to Bill to spend on behalf of my best interest. Bill spends the money on what he believes is in my best interest, but it does not turn out to be so. Therefore, Bill must be a thief. Does. Not. Follow.
LOL! It’s incredibly naive to believe people in government don’t have their own agenda and are just innocently looking out for the public’s interests. For one thing, the president and congress are beholden to lobbyists who fund their campaign, and media who dictate their popularity. You can’t survive in politics if you pursue what’s best for the country at the expense of what’s best for influential elites.
This does not render the right itself ‘theft,’ pumpkin.
A car thief could have the right to drive a car (a driver’s licence) but if most of the cars he drives, he steals, that’s theft. His right to drive is not theft, but the way he does it is.
Ron Paul is making a similar point. Taxation is theft partly because the way it’s done results in people losing money they own because the government makes them jump through so many hoops to prove it’s theirs.
Keep in mind I’m overlooking the fact that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ only applies to criminal trials (tax audits are civil affairs), which completely removes any persuasive force to the point, because that may be a bit of specialized knowledge.
It wasn’t a legal debate. Obviously taxation is legal; Ron Paul was saying it’s not moral. Theft is a moral term, not just a legal one.
‘A constitution that’s been changed from the original vision of the founding fathers is also much less persuasive.’
It depends on how it was ‘changed.’ If the change is interpretive, then the point has persuasive force. If the change comes from a method explicitly authorized by the document itself, then it’s a non-sequitur — ratification of new amendments is considered the key strength of the constitution.
‘ It’s incredibly naive…’
If Bill believes that Bill’s agenda is in my best interest and unwisely spends the money I gave him on it, he still isn’t a thief.
‘His right to drive is not theft, but the way he does it is.’
Good, you agree that the right is not theft even with this line of reasoning. Therefore indeed, it is a non-sequitur.
‘Ron Paul is making a similar point’
No he isn’t. He’s sloppily saying taxation is theft and trying to cruise on the bald tires of ‘at the point of a gun.’ So taxation is theft qua taxation before we even get to the process. My guess is that he is leaving the association with process implicit (I’m assuming in his favor, Ron Paul seems fairly smart), because he knows that if makes an explicit connection, any lawyer will rip him to shreds about the different types of process we have in relation to specific proceedings. But he may not even be ware of the difference.
‘Obviously taxation is legal; Ron Paul was saying it’s not moral. Theft is a moral term, not just a legal one.’
I already overlooked that fact because not everyone watching would know such a thing (if they were conversant in civics they would but…). However, I don’t agree with this characterization. Ron Paul attempted to use legal terms and invoke legal concepts to support his argument. Spitzer cut him off and reduced him to pontificating about ‘what’s moral.’
If Bill believes that Bill’s agenda is in my best interest and unwisely spends the money I gave him on it, he still isn’t a thief.
But Bill knows his agenda comes at the expense of yours, thus he’s a thief.
No he isn’t. He’s sloppily saying taxation is theft and trying to cruise on the bald tires of ‘at the point of a gun.’ So taxation is theft qua taxation before we even get to the process. My guess is that he is leaving the association with process implicit (I’m assuming in his favor, Ron Paul seems fairly smart), because he knows that if makes an explicit connection, any lawyer will rip him to shreds about the different types of process we have in relation to specific proceedings. But he may not even be ware of the difference.
Swank, stop obsessively splitting hairs that no one watching even cares about. Ron Paul made his points succinctly with powerful examples. Spitzer was tedious.
Kennedy’s IQ only being 120 is the best argument that Obama’s isn’t much higher.
There may be some tendency for some in the HBD community to underestimate the ability of average and below-average IQs.
If by best you mean worst, sure.
Kennedy never went to HLS.
End of comparison.
fine, you can say it’s 140; i can say it’s 120. This topic of Obama’s IQ has been done to death, anyway.
But JFK went to Harvard.
Do you have evidence Harvard Law School is harder to get into than Harvard in general?
The median SAT for Harvard in general seems to equate to a similar IQ to the median LSAT at Harvard Law (though students at both schools would probably regress to the mean on an official IQ test)
Now you can argue that Harvard was easier to get into JFK’s day but it’s hard to say given how few people even went to college in JFK’s day
‘Do you have evidence Harvard Law School is harder to get into than Harvard in general?’
The evidence is simple. 99 percent in the HS junior-SAT-population is not the same as 99-tile in the college graduate population. The latter is much more difficult to crack.
While HLS likes to boast that about 170+ undergraduate institutions are represented in its entering class, the % breakdown is more like this: huge % from elite undergrad institutions, lucky lotto ticket for 1 from non-elite institutions.
Therefore, most of the student body are good enough to get tested once for entry into the ivy league, then score high again to remain there.
IIRC, a Harvard undergraduate‘s average LSAT score was something like 162. That’s nearly an SD lower than what HLS requires. That may indeed reflect some regression. But it also reflects the test-taking population, as a whole, being smarter.
The median SAT at Harvard is 1490 which equates to an IQ of 144 according to popular conversions:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/satiq.aspx
The median LSAT at Harvard law is 173.5 which equates to an IQ of 138 according to popular conversions:
http://lawschooli.com/lsat-iq-conversion/
Now I don’t use either of these sources because I like to create my own, but it’s ironic that they have Harvard law students scoring 6 points lower than Harvard undergrads.
And for the record, I think both groups would regress precipitously to the mean on an official IQ test.
Therefore, most of the student body are good enough to get tested once for entry into the ivy league, then score high again to remain there.
Are you sure? I imagine that once you’re in the Ivy League, the standards for staying in get lower, so it might not be equivalent to meeting Ivy League standards twice. I suspect it’s the people applying from crappy colleges that need the really high LSAT scores
IIRC, a Harvard undergraduate‘s average LSAT score was something like 162. That’s nearly an SD lower than what HLS requires. That may indeed reflect some regression. But it also reflects the test-taking population, as a whole, being smarter.
I think it reflects regression. As I mentioned in this blog post we saw the same thing when Harvard undergrads took an abbreviated version of the Wechsler IQ test and scored way lower than they did on the SAT which was used to select them. The SAT overestimates the IQ of Harvard undergrads just like the LSAT overestimates the IQ of Harvard law students, but the LSAT gives an accurate IQ for Harvard undergrads.
The LSAT IQ chart you’re using assumes a college graduate IQ of 105. Previously, you have stated that you disagree with that assumption.
If we use your assumption of 113 SD 13.2, then a 173 is 2.3 SDs from the mean and therefore 143.
Plus, according to MENSA, pre-1994 they took SAT scores in the 98th-tile. MENSA took LSAT scores in the 95th percentile. MENSA still considers the LSAT to correlate highly with IQ, MENSA no longer considers the SAT to correlate highly enough with IQ. HLS qualifying LSATs have pretty much always been > than 99th-tile. So scores in equivalent percentiles on both tests probably are different.
Plus, the SAT was redone again in 2005, so I’m not sure if that SAT I to IQ conversion remains accurate.
Further, a 162 LSAT would come out to ~ 128 IQ under your assumptions, which gibes with the actual tested IQ of Harvard undergraduates.
100+44*.6 = 126 = sounds about right.
Since a high % of incoming HLS students have essentially transferred from elite Ivies, they have been tested twice and have thus already regressed. The vast majority have done so, so we’d expect something slightly less than a 144 IQ overall. If 143 is the observed value, then removing the remaining error would reasonably leave us at around 140.
‘I imagine that once you’re in the Ivy League, the standards for staying in get lower, so it might not be equivalent to meeting Ivy League standards twice’
If you’re “specially qualified,” as in legacy or minority, that’s plausible. If you’re otherwise normal, then it’s a fat chance. Even then, I’d say something like 168 + Ivy + strong GPA is required.
‘we saw the same thing when Harvard undergrads took an abbreviated version of the Wechsler IQ test and scored way lower than they did on the SAT which was used to select them. ‘
I don’t disagree that some of it is regression. I believe that SDs on the LSAT don’t correspond to IQ SDs. If you converted them to IQ, I imagine they’d get progressively smaller. 1 SD is probably a full SD. But the next SD on the LSAT is probably half that size in IQ and so on and so on.
Then again, MENSA seems to believe it’s just that college graduates are stupid. Ergo, 1.64 * 15 ~ 25 + 105 = 130.
If Harvard Law students have an LSAT IQ of 143 and the average Harvard Law student was an elite school undergrad (questionable), they would still regress to the mean, but it would be the mean of elite college students.
Let’s say elite college students have a mean LSAT IQ of 126, and that the LSAT correlates 0.5 with IQ among elite college students (range restriction).
Then Harvard Law students should have an IQ of: 0.5(143 – 126) + 126 = 135
So even though Harvard undergrads have an IQ of 143 on the SAT just like Harvard law students have an IQ of 143 on the LSAT, Harvard law students are probably smarter because they regress to the Ivy League mean, while Harvard undergrads regress to a more general mean
That’s true. It’s imprecise to say no regression. The general point is that most of them had comparably high SATs and then received comparably high LSATs.
But it seems like I was wrong about the undergrad LSAT.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/760585-mean-lsat-scores-at-top-universities.html
166 is the Harvard datapoint. But most of the ivies are between 163-166.
JFK is the 2nd most psychopathic president and had a 120 iq.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/09/which-us-president-was-the-biggest-psychopath.php
Psychopathy makes up for a lack of iq. One indication of JFK’s psychopathy was his consistent cheating before and during his presidency. Obama is not a philanderer, therefore he isn’t nearly as psychopathic, therefore his iq must be higher than 120.
Not only can psychopathy compensate for limited IQ, it’s probably correlated with it.
To Pumpkinperson.
I found the original poster’s misinterpretation of the article a bit silly, but your follow up claim just ludicrous. Where do you pull these things from – thin air?
And then below, do you honestly think cranial size predict intellect? If so that would make every professional football player in the US a freakin’ genius. And of course we know that Stephen Hawking’s head is not really all that large.
Are you honestly just holding a contest to see how many preposterous claims you can make before someone notices?
And then below, do you honestly think cranial size predict intellect? If so that would make every professional football player in the US a freakin’ genius. And of course we know that Stephen Hawking’s head is not really all that large
There is a positive correlation between IQ and cranial size, but because head size is only a crude measure of brain size, and because many other brain properties besides overall size are involved in intelligence, the correlation is weak, which means there are some tiny headed geniuses and some huge headed morons. However even weak correlations can have big effects at the extremes. For example, people with cranial circumferences less than 19 inches are always mentally impaired:
By contrast, “America’s smartest man” has an astonishing 25.5″ head circumference:
There’s no question that cranial capacity and intellect are linked. Brain size more than tripled in the last 4 million years as primates evolved from apes to humans. Controlling for body size, humans have the largest brains on the planet and are the smartest animal on the planet.
To Sheilah–I don’t think you understand a correlation where r < 1, let alone a correlation where r is much < 1. Please Google image "weak positive correlation". (I think Pumpkin said r between cranial circumference and I.Q. is only .23). You will find scatter plots with a significant number of anomalies. In a graph where cranial circumference is on the x axis and I.Q. is on the y axis, those anomalies would be big-headed less intelligent people and small-headed bright people.
And btw, there are very bright NFL players. Wonderlic test scores:
Aaron Rodgers – 35 (first-round pick in the 2005 NFL Draft)[30]
Colin Kaepernick – 37 (second-round pick in the 2011 NFL Draft)
Tony Romo – 37 (undrafted in 2003)[31]
Matthew Stafford – 38 (first overall pick in the 2009 NFL Draft)[32]
Eli Manning – 39 (first overall pick in the 2004 NFL Draft)[33]
Alex Smith – 40 (first overall pick in the 2005 NFL Draft)[34]
Calvin Johnson – 41 (first-round pick in the 2007 NFL Draft)[35]
Blaine Gabbert – 42 (first-round pick in the 2011 NFL Draft)[36]
Eric Decker – 43 (third-round pick in the 2010 NFL Draft)[37]
Greg McElroy – 43 (seventh-round pick in the 2011 NFL Draft)[38]
Matt Birk – 46 (sixth-round pick in the 1998 NFL Draft)[39]
Ryan Fitzpatrick – 48 (seventh-round pick in the 2005 NFL Draft; finished test in a record nine minutes)[40]
Ben Watson – 48 (first-round pick in the 2004 NFL Draft)[41]
Mike Mamula – 49 (first-round pick in the 1995 NFL Draft; second highest score ever reported)[42]
Pat McInally – 50 (fifth-round pick in the 1975 NFL Draft; only player known to have gotten a perfect score)[43]
I once read that Wonderlic Score x 2 + 60 = I.Q. Any thoughts on this, Pumpkin?
I scored 34 on a practice Wonderlic test on the Internet, so I’m guessing yes, those are good scores
Although I bet a some of those players received assistance on the test. Vince Young did when he re-took it and got a 16.
The brilliant offensive lineman John Urschel only scored a measly 43. But he’s published papers in mathematics. I wonder how accurate the Wonderlic really is…
Not that a 43 is that bad, of course.
Not only can psychopathy compensate for limited IQ, it’s probably correlated with it.
Yes. This is a topic that needs to be discussed/researched more in depth.
And Ms. Sheila, please read previous blog posts on brain size before making a statement.
That’s a great score, Lion! Higher than the average score for any profession, or so I’ve read. I don’t know much about players receiving assistance, except that McInally 100% did not receive assistance. (Strangely enough, he says the score prolly hurt his career!) He even retook the test many years later–for hahas–and got a 49.
If the formula is correct, 43 on Wonderlic = I.Q. ~146. Very, very bright. Prolly would suffice…?
“And Ms. Sheila, please read previous blog posts on brain size before making a statement.”
Yes, please do, Ms. Sheilah. Even if new research shows the correlation to be bunk (like Jorge Videla/Mugabe says it does), it’s always best to at least know the existing numbers before making a statement.
If the formula is correct, 43 on Wonderlic = I.Q. ~146. Very, very bright. Prolly would suffice…?
You’re correct, a 43 would be very good according to the formula. The average Phd mathematician is around IQ 130, so an IQ of 146 is sufficient to be well-published in the mathematics field.
And when I said “great score”, Lion, I meant your score. But of course the 43 is superb, as well.
I once read that Wonderlic Score x 2 + 60 = I.Q. Any thoughts on this, Pumpkin?
Sounds more or less accurate
“Sounds more or less accurate.”
Interesting. It’s funny to think an NFL punter had an I.Q. Of 160 🙂 But I guess that’s just prejudice speaking (“athletes are dumb!”). Statistically, there’s no reason to doubt that number, just reason to assume it would be very rare.
lol if you showed this photo to someone who had just woken from an 8 year coma and asked him to point out the president ..they would never guess
2007?
This would be a more appropriate game to play with Marty McFly…
spot the alpha in the room…
spot the smartest person in the room…
Obama’s IQ= (140+118)/2= 129
that seems about right; he’s above average, but no where in the league of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold
118 is less likely than 140, because the “points” in favor of 118 are all soft. The 140 category is replete with concrete evidence — likely LSAT, academic success. 140*.75+118*.25 = 135. That’s probably the lowest “IQ” you could make a reasonable case for.
Of course, there are several accomplishments you could add to the pro-140 column. For example, transforming healthcare. Clinton couldn’t do it. FDR couldn’t do it.
According to Larry Summers, Obama is a stickler for punctuality and order, unlike Clinton. Obama also reads. Summers said that with Obama, if he tried to summarize the memo at the outset of the meeting, the President would say ‘I’ve already read it…’ and move on. With Clinton, Summers was unsure, because Clinton welcomed the summarizing. Clinton also reasoned using personal, particular anecdotes, whereas Obama took information presented by experts and came to a decision.
http://time.com/3442276/larry-summers-obama-clinton/
I would say that Obama seems more typical of people who have high standardized test scores and attend elite institutions. Clinton is rarer because he was extremely commonsense and concept oriented, which has a sort of ‘falling down the stairs and landing on your feet’ charm to it.
If Obama has a small head and an IQ of 130, this guy must have an IQ of 200 https://www.google.com/search?q=joss+whedon
smoking cannabis is correlated with high intelligence
PRESIDENT Obama??? You’re canadian or american??
”Iq’, writing, self-promotion, math (sofisticated calculus 😉 ) or speaking abilities are in different levels, predominantly irrelevants to analyse intelligence demonstration as president. This explain why nations are bad governed. Appearence, not essence.
If iq does not correlate with smoking, “intellect”, smart personality or non-prole ‘cultural personality’ correlate very well with this bad habit. Not my case. TODAY, no have correlation between iq and smoking, but in the near past, every intellectual circles would lot of smart people smoking. Cigarrettes are like the old marijuana.
Exactly. Smart people are smart enough to know the habits of other smart people.
”smart people”… smart people made by culture, environment or white privilege…
swanky, if so, then blacks made a mistake of voting for Obama. And this is true.
Pumpkin, what would you rate David Starkey’s verbal IQ after seeing his impressive verbal take down of a jewish cultural Marxist (who herself has a high verbal-iq). He left her utterly speechless.
It’s hard to tell from such a brief exchange, but he’s probably above 140. But he didn’t defeat her through superior intellect alone. The physical aggression he showed pointing in her face and standing up beside her clearly rattled her emotionally. But it’s interesting how much larger his cranial capacity is than hers. You could almost fit two of her brains inside his skull.
You are far too generous. Maybe you’re just impressed by his British English.
You clearly don’t understand the dynamic of the debate.
1) She did this to herself.
She called the prof and the audience out on racism and xenophobia. The crowd was offended and against that notion. It’s more frightful to be disowned by an audience than to be debated by a xenophobic prof.
2) The prof said nothing intellectually challenging.
He said nothing in an original or talented way. He choked her up by using likely faulty info that he gleaned from emails. It is not outstandingly intelligent to mention gossipy info you know. His reply came off as petty.
3) The prof’s reply lacked relevance. She mentioned money in America to say that he has a relationship with another nation that affords him benefits. It’s much like what immigrants want. She mentioned his peculiar case probably to scoff at his more privileged experience as a global citizen. He moved to talk about her speaking fees. That thinly relates.
4) She is correct that the finger pointing bordered on violence. He was also pretty condescending. The audience was OK with this. “You started it. You called him a racist.” Children.
140? Impressive verbal takedown?
Obama has poor verbal skills. Just watch the debate between him and Romney. Romney speaks way better than he does.
absolutely- Romney won two of the tree debates hands down, but dont tell that to the public……..
obama is a puppet, and… and… bad president. if he’s highly intelligent, is not for president. he have good figure, could be a actor, not president of amurrica.
Oprah Winfrey isn’t bigger head, their hair is bigger and cause this false impression. I don’t know where you see it?!?
It’s not her hair. In fact when she was a young news woman she says she lost all her hair because of a bad perm & no one could locate a wig big enough to fit her head so she had to wear scarves
She has a very long head so it shows in the profile
I doubt. I saw several photographies of Oprah in google images and i observe that she have low forehead and little head. Imagine oprah without hair.
Well, it doesn’t mean anything because the correlation between iq and head size is weak for women, than for men.
Her head is 25.25 inches around which is super super super super huge. Even when she was bald no wig could fit her head
Well, it doesn’t mean anything because the correlation between iq and head size is weak for women, than for men.
The correlation is weak for both men & women, but even weak correlations have very strong effects at the extremes
yeah long headed people are smarter, i think
Can be strong effect but we are talking about a individual. There are lot of jewish women with little head and are smarter.
Where is the data of Oprah head size?? You already to see the photos of Oprah?? You know as was made the measurement of Oprah head?? When you see frontal face of Oprah you can see a bigger head no account the hair??? Tell me, please.
I do not understand its obssession to prove it. But i can’t see where Oprah have bigger head.
I don’t know where you take this information, but she don’ appeared to be a bigger head.
Her head is super super super HUGE:
Oprah claims she has East Asian ancestry.
Oprah claims she has East Asian ancestry.
I think what you’re referring to is she took a DNA test which found she was overwhelmingly sub-Saharan with zero white ancestry, and a tiny drop of Mongoloid blood (Native American or East Asian)
I see hair and head. She’s dolicocephalic, like most blacks. East asians, bigger head, tend to be brachycephalic.
Lighter shades: dolicocephaly
Darker shades: brachycephaly
Doliciocephalics would be the alphas and brachycephalics would be the betas, in the Manosphere world. However, I find this to be not entirely true, when it comes to the Indian men from South Asia, who appear less domineering than East Asian men.
no peepee.
her hair is super huge.
marilyn’s head is super huge.
oprah’s head fits inside marilyn’s head.
No it’s not her hair. Even when her hair is pulled back tight into a ponytail, her cranium is twice that of other women:
Further, when she went bald in her early twenties, no one at the news station could locate a wig big enough to fit her head.
Her head has actually been measured at a jaw dropping 25.25″ around, which is about as big as non-pathological head size ever goes.
She warned Gene Siskel’s hat maker she had a super huge head, but he was still in utter shock by how huge. In his entire career he had never seen a head anywhere near that big.
PP, that’s a dumb comparison. That woman on the right clearly has a smaller average head (even for a negro).
It’s been reported that Barack Obama scored 111 on an actual IQ test.
I doubt that’s been reported by any credible source.
In your head ( ”i know iq is not ”intelligence”), a person who score ”lower” in iq tests is impossible to be president, because in your little head just the ”smarter” ones who could be president…
I see dishonest people all the time and their contradictions…
It’s possible Obama has an IQ of 110 or less, but it’s unlikely given his accomplishments
Also, if he scored 110, i probably would have heard of it given my interest in the topic
that I would believe…………… he certainly is nowhere near 140………………
IDIOT!
there are as many IQs as there are IQ tests.
obama DID score in the 98th percentile on the LSAT according to sailer.
given that the LSAT is given to a select population, his IQ on one IQ test, the LSAT, is at least 135.
but he may have also scored 111 on another IQ test.
these are totally reconcilable facts.
there is no one IQ.
but all IQ tests correlate with one another very well, like .7 to .9.
Well you could consider the average or composite of all the IQ tests you’ve taken as your one IQ
Or if you believe in g, you could define a person’s true IQ as what they would score on a hypothetical pure measure of g
Obama is clearly brilliant. His IQ has got to be at least 130 if not higher. Anybody who is a Harvard magna cum laude is brilliant. No question. Case closed. No argument. If you don’t think so, you a) most likely are a hater and have extreme biases or b) are yourself stupid and don’t realize what intelligence is.
Obama is clearly brilliant. His IQ has got to be at least 130 if not higher.
I’m very much inclined to agree. I think his IQ is close to 140.
Anybody who is a Harvard magna cum laude is brilliant. No question. Case closed. No argument.
That’s too strong. No matter how academically accomplished a group of people are, there’s always found to be a range of IQs, with a significant percentage scoring below 130. Even some eminent scientists have IQs below 130.
”Obama is clearly brilliant. His IQ has got to be at least 130 if not higher.”
PP words
”i know that iq is not intelligence”
😉
If he is so brilliant, why doesn’t he know benign facts like having fifty states in our country? There is no debate to having more states, since being a state is defined. I have known this fact since I was approximately five or six. How can a sane person who was born in Hawaii, not know that Hawaii was the fiftieth and last state admitted to the union?
Pingback: Oprah’s IQ | Pumpkin Person
I find some of the “arguments against” rather hilarious. I smoke; I can’t do math to save my life; I got lousy grades in high school because it bored me to tears (but great gpa in college); I only have an AAS, and I am terrible at sports & video games. My IQ tested @ 136 in my 20s with math on the test. (It tests 148 without math knowledge specific questions.) So, really, those things are far from definitive.
Thank you for your incredible wisdom.
PamO: no one said these things are “definitive”–that is, no one has said these traits and habits correlate perfectly w/ I.Q. Pure straw man, pure putting words in people’s mouths. Your data points would just be anomalies.
Also, sample of one…?
When writing an article about IQ, it’s best not to make spelling mistakes. It’s “arguably,” not arguabley.
Good, balanced article.
LOL! Thanks!
JFK was reported to have an IQ of 150, not 120.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office
Nope, that’s Dean Simonton data, which has pretty wild and inaccurate estimates. According to An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963 by Robert Dallek, JFK scored 117 and 119 in high school.
Pingback: Estimating the IQ of Vladimir Putin | Pumpkin Person
Greetings I am so thrilled I found your blog, I really
found you by error, while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot
for a fantastic post and a all round entertaining blog (I also love
the theme/design), I don’t have time to read it all at the
moment but I have book-marked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back
to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the great job.
Thank you very much!
“No evidence of large brain size. ”
Please. You would consider that as indicative of possibly not being that smart? How can you tell just from a picture?
” Low IQ habits: For someone who’s supposed to be a constitutional professor and literary writer, it is somewhat surprising to learn that Obama smokes and is obsessed with sports. Smoking is negatively correlated with IQ, as are low brow media preferences. ”
Again. Trying to infer anything about someone IQ because they have smoked(I see now evidence that he currently smokes or at least smokes with any consistency) and the same thing with sports. Seems like you’re projecting you’re own biases here.
“No evidence of math talent. ”
Likewise there is no evidence he is incompetent at math. There is no evidence either way regarding his math talent so you can’t you use that as evidence against him.
“number of states in America”
Oh please, He obviously knows how many states there. That was an obvious gaff. He was just got through with the primaries of which there were 57 of them in 50 states so he mistated that.
and far as knowing the precise number for the debt? Not sure that is even relevant as long as the president knows that its big and what caused(the big sharp increase in debt starting in the fall of 2008 actually wasn’t from big spending increases but a steep drop in revenues from the worst recession since the depression)
‘He’s an uneven debater.”
He is inconsistent for sure but he is capable of debating very well and the best example of this is when House Republicans invited him to Maryland in 2010 take questions from Republicans. Republicans obviously wanted to embarrass him but suffice to say they didn’t invite him to take questions from them again because Obama handled them very very well. Here is the Youtube vid of this
^^ No teleprompter too
So I think Obama is fairly intelligent and I bet he LSAT score where in that 94-98% range. Having said that I’m coming realize that the vast majority of IQ estimations for famous people are lower than what the estimate says and in a lot of cases a lot lower. Given that someone like fields medalist Richard Borcherds,was only tested(via WAIS) with an IQ 137, I think I’m coming to the realization that its much more difficult to have a real official credible IQ past 2 STDS than I originally thought. I could see Obama at least having an IQ 1.5 STDs but whether its past 2STDs I don’t know.
Having said that I’m coming realize that the vast majority of IQ estimations for famous people are lower than what the estimate says and in a lot of cases a lot lower. Given that someone like fields medalist Richard Borcherds,was only tested(via WAIS) with an IQ 137, I think I’m coming to the realization that its much more difficult to have a real official credible IQ past 2 STDS than I originally thought.
The correlation between IQ and achievement, however academic or intellectual that achievement may be, is a lot lower than most people think, so a person with one in a million accomplishment is often just as likely to have an average IQ as he is to have a one in a million IQ, and is often half way between the two.
I.E. (You’ve said) the median or average (I forget) IQ of a self-made Deca-Billionaire is 151.
However, it seems the median annual income among those with an IQ of 151, is no where near the billions.
Self-made decabillionaires are about one in 12 million when it comes to money, so they regress to being one in a couple thousand in IQ.
Similarly, people who are one in a couple thousand in IQ (151) regress to being maybe one in a couple dozen in IQ (6 figures)
In other words, the rich are not as smart as they are rich, and the smart are not as rich as they are smart.
a ridiculous article because the statistical evidence is so ambiguous as to be meaningless
bad numbers in equals bad numbers out, so the conclusion is dreamy at best……………..!
140 is way too high for Obama. I’d put him at 120.
Pumpkin, I have some issues with your methodology.
1) Senator Obama received nearly 100% of the black vote and a sizable bump in the white vote because of the historic nature of choosing the first black president. The formula you use for the odds of becoming president does not apply in Obama’s case.
2) President Obama’s inability to adapt to the changing conditions in the world (e.g. Putin’s actions in Crimea, Syria, and Islamic terrorism). Whether you agree with his solutions or not, no matter how sharply the threats change – Barack Obama does not change his statements.
3) His half-brother has alleged that Barack Obama is the son of his grandfather’s best friend, Frank Marshall Davis. This would explain why Barack Sr. left while Barack Jr. was only three months old. Maybe it’s true, maybe not, but it’s plausible. So Barack Obama Sr. should not be used in any IQ estimation for Barack Obama Jr.
This is bull. My brother was 6’5″ & weighed about 400#. He has a 183 IQ.
“My one family member disproves averages.”
Sorry, I’m not buying the 145 IQ thing. After seven or eight years seeing the man and hearing the man–it just does not fit.
To be clear, the article estimates he’s 140 (at the most)
I’ll give Obama an IQ estimate about 130 at best.
Clearly, he’s also smarter than a lot of other mulatto types, by having White and East African admixture. Most mulattos in the Western Hemisphere have West African genes.
Then there’s my speculation that Obama has traces of South East Asian – Hybridized Mongoloid and Arabic ancestry.
It is simply astonishing to read all of the stereotypes and denigrating assumptions by what I thought were intellectually superior commentators. How quickly several of you have descended into that pit. How very sad.
Anglo hatred?
It’s ironic that our first President with significant Sub-Saharan African ancestry had (although he was charismatic in speaking) a very humble personality (i.e. had identity problems), and was what some would (perhaps mistakenly) call “K selective” mannerisms.
You make a good point, but lower IQ blacks, who are his main constituents/voters, seem to get riled with tribalism and black pride, whenever there is a black leader on the horizon.
And…I repeat relative to the Alt-Reich;
Obama has been a relatively better President, for them…….
very “European” in demeanor, has genuine respect for other White achievements other than Americastanian ones………..
probably, considering he’s Mixed race, went through a stage of hating Black folk.
The only thing they would dislike him for is Police-Black relations, and since Blacks aint’ goin’ nowhere, it’s something they have to learn to do with…
Actually the white nationalist intelligentsia are almost fans of Obama. Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Israel lobby has less power with Obama and Richard Spencer has talked about wanting to write an Obama appreciation article.
“The intelligentsia”
I suppose some were too low IQ to realize he wasn’t the worst thing that ever happened to them, to say the least.
That’s true, again, Israel has become irrelevant to America, since Obama took office.
And for the very crazy anti-semites, Jews haven’t really “manipulated” Obama, like they did with Clinton and Bush.
Obama is a puppet with an IQ of 70 or below
Even if he was a puppet, there’s so much competition to be such a prestigious puppet, that above average IQ is generally required.
This is a very interesting article, well thought out and explained. I would like to make one point though. You made remarks that he has a smaller head. Contrary to the conclusion of the paragraph there, that would be an indication of his intelligence being higher. A smaller head /smaller brain suggests that the brain is more dense and has developed better more efficient neural pathways. So really it means he has a better functioning brain than the rest in that room
A smaller head /smaller brain suggests that the brain is more dense and has developed better more efficient neural pathways
No it suggests the brain NEEDS to be more dense and efficient to COMPENSATE for a lack of size, but in life we don’t always get what we need. The highest IQ people typically have BOTH a large brain AND a dense efficient one. The lowest IQ people typically have BOTH a small brain AND an inefficient one. Both properties are independently related to IQ.
Having said all that, I might have underestimated his head size.
”No it suggests the brain NEEDS to be more dense and efficient to COMPENSATE for a lack of size”
Some evidence about your statement*
I think jtalk is right…
PP,
again
brain size and IQ is a CORRELATION…
COR
REL
LA
TION
ALL ”higher iq ones” have bigger brains*
NO.
ALL ”bigger brains” score higher in IQ tests**
NO.
You are forgeting EINSTEIN example, is not*
And JEWS example…
Only way to make bigger brain a very-proxy to the intelligence again would…
stop to OVER-OVER-OVER-enphasize IQ and try to look for other pertinent perspectives.
Maybe MOST of the people with bigger brains have so-called SMART PERSONALITY**
”NEEDS to be more dense and efficient to COMPENSATE for a lack of size”
The brain NEED to be more dense to COMPENSATE lack of size**
i don’t think so…
You are creating a false-criteria here
if the brain is not large enough so ”he” need to be more dense TO compensate…
ALL ”higher iq ones” have bigger brains*
NO.
ALL ”bigger brains” score higher in IQ tests**
NO.
You are forgeting EINSTEIN example, is not*
I’m not forgetting a FUCKING thing. I said high IQ people TYPICALLY have big brains. From now on, anytime you think I’ve made a mistake, please re-read the text, because odds are the mistake is yours.
Brain size is to IQ as height is to weight. Height is just ONE factor that determines your weight, just like brain size is just ONE factor that determines IQ, and just as short heavy people and tall featherweights exist, there are low IQ big brained people and high IQ small brained people. But they’re the exception that proves the rule.
Even then just because one has a big brain doesn’t mean their IQ is high just like it they have a small brain their IQ is low. Einstein is the perfect example. He had more gleal cells than the berate human brain. That’s part of the reason why he was so damn smart.
Read into the story of Einstein’s brain and the Princeton guy who stole it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305
One can have a bug brain and no structural complexity and have a low IQ and vice versa for a smaller head.
Santo, lol I just said the same thing. Guess great minds think alike. =^)
PP,
you’re saying
because the brain is not larger ”he” NEED to be dense …. to COMPENSATE … to emulate the bigger brain.
compensate what***
no have nothing to compensate…
brain size is not the fundamental criteria to ”be” smart[er], period.
the way we say things matter, oh yes, absolutely.
Einstein brain don’t compensate their little size to mimic a bigger brain.
Maybe i over-analyse your sentence, my fault, but this is not invalid either…
Seems,
most of historically known geniuses on the past, namely european ones,
or have
shorter
or
bigger brains
I think if same think tend to happen with ashkenazis…
we have two types of jews
bigger
and
shorter brain ones
so many jews have little heads and so many jews have bigger heads or at least a bigger forehead ( a aryan trait, 😉 )
”I’m not forgetting a FUCKING thing.”
Please, ladies in the enclosure, =(
” I said high IQ people TYPICALLY have big brains. From now on, anytime you think I’ve made a mistake, please re-read the text, because odds are the mistake is yours.”
Ok, sorry… and thank you very much!!! =)
Do you understand my criticism here*
”Santo, lol I just said the same thing. Guess great minds think alike. =^)”
Sometimes you hits, 😉
not shorter
SMALLER
oh shit!!!
brains with legs…
Obama is a stupid fool. There is nothing intelligent about him. What little he probably had, got burnt out by drugs.
Just heard his answers to prince Harry quick quizz and he is good and fast. But don’t know if it entails more tha. A 115 IQ plus personality traits …. It was fun. We discover that Obama has become the stars best friend, even royal distant from him with a generation. We didn’t expect him to be a « fan ». But that is also more of a personality trait. It seems a bit prolish to me. Even people I admire wouldn’t excite me into being close to them . But maybe Asperger like condition is the cause for me . I can’t look for what I haven’t : familiarity feeling
Love you detail about ears . Everybody say I have extreme short little ears like a baby mouse . Never occurred to me it is because of my big head ! Thx le Pumpkin .
Happy new year to you and all your commentors and publishers .
A few sources have claimed that Obama’s ACT score was 30 in the 1980s which would equate to an ACT score of 31 today, which gives him an IQ between 135 and 139.
I guarantee that was made up
Why?
because there’s no source other than some ACT web site which converts scores from other tests into ACT scores. So they probably converted his supposed LSAT score I mention in this article into an ACT score. The same source claims Bill O’reilly has sky high ACTs and that’s just a conversion from his SATs which he admits were nowhere near as high as the internet claims.
Ah, ok. Thank you.