The Washington Post had an interesting article about Trump’s IQ:
Trump is not shy about his intellectual prowess. As he tweeted in 2013: “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.”
Of course, “smart” is a bit subjective. There’s book smarts as well as street smarts. Many would say Trump has run a pretty smart campaign. But clearly he’s saying that his brain is very sharp — as he puts it, “super-genius stuff.’’ At one point, Trump rebutted criticism from columnist George Will and GOP consultant Karl Rove by saying: “I’m much smarter than them. I think I have a much higher IQ. I think I went to a better college — better everything.”
Trump’s college background, in fact, is often his key piece of evidence for his intellectual superiority. But there’s less here than meets the eye. Trump did graduate from the Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League college. But Trump did not get an MBA from Wharton; he has a much less prestigious undergraduate degree. He was a transfer student who arrived at Wharton after two years at Fordham University, which U.S. News & World Report currently ranks 66th among national universities. (Besides, simply going to an Ivy League school doesn’t prove you’re a genius.)
Gwenda Blair, in her 2001 book “The Trumps,” said that Trump’s grades at Fordham were just “respectable” and that he got into Wharton mainly because he had an interview with an admissions officer who had been a high school classmate of his older brother. And Wharton’s admissions team surely knew that Trump was from one of New York’s wealthiest families.
The average SAT score at Fordham University (reading + math) is 1260 (post-1995 scale). This equates to an IQ of about 123 (white norms) and there’s no reason to think it’d be much different in Trump’s day. But since Fordham students are selected by SAT scores, we’d expect them to regress to the U.S. mean (about 98 in Trump’s day) on an IQ test for which they were not selected.
I estimate that in the general U.S. population, the SAT correlates between 0.53 and 0.74 with the WAIS IQ test, so Fordham students who were 25 points above the U.S. mean of 98, would regress to anywhere from 53% to 74% of 25 points above 98, so either a mean IQ of 113 to 117.
Pumpkin Person 
Just finished watching it.
Initial impressions:
Trump started strong, stronger than HRC, but then declined a lot in the third segment on foreign policy – on what should absolutely have actually been his strongest segment.
And then he got disastrously triggered by Rosie O’Donnell when the moderator pulled out the woman card at the very end.
Even as a Trump supporter I’m afraid he lost at least 40-60. Still, I’d be happy to hear counterarguments.
I agree that Trump started strong. VERY STRONG. But I kept waiting for him to attack Hillary for supporting the Iraq war and he didn’t do it, and then to my horror, she had the nerve to attack HIM for supporting it.
I was stunned that Trump let Hillary and the moderator put him on the defensive for supporting the war when Hillary was a million times more culpable.
All Trump said in support of the war was shrugged and said “I guess so” when asked by Stern if he supported it but from then on he was against it.
By contrast Hillary actually VOTED for it in the senate, gave it bipartisan legitimacy, gave a speech wrongly claiming Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda, and her husband propagandized for war on Letterman.
And yet Hillary made Trump look like the war monger and all Trump could do was babble incoherently when he could have ripped her to shreds on that point since it was the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.
Hillary also made Trump look like a racist for disrespecting Obama Why didn’t Trump bring up this:
So Trump won the first third of the debate, but Hillary won overall, in my opinion, but let’s see what the polls say.
Hillary was hypocritical of course, but you’re giving trump way too much credit, PP. the problem with trump’s Iraq war situation is he set the standard too high, saying he was “opposed” to it, when he was really ‘Luke warm’ (which to his credit very few people were anything but supportive) of it. He was guilty of embellishing and even if it’s just semantics it makes for a good distraction from Hillary’s own
Vote. Overall I thought it was a narrow Hillary win, but the CNN undecided voter poll I saw showed Hillary as the favorite by +35 (the highest margin in 2012 was +28); a blowout, which was surprising.
He should have just said that he never supported the war, rather than claiming to have opposed it. But the fact that he as a Republican did not support it, and she as a Democrat, was one of its most influential proponents should have given him a HUGE advantage, if only he had the adaptability to turn situations to his advantage. There’s always the next two debates but he’s running out of time. Early voting starts very soon.
If Trump doesn’t go for the jugular in the next debate, Hillary’s going to hand him his ass on a platter.
He needs to invite vets brutally wounded in the Iraq war to sit in the front row and DEMAND Hillary donate all her Wall street speech money to fund their medical care.
He needs to invite Juanita Broderick to sit in the front row and demand Hillary apologize.
Trump is never going to win playing nice. He needs to go ballistic and turn it into a complete mud fight. And not be afraid of the optics of a man being tough on a woman.
I agree with everything you wrote here.
HRC waited until near the end to drive in the shiv but when she did she did it nice and deep and Trump totally lost frame.
My assessment: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/hrc-wins-first-debate/
PP- Nobody will hand anybody’s ‘ass to them’ imho.
It’s going to be very close either way.
Hillary’s the favorite (factoring in economic data/ “the Brexit effect”), but last I checked it would be just 2 points in the popular vote and 283-255 in the electoral vote.
However, Trump needs to do better with the debates, her lead will grow by more than two.
Bingo. Clinton attacked hard. Trump didn’t attack hard or defend all that hard. Best that can be said for Trump: no own goals, not an embarrassment.
Here’s a good analysis of the debate:
Trump should understand this: every bit of his performance should be able to be aired as a 1 minute-30 second television ad for him.
peepee is retarded.
she’s never taken an adult IQ test, yet she’s OBSESSED with IQ.
hmmm.
and her age 12 score report was made by a total incompetent.
first she assumes trump made fordham’s average score.
then she assumes that because his grades weren’t the best therefore he wasn’t any smarter than the average fordham student.
pure retardation.
trump’s IQ divided by 3 is greater than or equal to peepee’s IQ.
I admit it’s speculation, but his debate performance did little to prove me wrong. And EVERYONE’s obsessed with IQ, not me only.
”to prove me wrong. And EVERYONE’s obsessed with IQ, not me only.”
🙏
What percentage of people with Trump’s success (not counting athletes) have IQ 94?
“For every ten-fold increase in income, mean IQ increases 8-10 points” https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/
I estimate the average self-made billionaire has an IQ of 132 (white norms) (athletes don’t skew the numbers because there’s only one billionaire athlete), so fewer than 0.5% would have IQs below 94. But Trump’s not really a self-made billionaire (he inherited a lot of money, connections, and the Trump brand).
It might be better to think of Trump as the son of a self-made billionaire, since his dad, though technically never a billionaire, was equivalent to one in his time.
The children of self-made billionaires should be only 45% as extreme in IQ as their dads on average (0.45(32) + 100 = IQ 114) with about 10% having IQs of 94 or lower.
“But Trump’s not really a self-made billionaire (he inherited a lot of money, connections, and the Trump brand).”
It’s easy to inherit money or win the lotto and blow it. You have to give him credit that he didn’t lose the money and then give him credit for adding to it.
It says he changed the “brand” of the Trump name to “luxury”. That was Donald’s idea, not his father’s, and that is what added to the Trump fortune.
To say he simply inherited everything (including connections and the brand), is disingenuous and reduces your credibility because you would seem to be more of a Trump-basher than a truth-teller.
“The children of self-made billionaires should be only 45% as extreme in IQ as their dads on average (0.45(32) + 100 = IQ 114) with about 10% having IQs of 94 or lower.”
I might agree with 114-ish, but 94 seems much too low. I’d say he’s smarter than president Bush, jr. What is his IQ in your estimation?
I didn’t say Trump inherited everything, but he’s also not self-made. He’s somewhere in between. His IQ might be a lot higher than 94. The 94 figure was basically his score on a one question IQ test, and obviously a test with only one question is not that accurate to say the least.
GW Bush is above 125, perhaps above 130, if you go by SAT scores, but I find that hard to believe. Perhaps the alcohol subtracted a dozen points.
Initially I was impressed by how well Trump was doing, but he blew it in the final half of the debate. In my opinion, his IQ lies somewhere within the 110–115 range.
Personally, I loathe both of these candidates with a passion. Although my political views align with Hillary’s far more than with Trump’s, I consider her to be as morally corrupt as he is, just in a more subtle way.
🙏
The multiplication video captures Trump perfectly. Wrong, but very very unwavering. His IQ is in the 90’s somewhere. Certainly under a 100.
His verbal IQ must border on the retarded.
His clinical impatience coupled with his scatterbrained incoherence affirms this.
I’ve given Trump many chances, but then he unloads these nuggets,
“””We came in with the Internet. We came up with the Internet. And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.
So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it’s hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them.
“””
Dear oh dear.
I agree. He doesn’t seem too verbally inclined. His speeches suck. He repeats himself way too much. Always talks about “people he knows” and blah blah blah. He isn’t too intelligent but people will say bu-but his monies!!!
And on computers, Drumpfstein said he doesn’t use them. Ha
It seems about right that Trump has an IQ in the 110 range. I say Hillary is about 120.
PP: I’m waiting for your post on Canadian IQ by province vs IQs for American states.
It’s coming. I found an excellent source for Canadian provincial IQs.
If you can correlate high IQ with higher quality of life…but it seems not to work with East Asians and Askhenazi oriented Israel.
Do Canadian IQ levels tell you that Canada is a better place?
Many Americans would disagree, but with the globalization and homogenization of many cities, Canada would be a better place. There isn’t anything that one cannot find in Canada, that is only sold in the United States. Hell, I’m able to get good American bacon in the Montréal markets.
Despite America’s immense wealth, it is not on the same level as other industrialized nations in terms of infrastructure.
The only downside in Canada is the cold weather during the winter months.
I love the Canadian winters. Get to stay inside with a fire and hot chocolate & watch horror films & Atom Egoyan movies.
I recently was able to get some telecommuting work, and they’re paying me with American wages. This works very well for someone who lives in lower cost Canada, especially in Montréal.
Why do you say that Hillary’s IQ is “only” 120? (I put “only” in quotes because, by most standards, 120 is regarded as a high IQ—and rightfully so.) Considering her extraordinary political and academic achievements, it seems to me that her IQ is no lower than 125 and possibly as high as 135. Granted, much her success resulted from marrying Bill Clinton; but her enormous wealth and sociopolitical power suggests, in my opinion, an IQ higher than 120.
I’ve long estimated both Bill & Hillary are 140, and yet friends who know both are in awe of Bill’s intellect.
Both Bill and Hillary were national merit finalists and both probably very narrowly made the PSAT cut-off. But if the PSAT is adjusted for the independent effects of social class, Bill’s probably much smarter, consistent with subjective impressions.
Explain why ”America” is this …&¨%$#sh1#$% ….
brave, fantastic and intelectually revigorant people!!!!!
I think someone with an IQ higher than 125 would not embark on a lifetime career as a “bureaucrat”. They would find pure intellectual or creative work more conducive to their nature. If anything, very high IQ individuals shun the constant spotlight of public engagement in good times, where they are always dealing with lower IQ individuals. People on the genius level disdain the average mortal with average intelligence.
”I think someone with an IQ higher than 125 would not embark on a lifetime career as a “bureaucrat”.”
Myth, i think most of ”higher iq” are high functioning normies. Maybe most of bureaucrats scores less than the bottom in iq tests but it’s just because this higher scores tend to be rare among population.
”They would find pure intellectual or creative work more conducive to their nature.”
I also don’t think it’s like that, seems a hbd-mythology, painting ”higher iq” people as they were spectacular gods walking among us.
”If anything, very high IQ individuals shun the constant spotlight of public engagement in good times, where they are always dealing with lower IQ individuals.”
the great problem is not dealing with ”lower iq people”, only this, but dealing with hyper-masculine people, generally, men.
lack of empathy, education, rationality seems a common place among hyper masculine men, and just look to the black men, who are desproportionally hyper-masculine. Seems correlative lower cognitive skills and hyper-masculine behavior (masculine psychoticism, agressivity, etc), but there are lot of ”higher iq” ones like that.
Human inventions can be delightful, but we really live our lives among us, behavioral rational proportionality matters… and many times, just like today, can be pretty decisive.
A iiliberal woman expecting ”rapefugees” integrate in your society,
look son!
”People on the genius level disdain the average mortal with average intelligence.”
I’m not at genius level but i’m not disdain the average people just because they are average but because they, on avg, are mediocre, lack of education, subconsciously cynical and morally corruptible. well, seems, many-to-most of the ”higher iq” crowd display same deficits.
not ”bottom”
”upper”
peace!!!
peace and love… why not**
“I think someone with an IQ higher than 125 would not embark on a lifetime career as a “bureaucrat”. They would find pure intellectual or creative work more conducive to their nature. If anything, very high IQ individuals shun the constant spotlight of public engagement in good times, where they are always dealing with lower IQ individuals. People on the genius level disdain the average mortal with average intelligence.”
This is true to an extent, but 125 is not the cut-off number. The majority of extremely successful “normies” have IQs in the 125–140 range, while those with an IQ higher than 140 are more likely than the average person to shun mainstream success, preferring instead to engage in creative and/or intellectual pursuits. However, most highly intelligent people are not geniuses, and there are geniuses who would not score especially high on an IQ test.
Your paragraph describe a genius (or at least someone inclined to genius), not the typical person with a high IQ. Genius is not synonymous with IQ.
PP write about this paper. It’s about r/K selection theory.
Click to access Van_Lange_BBS-D-15-00646_preprint.pdf
“We propose a new model of CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH) that seeks to understand differences within and between countries in aggression and violence in terms of differences in climate. Specifically, it proposes that higher average temperature, and especially smaller seasonal variation in temperature, calls for individuals and groups to adopt a faster life strategy, and exert greater focus on the present (versus future) and less focus on self-control. The
CLASH model further outlines that fast life strategy, short-term orientation, and lack of self-control are important determinants of aggression and violence.”
Sounds like a pro-Rushton paper