37 Comments

1. Mark Poling:

“I voted for it before I voted against it.”

“But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.”

“I believe that I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith.”

I’m not so much worried about a lack of intelligence as the possiblity of serious mental illness…

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:46 am 2. Terrye:

Roger:

Who was it that said people think Kerry is smarter because he is harder to understand? The more complicated the answer the more people assume you are smart.

Not so. I think one of the reasons Bush got messed up in his first debate is that he was dealing with a smooth talking son of a bitch that he knew was not half as smart as he sounded and that got Bush frustrated.

Blair is a gifted speaker the way few people are, British or American. The man is a born politician. Allawi is gifted too.

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:46 am 3. Patrick S Lasswell:

It might be said that the truly advanced mind is able to express the clarity of complex situations. Weaker minds are prone to seeking complexity in clear situations, particularly if doing so might make them look intelligent.

I do agree that Tony Blair is probably both smarter and more articulate than either Kerry or Bush. It is worth pointing out that lasting accomplishment is most often tied to sustained effort, not intellect. Bush is a runner, Kerry is a dillitante sportsman, and we are in a long struggle.

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:50 am 4. OldManRick:

Best line in the whole article:

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, (said) “People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can’t understand,”.

That describes Kerry better than anything anyone can say.

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:58 am 5. Connecticut Yankee:

About Kerry’s linguistic convolutions: Chris Suellentrop posted a telling comparison last week between a Kerry speech as produced by his writers and a transcript of the speech as actually delivered:

Kerry flubs his punch lines, sprinkles in irrelevant anecdotes, and talks himself into holes that he has trouble improvising his way out of. He steps on his applause lines by uttering them prematurely, and then when they roll up on his TelePrompTer later, he’s forced to pirouette and throat-clear until he figures out how not to repeat himself. He piles adjective upon adjective until it’s like listening to a speech delivered by Roget.

Kerry’s health-care speech Monday in Tampa was a classic of the form. The written text contained a little more than 2,500 words. By the time he was finished, Kerry had spoken nearly 5,300 words?not including his introductory remarks and thank-yous to local politicians?more than doubling the verbiage. Pity his speechwriters when you read the highlights below. It’s not their fault.

Kerry’s Script: Most of all, I will always level with the American people.

Actual Kerry: Most of all, my fellow Americans, I pledge to you that I will always level with the American people, because it’s only by leveling and telling the truth that you build the legitimacy and gain the consent of the people who ultimately we are accountable to. I will level with the American people.

Kerry’s Script: I will work with Republicans and Democrats on this health care plan, and we will pass it.

Actual Kerry: I will work with Republicans and Democrats across the aisle, openly, not with an ideological, driven, fixed, rigid concept, but much like Franklin Roosevelt said, I don’t care whether a good idea is a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. I just care whether or not it’s gonna work for Americans and help make our country stronger. And we will pass this bill. I’ll tell you a little bit about it in a minute, and I’ll tell you why we’ll pass it, because it’s different from anything we’ve ever done before, despite what the Republicans want to try to tell you.

Kerry’s Script: These worries are real, and they’re happening all across America.

Actual Kerry: These worries are real. They’re not made up. These stories aren’t something that’s part of a Democrat plan or a Republican plan. These are American stories. These are the stories of American citizens. And it’s not just individual citizens who are feeling the pressure of health care costs. It’s businesses across America. It’s CEOs all across America. This is an American problem.

Kerry’s Script: That’s wrong, and we have to change it.

Actual Kerry: Well, that’s wrong, my friends. We shouldn’t be just hoping and praying. We need leadership that acts and responds and leads and makes things happen.

Kerry’s Script: That’s wrong, and we have to change it.

Actual Kerry: Well, that’s wrong. We had a chance to change it in the Congress of the United States. They chose otherwise. And I’ll talk about that in a minute.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108429&

I work as an editor and I am quite grateful that I don’t have to polish Kerry’s stuff. Why people sometimes describe Kerry as “smooth-talking” escapes me, because he has a tin ear for the natural rhythms of the English language.

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:07 am 6. hcq:

If facility with language were an indicator of intelligence, then every writer is clearly a genius, and Moses was a bumbling fool.

It should also be pointed out that because of the way the British system is structured, a British PM has years of training in extemporaneous speaking in hostile environments before he gets to Blair’s position. That is very much not the case here, where for his entire career a senator can drone on – often to an empty chamber – without ever being challenged.

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:12 am 7. Hovig:

OldManRick: Ha! You beat me to the punch! I laughed out loud when I read that line too. I need to mount that one on a wall plaque.

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:14 am 8. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

hcq

If facility with language were an indicator of intelligence, then every writer is clearly a genius, and Moses was a bumbling fool.

With the older SAT (who knows with the new one), the “verbal” score is closely correlated with IQ. The overall score is well correlated with life success by traditional measures.

Note that verbal SAT and verbal IQ tests do not test writing abilities (verbal SAT may now), but reading, logic, etc.

BTW, Presidential IQ’s: Nixon – near genius – over 140 (Einstein was 160 – one more standard deviation out, Steven Hawking is 160 or 180 – don’t remember which). I believe genius (in an IQ sense as opposed to total capability which includes education, experience and psychological makeup) is defined as 150+.

Bush’s IQ is estimated at 125-129. That puts him on the edge of Mensa level (top 2 percentile). As a Mensan, I have seen plenty of Mensans were were dumb, no matter what their IQ. But in general (Mensa is a self selected small subset of those qualified to join it) IQ correlates well with “smarts” and has physiological correlates such as faster nerve conduction speed (I think that is what is implied by a shorter latency on evoked response potential). My daughter knows this stuff in more detail, so if it’s important to someone I can ask her.

Kennedy was 117 – well below Bush’s (125-129) but one standard deviation up from average. Also roughly the average of the major high IQ Asian groups (Chinese, Japanese, Brahmin Indians).

Kerry would probably need an IQ around 115 to be able to do what he has done and does (such as getting a law school degree from a non-prestigious school).

Many commenters on this blog, and our clever host, clearly have higher IQs than Bush.

Also, many leftists are extremely bright – Chomsky, for example. It is a question why so many are such fools or knaves – Chomsky for example.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:05 am 9. Cap'n Billy:

Tony Blair — I used to watch “Question Time” when he was in opposition and developed a visceral dislike for him. When he and his party came into power I lost interest, deciding that the Brits had decided to fritter away the country that Margaret Thatcher, my favourite (using the Queen’s English spelling, since I’m writing about them) living politician, had given them. I would never have believed that ten years or so later I would be regarding Tony Blair as my favorite politician currently in power, and by far the most courageous, given the approval numbers of his countrymen for his support of the war. This causes me some concern, because it looks to me as if we are one Prime Minister away from losing Britain as our most valuable ally in this struggle. Given the numbers, I don’t see how he can survive another election.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:07 am 10. heather:

Everyone HAS to go to Powerline and take a gander at the Ohio ballot he has reproduced there. It is at http://www.powerlineblog.com

I am a Canadian, and have to sit out the next week with nothing to do, but if I were in the USA, I would be over at the local voting station, volunteering like mad.

I cannot believe that this sort of Ballot can be acceptable!!!

And given the reports of voter intimidation, well, ….

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:15 am 11. Darleen:

dating myself here, but Kerry often times reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:25 am 12. Mark Poling:

Connecticut Yankee, thanks for the link to that Slate article. It brings up the question of exactly what intelligence is. If you define it as the ability to learn, Kerry obviously comes up a bit short; the Slate article makes it seem like everyone (including Kerry) knows what a disaster Kerry is as a public speaker, and yet in all his years campaigning he hasn’t gotten any better on the stump.

Public speaking is a skill that can be learned. I know. I have taken classes in it, and I’ve taught classes in it. Some people are naturals, some aren’t, but I’ve never worked with anyone (who wasn’t already pitch perfect) who couldn’t get better. The key ingredients are discipline, self-awareness, and practice. The rules and techniques themselves are simple.

So why can’t hasn’t Kerry learned to do better?

IQ measures something important, but by no means is it the only determinant of learning ability. My fascetious comment at the top of this thread suggests Kerryisms are examples of “word salad” but it’s pretty obvious the man is sane and reasonably bright. So again, why doesn’t he do better?

I think he’s just far too much in love with the sound of his own voice, and too undisciplined and arrogant to keep that self-love out of the public eye. And that’s why he’s going to do badly with voters who value humility and hard work.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:35 am 13. Roger:

Darleen, you get the tail, two hooves and a vuelta around the arena for that one (dating myself here too, of course).

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:36 am 14. Cap'n Billy:

Re: heather at October 24, 2004 11:15 AM

That ballot is incredible. It’s hard to believe it got published without objection from Republican officials, who presumably had an opportunity to inspect it. I hope the instructions as to which number should be punched for which candidate are clear, prominent and unequivocal! To see this ballot click Powerline.

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:00 pm 15. richard mcenroe:

Don’t go all Hemingway on us, Roger….

John Moore ó The thing about intelligence is simple: intelligence ain’t smarts. Kerry has gone from one hot-house environment after another (rich kid, college) with a brief interlude in reality (his three-hour tour in Nam) before ducking back into the hothouse (gentleman gigolo and absentee senator). He has no idea how the world really works and more importantly, how it differs from his largely theoretical conceptions. When reality doesn’t match his preconcieved notions he locks up (hence his 40-minute freeze on 9/11). Bush on the other hand has had a broad range of life experience successful and not, and his native intelligence has unquestionably been tempered and deepened by interaction with the real world…

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:02 pm 16. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

1)I believe it was Einstein who said: everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

2)Much of what people take for “intelligence” in the case of John Kerry is really a set of ways of speaking that are associated with a particular social class position. I suspect aht supporting him is a way for people to reinforce their own class status. More thoughts on this at:

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_photoncourier_archive.html#109422760433909117

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:23 pm 17. christian:

Understandably Americans are (over)enthusiastic about Tony Blair, but I dislike it when this is turned against president Bush, you might ‘blame’ David Frum (and/or others) for it, but all the important speeches considering the WoT where actually made by GWB.

If you really were governed by Tony Blair and his cabinet (Jack Straw anybody?), you would get sober about your enthusiasm pretty soon.

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:31 pm 18. RBC:

Intelligence Quotient is the ratio of Mental Age to Chronological Age. Thirty years ago, Bush and Kerry may well have been roughly the same, but while a difference of a couple of points thirty years ago is close to meaningless in trying to assess them today, a more pertinent question would be: what did they do in the meantime for Bush to be so clearly inferior mentally during the debates?

Sure, he exuded “warmth”, which served as a code word for fallibility and nothing more than a way of trying to frame Kerry’s clearer argumentation as something emotionally unappealing (”cold”).

But even comparing Bush’s public appearances from 10 years ago makes it clear that Bush has not developed well. The trend is down, and his current IQ is not what it used to be.

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:52 pm 19. richard mcenroe:

RBC ó

In the past four years Bush has

led the country after a sneak attack that killed thousands of civilians and deepened a recession.

crushed a religious dictatorship in the Mideast.

crushed a secular dictatorship in the Mideast.

Produced the first free elections in Afghanistan in 3000 years.

Is on track to produce free elections in Iraq, something no European power ever attempted.

Broke the Pakistani nuke ring.

Led Libya to give up its WMD’s.

If his trend is down, I suggest we find out what is making him stupid and send a barrel of it to everyone in Congress.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:37 pm 20. Demosophist:

Here’s the link to the Sailer article, which is referenced by the NYT Tierney article linked above. The Tierney article isn’t really about IQ, but promotion of the Libertarian alternative to Bush, which would amount to depriving Bush of a vote while not giving it to Kerry (effectively a half-vote for Kerry).

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:39 pm 21. Steve Rhodes:

Yes, Bush is smarter than many people think. But the policies of the candidates are more important than than their intelligence.

A lot of very smart people messed things up in Iraq.

And I don’t put much stock in IQ or standardized tests. I test well and know many who don’t test well who are smarter than I am.

Stephen J. Gould’s the Mismeasure of Man is a good history of IQ and standardized tests.

Also the Frontline doc, Secrets of the SAT

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:43 pm 22. Mark Poling:

RBC, that’s bullshit. While you remembered the origin for the measurement (in assessing the intelligence of children for proper “tracking” within educational systems) you have forgoetten (if you ever knew) everything else about it.

(For instance, by your simplistic definition, a 60 year-old person with an IQ of 150 would have a mental age of 90. What exactly would that mean?)

IQ results in adult individuals tend to be stable over time. This is one of the principal defenses of IQ as a valid psychometric measure. (Results in children are far less stable over time, but the consensus is the IQ you have in late adolesence is what you will have going forward.)

I keep hearing from The Left that Bush’s drug and alcohol use damaged his brain. There’s an easy refutation to that. “Burn Outs” don’t turn things around. Whatever Bush’s level of use was, he did turn it around. That’s a sign of psychological resiliance, and something to be aplauded instead of denegrated.

Your arguments when examined boil down to slander. The more-intelligent left should be able to do better than that.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:48 pm 23. Kyda Sylvester:

Years ago at the height of his celebrity, Henry Kissinger talked about the many benefits of being perceived as having superior intellect. He said that when people walked away from conversation with him feeling vaguely bored, they would assume the problem was theirs not his. I think we all wonder on occasion if we’re the problem (like what’s wrong with me that I don’t see Kerry’s big brain or Bill Clinton’s storied charm and charisma).

Raw intelligence is but one component of “smart”. In my opinion, Bush is quite shrewd (my favorite characteristic in a president) as well as smart. Kerry is not.

BTW, I love “Question Time”.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:49 pm 24. Mark Poling:

Oh, and as regards Kerry’s better communication skills:

“But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.”

Maybe it sounded better in the original Martian.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:50 pm 25. blogaddict:

I cannot understand how anyone can listen to Kerry and call him intelligent. His speech seems convoluted to me and his thoughts are unusually murky, even for a politician.

Mark Poling, you mention mental illness and word salad. Actually, I’ve thought for quite a while that Kerry does have a diagnostic mental problem of the type knows as a “character disorder” (I’m a therapist, so I’m being quite serious here). To be even more specific, Kerry appears to have “narcissistic personality disorder.” See here: http://www.angelfire.com/ego/narcissism/ . I really don’t know why more people haven’t suggested this diagnosis, because it fits him to a T.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:28 pm 26. Charlie (Colorado):

Darleen, you get the tail, two hooves and a vuelta around the arena for that one (dating myself here too, of course).

Why? Have they stopped doing the vuelta?

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:32 pm 27. Coisty:

Given that Steve Sailer has generally been critical of George W Bush over the last year – see his excellent website http://www.isteve.com/ – his I.Q. analysis has more credibility than that of any other pundit. The US, and for that matter the outside world, has become so polarised by partisanship that people just seem to listen to what they want to hear. How much easier is life when one just has one’s prejudices and instincts confirmed. Steve Sailer is one of the few bloggers out there who’s primary concern is the truth – politics be damned! Now if only Bush would address the immigration catastrophe – Sailer’s main concern – he could rely on conservative support instead of Soviet sympathaphizers like Christopher Hitchens.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:35 pm 28. Coisty:

Ooops! – that’s supposed to be “whose” not “who’s” in the fourth sentence. I ought to check what I’ve typed before hitting “post”.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:39 pm 29. Charlie (Colorado):

Ooops! – that’s supposed to be “whose” not “who’s” in the fourth sentence. I ought to check what I’ve typed before hitting “post”.

What? And throw off the curve?

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:08 pm 30. Terrye:

My IQ is 126.

I am even smarter than Kerry. But he married money so maybe I am not all that smart after all.

The whole IQ thing kinda makes me wonder.

But Bush’s grades were better than Kerry’s and Gore’s weren’t they? I seemed to remember having read that Kerry went to Boston College because he did not have the grades to get into Harvard. I also remember hearing that Gore almost flunked out. He was probably partying.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:43 pm 31. geezer:

Roger, Tony Blair is indeed a good guy and faithful ally, but make no mistake — Maggie Thatcher would have eaten his breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner and all snacks in between. I enjoyed watching her during “Question Time” while stationed in the UK from ‘79-’85. No one, absolutely no one, came close.

It’s a shame she couldn’t have been an American, then made it to the top. One tough lady.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:55 pm 32. RBC:

richard mcenroe:

In the past four years Bush has

led the country after a sneak attack that killed thousands of civilians and deepened a recession.

Leading the country happened to be his job; it is not proof that his mental facilities were not degenerating.

crushed a religious dictatorship in the Mideast.

Single-handedly? Impressive! I’d suggest to you that maybe a handful of generals, for starters, had a say in the matter.

crushed a secular dictatorship in the Mideast.

Same again. Ordering the strongest military in the world to take out a weakened foe doesn’t require a genius IQ… unlike post-war planning, where that sure would come in handy.

Produced the first free elections in Afghanistan in 3000 years.

Is on track to produce free elections in Iraq, something no European power ever attempted.

You could say that Reagan was (partly) responsible for bringing free elections to Eastern Europe and beyond. It’s not proof that his mental facilities were not degenerating at the time, which we now know they were.

Broke the Pakistani nuke ring.

This guy Bush must be a regular one-man army to do all this stuff by himself, huh? How does he find the time? Seriously, don’t you think there are a large number of other people who deserve some credit for collecting the intelligence regarding this?

Incidentally, AQ Khan was let off with a slap on the wrist.

Led Libya to give up its WMD’s.

By the same token, he led North Korea to want to double their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.

If his trend is down, I suggest we find out what is making him stupid and send a barrel of it to everyone in Congress.

They probably have access to all the good Scotch they need.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:04 pm 33. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

blogaddict

I haven’t seen the strong signs of narcissim that Bill Clinton showed. I’m curious what you are cluing off of. I think a lot of politicians have more narcissim than normal.

Saddam was a malignant narcissist, about the worst thing you want in a leader.

I know that one swifties who is quite bright and in a position to have the raw observational data told me that Kerry was a sociopath, which if true is scary. I believe Samuel, who knows Kerry and is plugged into lots of high level politicos, believes the same.

Kerry is a fabulizer (what a neat word – I can thank Kerry’s existence for adding that to my vocabulary) – I don’t know if he might have one of the factitious disorders. My daughter had a true Munschausen (a bizarre factitious disorder – and also a quite dangerous one to people nearby) as a room mate, so we did a bit of studying on those.

Regarding IQ – there are several books that supposedly debunk it. They need to be debunked. IQ is a rock solid psychometric measure. It has been studied to death, and the proposed impact of other items like culture turn out to not be significant. The annoying thing about IQ is that it produces results that are significantly politically incorrect, and it can’t be changed much. Both of these factors (the first of which – group aggregate IQ differences) are unfortunate but true.

A higher IQ doesn’t make someone a better person or a “smarter” person in a practical sense. I believe it is also correlated with certain mental disorders such as bipolar distorder. It does mean that all things considered, that person will do better than a lower IQ person in cognitive areas. It does not imply increased creativity as far as I know.

Like many human characteristics, it is partly inherited (40-60%) and partly formed by other means.

I had a Kerry supporter and storm chase friend (who himself clearly has a very high IQ) bet me that Bush’s IQ was under 110. When I showed him that it was over 125, and asked for my $50, he blew me off with a “that isn’t a real IQ test” because it was derived from SAT scores. These people really have to believe their myths, and even solid evidence is something the dismiss. I was going to give his money back anyway, but oh well.

The military tests mentioned are meant to be IQ tests, they just use a different score.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:05 pm 34. Ben:

RBC

It is pretty clear from your comment that you did not actually read the Sailer article. The author explicitly states that relative IQ scores remain remarkably stable over a person’s life; thus, if two people who are approximately the same age took the same IQ test in 1965 and again in 1995, the one who scored higher in 1965 would also likely score higher in 1995. In short, your comment is informed more by prejudice than by knowledge.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:05 pm 35. RBC:

Ben,

I am well aware that in general IQ is reasonably constant throughout a person’s lifetime. This does not mean that there are no individuals whose mental facilities deteriorate over time. Comparing Bush’s speaking abilities over time, that does appear to be the case, possibly as a result of his drug use and excessive drinking, possibly due to other causes.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:37 pm 36. Mark Poling:

Ben, RBC has his story and he’s sticking to it.

Today’s Democrat: an opportunistic prude devoted to the politics of slander.

RBC, you are a credit to your party.

Oct 25, 2004 - 6:23 am 37. Charlie (Colorado):

am well aware that in general IQ is reasonably constant throughout a person’s lifetime. This does not mean that there are no individuals whose mental facilities deteriorate over time. Comparing Bush’s speaking abilities over time, that does appear to be the case, possibly as a result of his drug use and excessive drinking, possibly due to other causes.

Interesting — here’s an example of a firing rule firing even though it obviously is already blunted.

Oct 25, 2004 - 7:32 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: