"Come on in, George."

Bill DeWitt wrote:
bmcky mentioned in passing :

Could Einstein or Picasso fly an F-102 ?

Or best Kerry on an IQ test?

I assume you are referring to Steve Sailer's pretty sad attempt to
compare apples to oranges on VDARE.com.

There was no IQ test. There were several IQ-ish tests, but at no point
did either of them take anything reporting to be a comparable test that
has been released to the public. And SAT scores are not even that
highly correlated with IQ, due to the large amount of test strategy
involved as well as the vocabulary/idiomatic usage questions (how much
of the dictionary you HAVE memorized (SAT) is only a clue to how much
of it you CAN memorize (IQ)).

We KNOW that Einstein was a one-in-a-million intelligence. Even
Sailer's analysis puts Bush and Kerry in the five-to-ten-in-a-hundred
category. So, Einstein could definitely have beaten either of them on
an IQ test.

Intelligence wasn't Picasso's trade so it's hard to put an IQ number on
him. I suspect that none of the above could touch Picasso in his chosen
realm.

In my Seminar on International Political Economy, we looked at a study
that tried to ennumerate the conceptual complexity of top central
bankers (Alan Greenspan, and his opposite numbers around the world) and
contrast that with their bank's independance as measured another way.
Being in the fall of last year, we naturally looked at the candidates,
and Bush came up very far behind in Conceptual Complexity. Using a Bill
DeWitt debate tactic, I will not cite any work on Conceptual
Complexity, but will affirm that it's a better measure than IQ for a
politician's skill. And not allow any argument of that point.

-Hollywood, who beats both candidates if they are 5-to-10-in-a-hundred

"Bill DeWitt" wrote in message
...
bmcky mentioned in passing :

Could Einstein or Picasso fly an F-102 ?

Or best Kerry on an IQ test?


Most IQ tests really only test how good the subject in question is at taking
that particular IQ test.

On 16 Sep 2005 07:21:38 -0700, Max Hollywood Harris wrote:


In my Seminar on International Political Economy, we looked at a study
that tried to ennumerate the conceptual complexity of top central
bankers (Alan Greenspan, and his opposite numbers around the world) and
contrast that with their bank's independance as measured another way.
Being in the fall of last year, we naturally looked at the candidates,
and Bush came up very far behind in Conceptual Complexity. Using a Bill
DeWitt debate tactic, I will not cite any work on Conceptual
Complexity, but will affirm that it's a better measure than IQ for a
politician's skill. And not allow any argument of that point.

-Hollywood, who beats both candidates if they are 5-to-10-in-a-hundred

I have got to give you this Hollywood. How can anyone argue with you
when you made up the scale. :-)

Pan Ohco

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:38:39 -0400, Marengo wrote:


My guess is that with equal training on both sides, both Einstein and
Picasso could fly an F-102 better than George Bush could paint a picture or
expound on the mathematical proof of the theory of relativity.

I think I have to disagree with you on this. Einstein was all mental
talent, no coordination or physical talent.
And as to Picasso, I believe George Bush and anyone else could paint a
better picture. But that just my dislike of Picasso.
But I must admit that Picasso did have better PR the George Bush.

Pan Ohco

On 16 Sep 2005 07:01:49 -0700, wrote:



Any american high school drop out can be trained to fly an F-102. They
just make the controls similiar to a japanese Sony Play Station game
controller.

TC

Cool, when are you going to take me for a ride TC.

Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco mentioned in passing :

But I must admit that Picasso did have better PR the George Bush.

True.

GWB is smarter than the average, seems to out-think the Democrats coming
and going, and is forthright... which is not true of many people who claim
to be smarter than him.

Most of the insults about his intelligence can be boiled down to either
a bias against southern accents or a critisim of his dysphasia. Both
hallmarks of a liberal democrat, to pick on people because of their origins
or handicaps.

Rox wrote:
Bill DeWitt wrote:
bmcky mentioned in passing :

Could Einstein or Picasso fly an F-102 ?

Or best Kerry on an IQ test?

Most IQ tests really only test how good the subject in
question is at taking that particular IQ test.

IQ tests are a best effort at measuring intelligence.
Since intelligence is hard to define, it is even harder
to measure. But step back and think about it - Once you
know someone for a while you end up with a good idea how
intelligent they are. Intelligence is a very real idea
and it is measured by people automatically. No matter that
it is hard to measure folks do so anyways. IQ tests do
better than some think, and there is constant effort to
improve them to get in line with the type of judgement
that people make anyways.

IQ tests are limited and they do make mistakes, but just
try collecting 50 people who scored 140+ and see if you
fail to call almost all of them smart once you get to
know them. Try collecting 50 people who scored 60- and
see if you find any geniuses. Do not mistake falibility
with worthlessness.

On folks calling Bush stupid, go right ahead. It's clear
he's one of the worst public speakers ever elected to the
office (apparently nearly as bad as George Washington).
If you make the mistake that poor public speaking equals
stupid, just try getting up in public and making a good
speech some time. Doing that causes you to underestimate
your opponent. He won re-election thanks to that sort of
underestimate. I'm neither pro-Bush nor anti-Bush but I
respect the way he parlays his weakness in public speaking
into his strength in getting folks to underestimate him.

In article ,
bmcky wrote:

Could Einstein or Picasso fly an F-102 ?

Neither can Bush.
--
D.F. Manno |
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)

In article ,
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:

Or best Kerry on an IQ test?

When did the Shrub and Kerry ever take the same test, so their scores could be
directly compared?
--
D.F. Manno |
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often
very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit
to oppression.--H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" (1956)

Pan Ohco wrote:
On 16 Sep 2005 07:21:38 -0700, Max Hollywood Harris wrote:


In my Seminar on International Political Economy, we looked at a study
that tried to ennumerate the conceptual complexity of top central
bankers (Alan Greenspan, and his opposite numbers around the world) and
contrast that with their bank's independance as measured another way.
Being in the fall of last year, we naturally looked at the candidates,
and Bush came up very far behind in Conceptual Complexity. Using a Bill
DeWitt debate tactic, I will not cite any work on Conceptual
Complexity, but will affirm that it's a better measure than IQ for a
politician's skill. And not allow any argument of that point.

-Hollywood, who beats both candidates if they are 5-to-10-in-a-hundred

I have got to give you this Hollywood. How can anyone argue with you
when you made up the scale. :-)

You so funny. So funny I'm forgetting to laugh as I write this.

I did not make up the scale.

The ennumerating scale was created by a political economy/sociology
professor.

Conceptual Complexity is widely used in studies like psychology and
sociology. Not very used in political economy, which is what made the
study interesting and discussion worthy.

Googling "Conceptual Complexity" (in quotes) returns "about 28,900"
pages. Three were on my harddrive. The rest must be figments of my
imagination. Get out, live and learn Pan.

-Hollywood, who reminds that IQ is a measure of capacity, not
achievement. Think Gattica. Loren Dean has the capacity to do amazing
things, but Ethan Hawke is the one who actually goes into space.