Question For Heck
-
But I remember a few years ago well quite a few actually, a guy I used to work with told me that he thought the definition of intelligence is how intelligent other people thought you were.
I will disagree though; I do believe all tax attorneys are smart.
There is definitely a learning capacity the discipline and the ability to get through whatever courses and remember what ever you need to remember just to get the degree. Sure, some are smarter than others.
WSS
-
I'm more amused than angry, Heck.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of Bachman but I do believe she is intelligent. I'm not the one to drag out number of college degrees, number of recognitions, etc. to establish one's 'intelligence'.
I simply find it amusing you rated one of those I threw out as high as a 7.
FWIW, being an effective Senator (Ted Kennedy) really doesn't establish intelligence. You already pointed that out.
I believe Ted Kennedy was a product of a system and, the fact is, basically flunked out of college and it took him more than a couple attempts to pass the bar. The fact he passed the bar - probably the only one he ever did pass without stopping in for a few - demonstrates he has some intelligence.
I lived the first 38 years of my life in MA and know more than a little bit about the Kennedy mystique.
Any way, I believe you've demonstrated your bias throughout this thread.
Mission accomplished.
-
Really?
A question that was framed to establish a bias of someone's perception of the IQ of conservative politicians?
Mission Accomplished?
You have to be kidding, the moment Heck put any value on any individual lower than your PERCEIVED sense of what you think is "fair" you "accomplished" your mission.
IF you were trying to understand or find an objective outcome than you can not be the sole arbiter of what is "fair".
The core problem with "conservative" candidates being painted as "dumb" is usually based around positions surrounding Global warming and Evolution.
When you take contrary positions to well established scientific Theories........ you are setting up yourself as having a questionable lack of understanding of basic fundamental principles of reason.... "flat earthers"
Its CLEAR that neither party holds any sort of claim of having more intelligent operatives than the other.
There are clearly intelligent individuals from both parties that have PHD's, Rhodes Scholars,etc as well as there are clearly some individuals who show low levels critical/analytical thinking.
I have met a lot of people over the years that range from nuclear physicists, MD's, engineers, lawyers, etc that have accomplished scholastic and professional achievements that are vertically intelligent in a specific domains.
I have also seen those same individuals show some astonishing inabilities in other areas that are quite low..... One of the most intelligent individuals I have ever met does not have a high school education and yet is extremely successful.
He has multiple holdings and has built up many different businesses in different fields and yet has none of the formal accolades. He shows an astonishing range of quantitative ability in almost everything, yet he looks like a hill jack, speaks like a truck driver and has the attention span of a sparrow.
You cant ask a question like you did and then hold judgement on an issue that has very little way of being objective. The only thing you accomplished was to show you had a bias against any answer Heck would have put forth because of your opinion.
-
>>You cant ask a question like you did and then hold judgement on an issue that has very little way of being objective. The only thing you accomplished was to show you had a bias against any answer Heck would have put forth because of your opinion.
To be fair and balanced, Heck:
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Joe Biden
Charles Rangel
Barney Frank
-
Heck, where do you put rhe big O?
And why?
WSS
-
I think to get a better idea of what the 1-10 scale represents may uncover a little more detail John is looking for.
What does 1 represent? 5? 10?
I want to throw out a suggestion:
Lets assume you must be of at least slightly below average intelligence to become a government rep.
1: as a basis should be defined as below average intelligence (but smart enough to attain a college degree at any community level college by just not failing)
2: Community college 3.0 + GPA
3: Average State college 2.0-2.5 GPA
4: Average State college 2.5-3.0 GPA
5: Average State college 3.0+ GPA
6: Private to Ivy league school 2.0-3.0 GPA graduate
7: Private to Ivy league school 3.0 -3.5 GPA graduate
8: Private to Ivy league school 3.5-4.0 GPA graduate
9: Elite engineering school (MIT/CMU level) average graduate
10: Genius
This is just a suggestion, but one I am interested seeing anyones perception of the two cross sections John put forth. I think its a great question of measuring perception.
-
You want me to rate these people on their intelligence?
Nancy Pelosi 6.5
Harry Reid 6
Joe Biden 6
Charles Rangel 5.5
Barney Frank 8.5
Does this confirm my bias, too?
-
Heck, for the sake of consistency, would you rate the intelligence of everyone who posted in this thread, yourself included? I'm just trying to get a grasp of your scale, but I've got many of the same questions that sev brought up.
-
I suppose that Obamao will be rated as "brilliant" ... a nine on that ten scale.
But he continually says stupid things. Wouldn't that mean he doesn't "process information" better than
Bachmann?
I mean, do we have to post his saying he was in Asia, when he was actually in Hawaii? Yes, you ignore that.
Do we have to bring up the "57 States" thing again?
And, Obamao did it again, saying he was in one place, when he was actually a different place.
My God, how does this bias thing work? One dumb statement immediately categorizes a conservative you don't like...
but many dumb statements by a lib you DO like, and they are still brilliant.
Sure. That's just par for the corrupt thinking course.
-
You want me to rate these people on their intelligence?
Nancy Pelosi 6.5
Harry Reid 6
Joe Biden 6
Charles Rangel 5.5
Barney Frank 8.5
Does this confirm my bias, too?
You want me to rate these people on their intelligence?
Nancy Pelosi 6.5
Harry Reid 6
Joe Biden 6
Charles Rangel 5.5
Barney Frank 8.5
Does this confirm my bias, too?
Heck are those based on my scale? IF so I dont know a ton about Barney Frank, I am intrigued and going to look up some stuff tonight.
-
No, it's entirely subjective.
-
No, it's entirely subjective.
No, it's entirely subjective.
Thanks, again, for your response Heck.
I wouldn't say you proved me wwwwwwwwwwwww......................rongggggggggggggggg.
One snapshot doesn't define a trend!
PS This thread has taken some strange twists and turns. Like I said before things don't always need to be THAT complicated.
-
No, it's entirely subjective.
No, it's entirely subjective.
And that's fair enough.
My own perception may very a bit but what the hell.
I'd say it takes a great deal of intelligence to get through any complicated or extremely disciplined advanced college course.
Some people have more of a knack for learning things than others.
Thats intelligence and it is measurable.
In the music world we call it talent. Anybody that spends an hour a day practicing will learn to play an instrument probably fairly well, but there will be a few who really become good.
Again Heck, where do you put the president, and why?
WSS
-
Michelle Bachmann has shown a complete inability to process information, or to discern fact from fiction, or conspiracy theory from reality, or what someone tells her on the street from what is true. Is that dumb? If it's not, it's certainly a relative. She's a hard worker and has some political skill, but there's no question that she's not some sort of intellectual heavyweight. Honestly, her opinions would fit in better on message board like this one. I find the idea that she's a somewhat powerful Congresswoman and ranks high on a committee that deals with questions she obviously knows next to nothing about, and is also running for president, and even garnered a bit of a following at one point, to be a sad commentary on where our politics are today.
So what earned her the 3 intelligence points?
-
Obama (D) 7-8
Dick Armey ranges
6-8Barney Frank (D) 7-8
Newt Gingrich
6-8Michelle Bachmann
3-5Nancy Pelosi (D) 3-5
Harry Reid (D)3-6
Joe Biden (D) 3-5
Charlie Rangel(D) 5-8
Rick Perry
4-5Ron Paul
7-8* I went thru each list at random so as not to just look at one party
* I used my scale in defining the values
* college quality was the biggest driving factor sourced from Wikipedia
* tighter ranges are based on my confidence in rendering an opinion
Now that I am done, for me it seems like my perception is that both parties pretty much have parity (based on my subjective opinion)
Just for fun..
Palin 1-3
Bush Jr 3-6.5
Clinton 7-9
Reagan 5-7
Carter 9
Bush Sr 8-9
-
Michelle Bachmann has shown a complete inability to process information, or to discern fact from fiction, or conspiracy theory from reality, or what someone tells her on the street from what is true. Is that dumb? If it's not, it's certainly a relative. She's a hard worker and has some political skill, but there's no question that she's not some sort of intellectual heavyweight. Honestly, her opinions would fit in better on message board like this one. I find the idea that she's a somewhat powerful Congresswoman and ranks high on a committee that deals with questions she obviously knows next to nothing about, and is also running for president, and even garnered a bit of a following at one point, to be a sad commentary on where our politics are today.
So what earned her the 3 intelligence points?
So what earned her the 3 intelligence points?
Because obviously there are people who can't even do what she does. There are people who are less educated, who possess no real knowledge at all.
If we were just talking about the 535 members of Congress, I'd say she'd rank in the bottom 50. But she'd also have some company.
Congress is all over the place. You have people who are really bright and exceptionally talented in certain areas, and you have lots of competent people, and then you have some total whack jobs who you wouldn't trust to babysit your pets.
What most of all of them have is drive. It's very exhausting being a member of Congress. It's a real shitty job, with part of virtually every day spent on the phone asking people for money. It takes a particular personality type.
Say what you want about Bachmann, she is a pretty tireless woman. And relentlessly kind in person, from what people tell me.
-
Hey Sev.
Your criteria don't look all that bad but I think your overlooking the fact that there are a lot of other things that determine whether or not you make it into an ivy league college.
Not to mention the fact that desire and drive really count a lot as far as whether or not you get a degree and how good your grades might be. There are probably a lot of people with a genius iq who attend cleveland state or don't apply themselves all that much or don't go to college at all.
But you probably need more brands to major in engineering at mit than you do for theater at akron u.
WSS
-
Hey Sev.
Your criteria don't look all that bad but I think your overlooking the fact that there are a lot of other things that determine whether or not you make it into an ivy league college.
Not to mention the fact that desire and drive really count a lot as far as whether or not you get a degree and how good your grades might be. There are probably a lot of people with a genius iq who attend cleveland state or don't apply themselves all that much or don't go to college at all.
But you probably need more brands to major in engineering at mit than you do for theater at akron u.
WSS
Hey Sev.
Your criteria don't look all that bad but I think your overlooking the fact that there are a lot of other things that determine whether or not you make it into an ivy league college.
Not to mention the fact that desire and drive really count a lot as far as whether or not you get a degree and how good your grades might be. There are probably a lot of people with a genius iq who attend cleveland state or don't apply themselves all that much or don't go to college at all.
But you probably need more brands to major in engineering at mit than you do for theater at akron u.
WSS
I could not agree more, however I did not want to get lost in the weeds of a subject matter that already is pretty murky... "IQ" is by itself subjective and I dont believe that there is a way to measure and define the different abilities in humans.
I dont want to go too much into that subject because it is just so large, I was just trying to get something simple and sort of objective.
In one of my posts in this thread I referenced an individual that I know personally that did not attend any level of formal higher education. I stand by my opinion that his abilities are well into "genius" or would be graded by the current methodologies and tests into that definition. He could easily attend any school in the U.S. but frankly learns on his own at a frightening speed. He does not care for any formal paper accolades or the methodology of seminar/lab/session to homework/project to quiz/testing.
He learns in more of an experiential method, and supplements from published data..... now that is not the way most people can but for him and I suspect a lot of other more "hands on" leaning individuals this works.
Either way, I stand by my subjective opinions and think the range of intelligence in either party is pretty equal.
-
Hey Sev.
Your criteria don't look all that bad but I think your overlooking the fact that there are a lot of other things that determine whether or not you make it into an ivy league college.
Not to mention the fact that desire and drive really count a lot as far as whether or not you get a degree and how good your grades might be. There are probably a lot of people with a genius iq who attend cleveland state or don't apply themselves all that much or don't go to college at all.
But you probably need more brands to major in engineering at mit than you do for theater at akron u.
WSS
I could not agree more, however I did not want to get lost in the weeds of a subject matter that already is pretty murky... "IQ" is by itself subjective and I dont believe that there is a way to measure and define the different abilities in humans.
I dont want to go too much into that subject because it is just so large, I was just trying to get something simple and sort of objective.
In one of my posts in this thread I referenced an individual that I know personally that did not attend any level of formal higher education. I stand by my opinion that his abilities are well into "genius" or would be graded by the current methodologies and tests into that definition. He could easily attend any school in the U.S. but frankly learns on his own at a frightening speed. He does not care for any formal paper accolades or the methodology of seminar/lab/session to homework/project to quiz/testing.
He learns in more of an experiential method, and supplements from published data..... now that is not the way most people can but for him and I suspect a lot of other more "hands on" leaning individuals this works.
Either way, I stand by my subjective opinions and think the range of intelligence in either party is pretty equal.
I could not agree more, however I did not want to get lost in the weeds of a subject matter that already is pretty murky... "IQ" is by itself subjective and I dont believe that there is a way to measure and define the different abilities in humans.
I dont want to go too much into that subject because it is just so large, I was just trying to get something simple and sort of objective.
In one of my posts in this thread I referenced an individual that I know personally that did not attend any level of formal higher education. I stand by my opinion that his abilities are well into "genius" or would be graded by the current methodologies and tests into that definition. He could easily attend any school in the U.S. but frankly learns on his own at a frightening speed. He does not care for any formal paper accolades or the methodology of seminar/lab/session to homework/project to quiz/testing.
He learns in more of an experiential method, and supplements from published data..... now that is not the way most people can but for him and I suspect a lot of other more "hands on" leaning individuals this works.
Either way, I stand by my subjective opinions and think the range of intelligence in either party is pretty equal.
What does your friend do? He sounds awesome.
-
The Ivy Leagues are hardly the only repository of intelligent life in America. You can find lots of very highly educated stupid people in Cambridge, believe me.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login