I get tired of hearing this! Rant!

scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Beth, I posted a simular chart and ofcoures no one commented on it either. Maybe THEY didnt see it.
I beleive the chart you posted also appeared in the Steve McGourty "article" linked earlier by Beth and I have responded. I could be wrong ...did not double-check.
 
forestgump

forestgump

New Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Based on Bush's SAT scores he has an IQ of 125 or slightly higher. This would place him in the very superior intelligence range based on IQ and in the over 90 percentile group. An idiot has an IQ of 20 or less.
I just wanted to comment on this. IQ scores can't really be figured by looking at SAT scores. The two tests are meant to evaluate very different things. Even those who make the translations along with other formulas, usually only for an interesting idea for a fun way to look at historical figures, acknowledge that there is a very high degree of error involved, and is not to be accepted as even close to precise.
An IQ test is trying to determine a persons ability to learn, understand and reason. It is actually not a very good indicator of the rate of success of an individual. Someone with a high IQ can simply decide not to put forth the effort to learn much throughout life due to laziness or any number of other factors. On the other hand a person with a lower IQ can be very driven to succeed and keep pounding the books, if you will, to acquire more knowledge, even though it is much more difficult for this person to achieve a given amount of knowledge.
An SAT score, or other standardized tests used in the education system, is used to asses accumulated knowledge, the result of which can be achieved by individuals with greatly varying IQ scores. In other words, a person with a low IQ can work to achieve a high SAT score just as a person with a high IQ can score low on the SAT. Obviously many different environmental factors can come into play here which, ofcourse, is the focus of a great deal of research and debate.
It is understandably very common for people to mistake intelligence with smart or educated. However the difference is very important. Some have argued that in whatever way a person gets to the point of ataining knowledge, the important factor is that they actually did aquire the knowledge, and that the "drive" present in those with a lower IQ to attain an equivilant amount of knowledge is actually a very beneficial characteristic. Others argue that when comparing two people with an equivilant amount of knowledge but with distinctly different IQ levels, the person with the lower IQ, will not be able to utilize the knowledge as efficiently or productively. And in fact, may have a very difficult time, especially with vast amounts of knowledge, being able to reason within the frame work of this knowledge. In essence, they may get stuck with the original knowledge and not be able to see correlations between different bodies of knowledge, or intricacies even within their own framework. They may become closed, like a book that's already been printed and can't be added to or amended without a great deal of effort. With a direct correlation being made where the more intricate or complicated the information in question, the more difficult it is for the person to reasonably maneuver within that information.
All I'm saying is, if it matters, SAT and IQ are not comparable. Also "idiot" is no longer used as a categorization of IQ level due to being politically incorrect.
 
forestgump

forestgump

New Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
So after reading this I can assume that GW is even brighter than the 125 estimate that Scub suggested, right??

I don't know. He may be or not. I have no idea what is actual IQ is. He has obviously been educated, but any further than that I couldn't personally speculate.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by forestgump
I just wanted to comment on this. IQ scores can't really be figured by looking at SAT scores. The two tests are meant to evaluate very different things. Even those who make the translations along with other formulas, usually only for an interesting idea for a fun way to look at historical figures, acknowledge that there is a very high degree of error involved, and is not to be accepted as even close to precise.
An IQ test is trying to determine a persons ability to learn, understand and reason. It is actually not a very good indicator of the rate of success of an individual. Someone with a high IQ can simply decide not to put forth the effort to learn much throughout life due to laziness or any number of other factors. On the other hand a person with a lower IQ can be very driven to succeed and keep pounding the books, if you will, to acquire more knowledge, even though it is much more difficult for this person to achieve a given amount of knowledge.
An SAT score, or other standardized tests used in the education system, is used to asses accumulated knowledge, the result of which can be achieved by individuals with greatly varying IQ scores. In other words, a person with a low IQ can work to achieve a high SAT score just as a person with a high IQ can score low on the SAT. Obviously many different environmental factors can come into play here which, ofcourse, is the focus of a great deal of research and debate.
It is understandably very common for people to mistake intelligence with smart or educated. However the difference is very important. Some have argued that in whatever way a person gets to the point of ataining knowledge, the important factor is that they actually did aquire the knowledge, and that the "drive" present in those with a lower IQ to attain an equivilant amount of knowledge is actually a very beneficial characteristic. Others argue that when comparing two people with an equivilant amount of knowledge but with distinctly different IQ levels, the person with the lower IQ, will not be able to utilize the knowledge as efficiently or productively. And in fact, may have a very difficult time, especially with vast amounts of knowledge, being able to reason within the frame work of this knowledge. In essence, they may get stuck with the original knowledge and not be able to see correlations between different bodies of knowledge, or intricacies even within their own framework. They may become closed, like a book that's already been printed and can't be added to or amended without a great deal of effort. With a direct correlation being made where the more intricate or complicated the information in question, the more difficult it is for the person to reasonably maneuver within that information.
All I'm saying is, if it matters, SAT and IQ are not comparable. Also "idiot" is no longer used as a categorization of IQ level due to being politically incorrect.

I see you have read detterman- frey
 
forestgump

forestgump

New Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I see you have read detterman- frey
Good point. They believe that SAT scores generaly correlate with IQ scores. Many others disagree. As I mentioned it's a large debate. A person has to wonder. Since an IQ, by defininition, is supposed to measure something intrinsic in a persons cognitive ability then how is it that students can take an SAT and do poorly, take an SAT prep class and study for the test and retest to do significantly better(that is, if the SAT is truley measuring the cognitive ability that the IQ attempts to measure). Some SAT prep classes go as far as to tout a %100 improvement on SAT scores. The Sat is obviously geared toward what has been learned in school. And I think it's obvious that a child who lacks a proper education will not do well on the SAT but can very well have very good cognitive skills. Albert einstein is a good example, he would have failed portions of the SAT, he was terrible in math. But no one can argue his cognitive ability that would not have been prevelant on the SAT. Even Detterman and Frey don't argue that their methods are absolute, but that they do have a purposful use. There is a ton of literature on this stuff, and no I haven't read it all. But I believe at this point in the psychological debate, it's a big stretch to use the SAT to try to accuratly predict the IQ of the president of the U.S.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Scuba, You 'rant' earlier ( though I hate that word ) about Syria and the WMDs so I posted a couple of C and P with some differing arguments and you seemed to ignore them, just go along with the change of subject ?
What gives, I dont expect them to change YOUR mind but why should I bother if you dont at least comment that its not true or more kool-aid or something?
I have located the Tierney interview. he was at ground zero during the inspection I encourage all to read this regardless of your position. This is first hand .....
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20154
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
The IQ ??? you can be the smartest person on earth and still make mistakes.
Bush 1 let Saddom go in the first Gulf War and were paying for that and CW let BinLaudin go at ToraBora (sp) and when we went into Iraq thinking.........So mistakes or the greatest military moves in history? The IQ runs in the family.
 
forestgump

forestgump

New Member
Before I leave id like to correct something I said above about Einstein being bad at math. I know its off point here but, its not true. In highschool he did bad in greek and latin and probably didn't finish. In college in Switzerland he got As Bs and Cs in most subjects but failed "physical experiments for beginners". I think it still works as pretty good example(maybe), as he wasn't an exceptional student but obviously had exceptional cognitive skills.
Off topic I know, Ill leave the thread alone now.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by forestgump
By the way, Bush might even have an IQ of 150. Who knows.
Actually mid 120's on his officers exam.
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I have located the Tierney interview. he was at ground zero during the inspection I encourage all to read this regardless of your position. This is first hand .....
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20154
OK, one bias guy talking to a bias interviewer.
""FP: With the Democrats now so viciously and hypocritically attacking Bush about WMDs, ""
I almost stop reading after this second sentence.
No proof, all his say so. and then deep in the interveiw he said this. ""There was a sufficient percentage of defectors with accurate information to ensure that we would catch the Iraqis in the act. ""
DUPED, or what percentage and why did he think they were reliable or accurate ? Why didnt they catch them, of course he gives his thoughts.....
I just cant see any of this as being any more a better sorce than anything else out there saying one way or the other. I cant say one way or the other either.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
OK, one bias guy talking to a bias interviewer.
""FP: With the Democrats now so viciously and hypocritically attacking Bush about WMDs, ""
I almost stop reading after this second sentence.
No proof, all his say so. and then deep in the interveiw he said this. ""There was a sufficient percentage of defectors with accurate information to ensure that we would catch the Iraqis in the act. ""
DUPED, or what percentage and why did he think they were reliable or accurate ? Why didnt they catch them, of course he gives his thoughts.....
I just cant see any of this as being any more a better sorce than anything else out there saying one way or the other. I cant say one way or the other either.
Right..all fairy tales
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
The IQ ??? you can be the smartest person on earth and still make mistakes.
Bush 1 let Saddom go in the first Gulf War and were paying for that and CW let BinLaudin go at ToraBora (sp) and when we went into Iraq thinking.........So mistakes or the greatest military moves in history? The IQ runs in the family.
The thinking wiht the first Gulf War was that Saddam would keep the Iranians in check..let him stay...a mistake IMO.....have we heard from Iran lately..I heard something about nukes and some other "stuff".
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
OK, one bias guy talking to a bias interviewer.
""FP: With the Democrats now so viciously and hypocritically attacking Bush about WMDs, ""
I almost stop reading after this second sentence.
No proof, all his say so. and then deep in the interveiw he said this. ""There was a sufficient percentage of defectors with accurate information to ensure that we would catch the Iraqis in the act. ""
DUPED, or what percentage and why did he think they were reliable or accurate ? Why didnt they catch them, of course he gives his thoughts.....
I just cant see any of this as being any more a better sorce than anything else out there saying one way or the other. I cant say one way or the other either.
I have read addtional articles regarding Tierney. TO my knowledge, no one has ever stepped forward and provided eveidnece or an opinon as to the inaccuracy of his account. If you have information regrding this I would be happy to read it.
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
My point, The Thinking.... A mistake....one of many IMO.
Iran, right, and Korea, right, so why are we waisting time, money and lives in Iraq? Right. True threats even befor Iraq, and what are we doing about them, what have we done about them? Nothing, Why, Do we even have a military left to do anything. I dont know. Will we accomplish the mission as fast as we did in Iraq. I dont think so now. JMO
Oh wait, are you saying Iraq gave all that sh** to Iran ? ;)
 
37g joe

37g joe

Member
hmmmm No weapons of mass destruction huh?
June 23, 2004 U.S forces seized 1.77 tons of enriched Uranium ( type used for atomic bombs) according to BBC news(might I add they dont like bush). Department of Energy experts also removed 1,000 radioactive materails in "powderd for" which is used to make Dirty bombs. Said by Brian Wilkes. an energy department spokesmen.
Polish General Marek dukacsweski revealed that polish forces had revealed tips from Iraqis that Chemical weapons had been sold to terorist groups. The weapons had been buried to avoid detection The Generl told the bbc that military officals had bought seventeen chemical weapons war-heads from Iraqis for $5000 each to keep from Iraq's so called insurgents. Test confirmed that some of the weapons contained Cyclosarin a nerve gas five times more powerful than sarin gas. These weapons where sapose to be destroyed during U.N inspections but these WMD's survived what else might have.
U.S soldiers stomed a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq on august 8, 2005 and found 1500 gallons of chemical agents.
Roadside bombs that have exploaded in Iraq have been found with saringas such as one that exploded near aU.S convoy on may 17, 2004 the shell was a Binary chemical projectile that Was Improvised explosive which was saposed to be destreoyed in 1991 but was not.
The Iraq Survey Group led by David Key discoverd a projectile loaded with mustard Gas attached to a roadside bomb in may of 2004 the mustard gas shell is belived to be a part of 80 TONS of such gas still unacounted for
in 1998 U.N inspectors found evidence that Iraq was making VX nerve gas, Iraq first Denied making VX, Than claimed it only made 200 liters, and then claimed that it had made 3,900 liters but failed to "weaponize it". But they never prove that it was never weaponized.
If you want me to post more info I can but I think I already made my case.
All this info is easly backed up and has been proven to be correct by several outlets.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
My point, The Thinking.... A mistake....one of many IMO.
Iran, right, and Korea, right, so why are we waisting time, money and lives in Iraq? Right. True threats even befor Iraq, and what are we doing about them, what have we done about them? Nothing, Why, Do we even have a military left to do anything. I dont know. Will we accomplish the mission as fast as we did in Iraq. I dont think so now. JMO
Oh wait, are you saying Iraq gave all that sh** to Iran ? ;)
Actually, there have been reports that some went in that direction..although my opinion is that they did not. it is more logical that some made there way to Syria. For the record, Tierney has some questionable behavior...I'll leave it to you to do your homework if you so choose....but I have never heard of his accounts being termed 100% false...but I do not read everything so it could be out there.
As I look back at the Saddam regime...it is simply difficult for me to accept that he had conformed and simply destroyed his weapons and no longer had them. It does make sense to me that he would logically move them, hide them or destroy them prior to the invasion.
Here we sit as a country divided......what have we won? If you ask me...the WMD have caused for more harm here at home. They have hit us hard here at home ...yet not one explosion have we heard on our soil.
Like I have said before on many threads here and thoughout the community I live in...the enemy knows us better than we know ourselves...and we are allowing them to beat us.
That is my opinion...right or wrong...I beleive it and so is the following .....we are far weaker today then we were several years ago regarding the war on terror.......did some country drop a nuke here at home? Sure feels that way.......the smoke must be clouding the vision of many
I beleive we will simply have to wait for the next body count here at home for us to become strong and united once again . .....and then we will fall asleep once again.
We are predictable.... which makes winning a non-conventional war easier for the enemy.
Lets start fighting wars to win..and stop all the nicey bullcrap.........time to pickup the Louisville Slugger..and play some Homerun Derby.
The message should be sent...those that stand with us we thank...those that harbor, finance and aid our enemies we are coming...those that wish to remain neutral stay out of the way.......here is the clock......here is the bat....the clock has just struck midnight First Inning..... Batter-Up
These are my convictions since 9/11....I'll not change......as the enemy will remain steadfast to their "cause"...so we must as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top