Fox news host Megyn Kelly has been in the news a lot lately, ever since Thurdsay’s Republican Fox news debate, when she challenged Donald Trump to explain the disgusting terms he used to describe women: “fat pig, animal, slob, etc”
Trump was able to cleverly adapt the situation to his advantage by saying “only Rosie O’Donnell” and getting huge cheers from the Republican audience who hates the super liberal Rosie.
However rather than just let Trump bask in the applause of his witty comeback, Kelly claimed Trump had demeaned other women. Trump was clearly annoyed, yet adapted the situation to his advantage again by saying “the real problem we have in this country, is being politically correct.”
More applause from the audience.
Then Trump said something seemingly stupid (i.e. not to his advantage) to Kelly: “I’ve been very nice to you although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me.”
This was seen by many as a veiled threat. But it got worse. Late that night he retweeted someone calling Kelly a bimbo and then appeared on CNN Friday night and vulgarly claimed Megyn had blood coming out of her eyes and blood coming out of her whatever.
This did not seem smart to me, because the same people who love Donald Trump, also love Megyn Kelly (an attractive host of the conservative Fox news channel) so why alienate your own base? This caused Trump to be disinvited from a Republican gathering, and even the right-wing Glenn Beck is siding with Kelly:
On the other hand, it might have been a brilliant move. If enough of Trump’s fans decide to boycott Kelly’s show, they could seriously hurt her in the ratings, and a lot other journalists, seeing how he damaged her career, will be too scared to ask Trump the tough questions in the future, paving the way for a Trump presidency. Seems like a longshot though.
I previously estimated Trump’s IQ to be in the 120s: smarter than most people who inherit huge amounts of money, but not as smart as a billionaire who is 100% self-made. But this was just a wild guess based on nothing but money, and could be completely wrong.
What might Megyn Kelly’s IQ be? In the clip above, Glenn Beck suggests Megyn is “wicked smart”. Fox news legal analyst Judge Napolitano suggested that Megyn is smarter than Hillary Clinton who I suspect is around 140. Kelley disagreed that she is smarter than Hillary, citing the fact that Hillary attended a much better law school than Megyn did.
It’s not where you went to school, Napolitano explains, it’s where you are today.
I thought that comment was hilarious because wile Hillary may end up the first woman president; Megyn ended up Fox news. Not to diminish Megyn’s incredible success in cable TV, but it’s not the equivalent of being the president. Though in Megyn’s defence, she got where she is on her own, while Hillary married into power.
Perhaps the best insight into Megyn’s IQ was when Howard Stern asked her how she did on the LSAT (or was it the SAT?). If I recall correctly, she said she scored around the 95 percentile. The LSAT is generally taken by college graduates. On a scale where white Americans have a mean IQ of 100 (SD = 15), all U.S. college grads have a mean IQ of 110, and an SD of 14, so the 95 percentile (1.66 SD) among them implies an IQ of:
1.66 (14) + 110 = 133
An IQ of 133 is higher than nearly 99% of white America and more than explains Megyn’s rise to the top of cable news, especially when combined with her good looks and charisma. As eminent scientist and blogger Bruce Charlton once noted: “Attractive women with big personalities have always been able to go a long way in any society – for example the Empress Theodora (wife of Byzantine Emperor Justinian) began as a dancing girl/ prostitute and there are many other examples”
But as Megyn’s IQ illustrates, good looks and good personality alone are generally not enough to make it to the top of America. You typically also need some very good g.
You misspelled Megyn Kelly. Change it so the mainstream news outlets can find your blog post.
LOL! Thanks. Fixed it.
PP:
It sounds that Donald said “…blood coming out of her whereever” instead of “whatever”, right?
BTW, this new font style is much nicer than the previous one which looked a bit low IQ. ROFL
I’m glad you like it. You clearly are a man of good taste.
http://www.nature.com/news/smart-genes-prove-elusive-1.15858
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/bad-news-for-intelligence-genes/
Looks like Steve Hsu might have good rebuttal for the failure to find IQ genes, but I’m not sure:
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2015/07/haplosnps-and-missing-heritability.html
What sort of status would Megyn Kelly have in Zimbabwe? She’d probably be a well-compensated exotic prostitute. That’s all.
Norms of reaction!
Uncomfortable truth: high class whites look down on hillbillies because deep down they know that all whites are inbred genetic garbage who can only reproduce their broken alleles through inbreeding.
Kinky hair dominates straight hair.
Wide, flat noses dominate narrow, high noses.
Dark skin dominates white skin.
Brown eyes dominates blue eyes.
Epicanthic folds (like the San) dominates round eyes.
Whites, being degenerates, were once the bottom of African society. They left Africa due to persecution. They were regarded as UGLY just like the albinos of Africa today are regarded as ugly, with their burnt, mole-covered pasty ass skin.
And here’s the best reversion to the mean: after a few thousand years on the top, whites will go back to being the bottoms.
What the…
Is that you playing around Mugabe?
Sounds like an Afro-centric nutcase who read a couple of pages out a behavioral genetics textbook.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915003712
That’s a fascinating paper.
Some specious reasoning here.
First, Donald Trump’s reaction may not have been smart but there are factors besides intelligence that affect decisions. I know this site focuses on intelligence but people here seem to think that humans act based upon conscious decision making. They fail to realize that we are actually controlled by evolutionary instincts that frequently override intelligent decision making. For example, sports is a billion dollar business that people don’t realize they are drawn to due to their desire to glorify physical achievement. Trump might simply can’t control himself and I’ve heard that his children are frequently embarrassed by his public comments and tell him to stop.
Second, the way this site predicts IQ is a little ridiculous.
I don’t know how you could estimate Trump’s IQ based upon money when it’s been shown that the correlations between success and IQ fades after an IQ of 130. Drive and self-confidence is probably much more important than IQ which this site conveniently ignores.
– “An IQ of 133 is higher than 99% of white American more than explains Megyns’ rise to the top”?????
Serious? There are tons of people who have IQ’s larger than 130 and many of them are unemployed. In fact, I believe one of the first studies on IQ found that the percentage of success among the very smart didn’t substantially differ that much with people with average IQ. In other words, most high IQ people do not succeed.
Especially in the field of TV journalism, I doubt IQ has little do with success. Look at glen beck and hannity. They are definitely not very bright. I’ve seen bill oreilly go up against john stewart and he can’t keep up intellectually. I might be wrong but I’m sure skin color, looks, and personality has a lot more to do with success than intelligence on radio and TV.
– Also, Megyn Kelley’s IQ score is 133? I doubt this also given her poor critically reasoning skills. There is a good chance she was lying about her 95% score. Even if she did, the math in the post disregards standard deviation. I haven’t taken statistics in a long time but I’m assuming that there is a SD in the LSAT’s ability to measure IQ. I might be wrong but I believe that SD remains the same when you add two normal curves together but the SD is volatile when the relationship is not linear.
First, Donald Trump’s reaction may not have been smart but there are factors besides intelligence that affect decisions. I know this site focuses on intelligence but people here seem to think that humans act based upon conscious decision making. They fail to realize that we are actually controlled by evolutionary instincts that frequently override intelligent decision making.
Intelligent decisions are ones that what get us what we want at a particular moment in time, but what we want is often controlled by what what we evolved to want.
Second, the way this site predicts IQ is a little ridiculous.
I don’t know how you could estimate Trump’s IQ based upon money when it’s been shown that the correlations between success and IQ fades after an IQ of 130.
This appears to be a myth, though more research is needed:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/
An IQ of 133 is higher than 99% of white American more than explains Megyns’ rise to the top”?????
Serious? There are tons of people who have IQ’s larger than 130 and many of them are unemployed.
You’re right. That was poorly worded on my part. What I meant is that she’s smart enough to succeed given all the other assets she has to work with (good looks, personality, ambition, good health, high energy,, luck, etc)
Especially in the field of TV journalism, I doubt IQ has little do with success. Look at glen beck and hannity. They are definitely not very bright. I’ve seen bill oreilly go up against john stewart and he can’t keep up intellectually. I might be wrong but I’m sure skin color, looks, and personality has a lot more to do with success than intelligence on radio and TV.
I don’t know about that. On TV you have to perform largely extemporaneously almost every single day and keep millions of people entertained in a very competitive arena. That generally takes a lot of brains. Some TV hosts are quite mediocre, but others are absolutely brilliant, and virtually none of them are dumb, so on average, their IQs are way above the white mean of 100.
Also, Megyn Kelley’s IQ score is 133? I doubt this also given her poor critically reasoning skills.
What poor critical reasoning skills?
There is a good chance she was lying about her 95% score. Even if she did, the math in the post disregards standard deviation. I haven’t taken statistics in a long time but I’m assuming that there is a SD in the LSAT’s ability to measure IQ I might be wrong but I believe that SD remains the same when you add two normal curves together but the SD is volatile when the relationship is not linear.
Not sure what you’re trying to say.
“Intelligent decisions are ones that what get us what we want at a particular moment in time, but what we want is often controlled by what what we evolved to want.”
I’m sorry but I strongly disagree with this. You imply that our intelligence helps us get to the place that our evolutionary impulses want to go to. I don’t know if you have kids but once I had kids, I’m come to realize that genetics plays a huge role in everything. Our evolutionary impulses constantly dictate our actions to the point that we can’t countermand. Just think about simple laziness and motivation. We are unable to do work despite our deep desire and our knowledge that it’s the best for us. Despite what our conscious tells us to do, we are unable to do it. There is an tons of primal impulses that we are unable to override: need for human interaction, sexual fulfillment, need to feel superior, etc. And, we don’t even realize it’s controlling us. Do you think that a rapist wants to commit rape?
“This appears to be a myth, though more research is needed:”
Uh…your graphs proves nothing. All it shows that there is a linear relationship with IQ and mean income. I’m sorry but you completely overly rely on mean to prove your points. The fact that the mean increases relative to IQ in a linear fashion does not show correlation. You need to include the correlation at every income level and the standard deviation of each iq subgroup. The mean at each IQ might increase but the correlation might still deteriorate as income increases.
(You do this with all the reasoning in your other blogs as well. You constantly use mean to indicates someone’s IQ when mean is actually meaningless without the SD or the confidence level. eg hillary clinton blog)
“You’re right. That was poorly worded on my part. What I meant is that she’s smart enough to succeed given all the other assets she has to work with (good looks, personality, ambition, good health, high energy,, luck, etc)”
I don’t think it was merely poor word choices because the same sentiment pervades throughout this entire site. You constantly imply that IQ is the main component of success and income
I don’t know what your career field is but it’s pretty obvious that it doesn’t take IQ alone to get ahead in the world. Although this is anecdotal evidence but I’ve met millionaires and hundred millionaires and IQ is not the first thing you notice. Guts and drive and personality is what separates them from everyone else. I do agree that IQ can be a big factor but the correlation breaks down as income increases. For example, IQ actually hinders success a lot because a lot of smart people believe that they can do everything on their own. But, almost every successful person needed to have a mentor and rally people to help them.
“On TV you have to perform largely extemporaneously almost every single day and keep millions of people entertained in a very competitive arena. That generally takes a lot of brains. Some TV hosts are quite mediocre, but others are absolutely brilliant, and virtually none of them are dumb, so on average, their IQs are way above the white mean of 100.”
You’re kidding. Have you listened to those conservative talk show hosts? They are idiots. The most important thing is that they say what the audience wants to hear even if it’s distortions and outright lies. Look at sarah palin and her popularity.
“What poor critical reasoning skills?”
Are you serious?
Our evolutionary impulses constantly dictate our actions to the point that we can’t countermand. Just think about simple laziness and motivation. We are unable to do work despite our deep desire and our knowledge that it’s the best for us.
We desire to get work done, but we also desire to rest. A smart person will figure out how to get work done while resting, if possible, but if it’s not possible, he’ll typically just rationally choose whatever maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain at that particular moment. Now people with great anxiety will feel emotional pain when they ignore all the work they must do in order to rest, so for them, often the rational choice is to work through the fatigue if possible, and that’s one of the reasons anxiety evolved.
Despite what our conscious tells us to do, we are unable to do it. There is an tons of primal impulses that we are unable to override: need for human interaction, sexual fulfillment, need to feel superior, etc. And, we don’t even realize it’s controlling us. Do you think that a rapist wants to commit rape?
Yes I think a rapist wants to rape, but he may not want to want to rape. A subtle but essential distinction.
Uh…your graphs proves nothing. All it shows that there is a linear relationship with IQ and mean income. I’m sorry but you completely overly rely on mean to prove your points.
In this case median
The fact that the mean increases relative to IQ in a linear fashion does not show correlation.
Of course it does. Correlations can be visualized as scatter plots where the line of best fit is just the line connecting the average level of Y for every given value of X, and the greater the increase in average Y as a function of X, the higher the correlation.
You need to include the correlation at every income level and the standard deviation of each iq subgroup. The mean at each IQ might increase but the correlation might still deteriorate as income increases.
Of course correlations are going to be diminished among people with the same income or IQ levels, because in order to have a good correlation, the traits needs to VARY. Now having said, scholar Jonathan Wai was able to show that even among billionaires, net worth was positively correlated with elite college attendance (a proxy for high IQ)
(You do this with all the reasoning in your other blogs as well. You constantly use mean to indicates someone’s IQ when mean is actually meaningless without the SD or the confidence level. eg hillary clinton blog)
Well if I estimate someone’s IQ based on an IQ correlate, the higher the correlation, the smaller the standard of error. I usually don’t bother mentioning the standard error because I often corroborate the prediction with actual test scores, making it unnecessary, but now that you mention it, I may do so in the future.
Although this is anecdotal evidence but I’ve met millionaires and hundred millionaires and IQ is not the first thing you notice. Guts and drive and personality is what separates them from everyone else. I do agree that IQ can be a big factor but the correlation breaks down as income increases.
I don’t think so. Self-made decabillionaires appear to have ridiculously high IQs, though more research is needed:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/07/29/does-the-average-self-made-decabillionaire-have-an-iq-of-150/
For example, IQ actually hinders success a lot because a lot of smart people believe that they can do everything on their own. But, almost every successful person needed to have a mentor and rally people to help them.
Dumb people are more likely to overestimate their abilities than smart people. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You’re kidding. Have you listened to those conservative talk show hosts? They are idiots. The most important thing is that they say what the audience wants to hear even if it’s distortions and outright lies.
I never said they were good people. A lot of media types are psychopaths, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a single major talk show host with an IQ below 100.
Look at sarah palin and her popularity.
She’s a perfect example. There were high hopes for her to parlay her enormous popularity into a television gig, but despite her huge fan-base, her TV career seems to have faded, probably because she wasn’t concise, articulate, witty or substantive enough to maintain an audience.
“A smart person will figure out how to get work done while resting, if possible, but if it’s not possible, he’ll typically just rationally choose whatever maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain at that particular moment.”
That’s not true. A smart person like a dumb person frequently are unable to overcome their laziness no matter how hard they try. Humans are controlled by their short-term impulses for pleasure and pain more than you think. Conscious decisions are helpless to it.
“Yes I think a rapist wants to rape, but he may not want to want to rape. A subtle but essential distinction.”
You’re trying to combine the two different forces: conscious decision making and primal need, implying that they are the same by using the word, “want” for both. The first “want” in “not want to want to rape” is the conscious choice. The second “want” is the primal need you can’t control. They are different. One is by choice, the other you can’t control.
I think you really underestimate the primal needs that really control us which is completely separate from rational and logical thought. I think evolution has led humans and other animals to break from short term impulse control like rabbits but I think we’re more bound to it than most people think. We’re still animals….
“Of course it does. Correlations can be visualized as scatter plots where the line of best fit is just the line connecting the average level of Y for every given value of X, and the greater the increase in average Y as a function of X, the higher the correlation.”
I don’t think so. You said yourself it’s the scatter plot but then you eliminated the scatter plot in the graph. Correlation is how much of the scatter plot fits the “average line”. How messy it is. But, just getting the average at each IQ point, you just got rid of the entire scatter plot except for the line.
You’re trying to combine the two different forces: conscious decision making and primal need, implying that they are the same by using the word, “want” for both. The first “want” in “not want to want to rape” is the conscious choice. The second “want” is the primal need you can’t control. They are different. One is by choice, the other you can’t control.
Both are basic needs. A rapist wants to rape because of his need for sex or power or whatever drives him. A rapist does not want to want to rape because of his need for morality. Both are drives that served an evolutionary purpose. Both are problems the rapist must solve, and intelligence is simply the mental system used to solve problems.
If someone has a lot of dysfunctional drives (i.e. laziness, alcoholism) they may look stupid because they’re not solving their problems, but they may simply have drives and impulses that are too numerous or too conflicting with one another to be solved.
I think you really underestimate the primal needs that really control us which is completely separate from rational and logical thought
I agree it’s separate. Primal needs, emotions, feelings, wants and desires are the problem we must solve. Intelligence, rational thought, and logic is the problem solver. Now in some cases there’s some interaction (i.e. we want certain things because we’re intelligent enough to know they’re good for us, but what’s good for us, is whatever our basic physical, emotional and psychological needs are).
How successful we are at solving our problems depends on the ratio of our IQ to the difficulty of the problems we face. An extremely lazy person with great ambition needs a much higher IQ to reach his goals than an extremely hardworking person with no ambition
I don’t think so. You said yourself it’s the scatter plot but then you eliminated the scatter plot in the graph. Correlation is how much of the scatter plot fits the “average line”. How messy it is. But, just getting the average at each IQ point, you just got rid of the entire scatter plot except for the line.
They’re not independent. The steeper the line, the less the scatter. One can be inferred from the other. When distributions are normalized, you don’t need both
> Both are problems the rapist must solve, and intelligence is simply the mental system used to solve problems.
Dude, you’re stubborn. It’s obvious that there are things that intelligence can’t override but you won’t acknowledge it. Look at every teenager boy growing up. How many times did he masturbate, always telling himself in shame that he’s never going to do it again? No matter how hard he tries, he can’t stop himself. Look at drug addiction and how people are powerless no matter, fully aware that it’s terrible. Or, why do people play games and watch sports without realizing WHY it gives us pleasure (eg our needs controlling us without our knowledge)?
I’ve made it pretty obvious but if you won’t acknowledge it at this point, then it’s a personality defect. I used to think it was correlated with IQ but even smart people do this. It’s a learned skill to admit they are wrong.
> An extremely lazy person with great ambition needs a much higher IQ to reach his goals than an extremely hardworking person with no ambition
Of course. No one is disputing this. But, the correlation breaks down as you go higher! That means that there are other factors that are even more important. The distribution around IQ gets bigger as IQ increase….You’re completely misunderstanding the problem here….
Human intelligence concept done and followed by PP, works in a natural scenario, not exactly in a human scenario, period.
KJg3Ij”; HPConfig. Megyn Kellys Duggar Interview Brings Highest Ratings Of The Year For Kelly File”; HPConfig.
I believe this is an accurate score for her. The key aspect she has, like Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow, is tenacity. That helps even more than IQ.
They won’t give up easy. Including re-reading a text 10 times to really nail it.