EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Evolution Foes Defeated in Kansas
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3015
Page 8 of 8

Author:  denni50 [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

here are the IQ scores of US Presidents:

that last one is wrong....more like 45(chuckle)

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)

http://www.lovenstein.org/report/


ps: here's what they say about our current esteemed leader.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.

Author:  Red [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wayne Stollings wrote:
You are correct that I should have included the distribution with in the range in my haste to reply. You must assume there is an actual Gaussian/normal distribution in intelligence as measured by the IQ tests, which we know is not the case even though that is the desired effect.


No, there's no such thing as a normal distribution in intelligence. There is in the scoring of IQ tests. Two fundamentally distinct things.

Quote:
Thus, you have exhibited the flaw in your position for if it must be an equal number both above and below by definition the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale.


uh - it is known in advance. That's exactly how it is done.

Quote:
Also by definition the current scale of IQ would be limited to an upper range of 150 to maintain the curve.


Why?

Quote:
However, my first IQ test was several percentage points above that level.


percentage points? percentage of what?

Quote:
IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution.


Now didn't you just say this couldn't be the case because "the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale."?

Quote:
IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution.


All statistical measures approximate. It's not a dirty word.

Author:  Red [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

denni50 wrote:
here are the IQ scores of US Presidents:


:wink:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Author:  Archer [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

denni50 wrote:
so according to the link 50% of the US population falls between
90-110...that seems awfully low.


It is low, but it seems accurate to me.

Author:  Archer [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

denni50 wrote:
here are the IQ scores of US Presidents:

that last one is wrong....more like 45(chuckle)

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)

http://www.lovenstein.org/report/


ps: here's what they say about our current esteemed leader.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.


I don't believe that. No matter what you think of the guy, he would have to have an I.Q. higher than that.

Author:  hunter88 [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

I do notice that Carter and Bush's IQs do fall in line with the unemployment percentages when they were in office. 15% to 4.6% is more like 4 to 1 then 2 to 1, but the general up and down remains the same.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Red wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You are correct that I should have included the distribution with in the range in my haste to reply. You must assume there is an actual Gaussian/normal distribution in intelligence as measured by the IQ tests, which we know is not the case even though that is the desired effect.


No, there's no such thing as a normal distribution in intelligence. There is in the scoring of IQ tests. Two fundamentally distinct things.


The scoring does not measure anything in your opinion? Odd, it does nothing and is followed so closely ....

Quote:
Quote:
Thus, you have exhibited the flaw in your position for if it must be an equal number both above and below by definition the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale.


uh - it is known in advance. That's exactly how it is done.


No, the outcome is not known in advance or the range would be within the desired range. There is an estimated outcome that works for the largest part of the curve.

Quote:
Quote:
Also by definition the current scale of IQ would be limited to an upper range of 150 to maintain the curve.


Why?


What part of "to maintain the curve" is confusing? There is a minimal level of measurement on the lower end to offset those scores higher than the theoretical max.

Quote:
Quote:
However, my first IQ test was several percentage points above that level.


percentage points? percentage of what?


Percentage points of 150, the point I was mentioning. You know 153 IQ points would be 2% over the 150 point.

Quote:
Quote:
IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution.


Now didn't you just say this couldn't be the case because "the outcome would have to be known in advance in order to construct the scale."?


Because to construct an accurate scale the outcome would have to be known and the scale adjusted accordingly.

Quote:
Quote:
IQ tests are designed to give approximately this Gaussian distribution.


All statistical measures approximate. It's not a dirty word.


It depends on how far off the approximation is from the actual. It also in interesting that the "definition" you referenced earlier is now an approximate definition ....

Now, if we were to look at what was said concerning the lower IQ levels this tangent is significantly disconnected.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

To maintain the curve based solely on the IQs listed for the presidents the upper range of 182 (Clinton which is still lower than the writer Vos Savant) would leave a lower measurable range of 18. The lowest level I have seen referenced for a measurable IQ is ~40 which would limit the upper range to ~160 if you have a the correct curve. Again, I blew that curve with my first series of tests back in grade school.

Of course there is the attempt to ignore the measurement created by the tests themselves. Those scores can be used to compare people from different areas/eras if the same tests are used.

Author:  Red [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
No, there's no such thing as a normal distribution in intelligence. There is in the scoring of IQ tests. Two fundamentally distinct things.


The scoring does not measure anything in your opinion? Odd, it does nothing and is followed so closely ....

..........



:lol:

OK. I admit you had me there for a bit. Good one. You're just making this all up as you go along, aren't you? :)









Aren't you? 8-[

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Red wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:
No, there's no such thing as a normal distribution in intelligence. There is in the scoring of IQ tests. Two fundamentally distinct things.


The scoring does not measure anything in your opinion? Odd, it does nothing and is followed so closely ....

..........



:lol:

OK. I admit you had me there for a bit. Good one. You're just making this all up as you go along, aren't you? :)









Aren't you? 8-[


MOI!? :shock: Would I do something like that just for a discussion? 8)

Am this not face of honest man? <tilting head to side and looking angelic> (Quote from ancient cartoon in Heavy Metal )

Page 8 of 8 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/