Bush or Kerry: Who has the higher I.Q.?

[crawjo]

article.

[Tom Storer]

I think Bush is as thick as a post, but it has nothing to do with the IQ scores the man in the article is speculating about. A person's innate intelligence is piloted by his or her personality. Bush, as has been pointed out many a time, lacks curiosity. He doesn't want to investigate, analyze, assess; he's not interested in nuance, detail, subtlety, complexity. He likes yes-or-no questions. He's a man who would prefer a multiple-choice exam, preferably with no more than two choices per question, whereas Kerry would prefer to write essays--boring and repetitive, perhaps, but still he's more given to careful thinking. Bush doesn't like to think, he likes to say, "Gawrsh! I have an instinct! I'll be decisive about it!"

So faced with the shocking possibility that one fellow thinks, based on his analyzing some old test scores, that maybe Bush has five IQ-test points on Kerry, one can only say, so what if it were true? Smart is as smart does, and one can hardly look at the Bush presidency and see the work of a very bright individual.

[Sergio Zamora]

Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

From the article "Without a Doubt" by Ron Susskind, in the New York Times Review of Books, October 17, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...58cddb63c04330

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

>>Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.'' <<


He just does that kind of thing because he's so modest, he doesn't want to intimidate people with searing brilliance of his overpowering intellect.


Both of these chumps would have had trouble getting into Brooklyn Tech, where their daddies' money and influence would have counted for nothing.

[walto]

Both of these chumps would have had trouble getting into Brooklyn Tech, where their daddies' money and influence would have counted for nothing.

Maybe, but they have a geekiness quotient there, don't they? I mean, e.g., your clothes can't fit right and it's better if there's a stain on all your shirts--isn't that true?

[Underhound]

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''



That's called being "resolute".

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, and leadership. He'll lead you right over the abyss and insist all the while he's falling that he's not.

[Rob C]

All this misses the point: The question is, which candidate does God want in the White House???

[Root Doctor]

This places Bush in the Cpl. Agarn position: "Who says I'm dumb?"

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Yeah, and leadership. He'll lead you right over the abyss and insist all the while he's falling that he's not.

Bush is like the guy in that old joke who jumps off a building, and every few floors on the way down says, "So far, so good."

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by Squaredancecalling Steve

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The Swedes are probably quite relieved that he doesn't know they've got an army.

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, except it's not him falling but lots of American GIs and lots more Iraqi civilians.

[lynn]

I suspect Hitler might have had a pretty good IQ too. I think Bush's stupid act is a mask that hides his intentions. He has done a real good job for his elite "base" while pandoring to the blue collar voter. The art of deceit is his forte.

[patricia]

High I.Q. or not, a phrase that doesn't appear to exist for George W. Bush is:

"I was wrong. Now what can we do to repair the incalculable damage that my decision has made on the world?
How can we regain our place, as a respected member of the world community?"

It astounds me that George W Bush doesn't seem to know, despite his purported intelligence, that it is possible for him to be wrong.

George W Bush was wrong and thousands of people are dead, because he was wrong.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Originally Posted by walto

Maybe, but they have a geekiness quotient there, don't they? I mean, e.g., your clothes can't fit right and it's better if there's a stain on all your shirts--isn't that true?

Well, yes, but the key fashion statement was wearing a sliderule in a sheath hanging from your belt.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by patricia

High I.Q. or not, a phrase that doesn't appear to exist for George W. Bush is:

"I was wrong. Now what can we do to repair the incalculable damage that my decision has made on the world?
How can we regain our place, as a respected member of the world community?"

In all fairness, accourding to the article, Bush did approach Lantos some time later and admitted he was wrong about Sweden.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

In all fairness, accourding to the article, Bush did approach Lantos some time later and admitted he was wrong about Sweden.

My mistake. Bush will admit that he was wrong long after it matters. I suspect that at some time in the future he will admit that he MAY have been wrong about Iraq, when it doesn't matter any more.
To be even more fair, I would be willing to bet that Mr Bush is, today, not even sure where Sweden is.

[RBS]

IQ doesn't mean squat unless you do something with it.

[walto]

Well, if that's settled, I've got another one: Bush, Kerry or my younger (& smarter) guinea pig--who has the highest IQ?

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

First we'd have to know how well your guinea pig does on the Wellforth-Shipley Standardized Maze Sequences.

[Enforcer]

The highest IQ right now belongs to Marilyn vos Savant, with a score of 228. A friend of mine is a physicist and he related an answer she gave in her syndicated column many years ago. The question asked what would happen if irresistible force meets immovable object. Her answer was that she thought they would sort of meld together or something. Anyway, my friend felt this was the ultimate argument to support those who believe that IQ is a very incomplete measurement of real world intelligence.

[walto]

Yeah, "Vos Savant" (real name fer sure) is a dimwit in many areas. She's given some incredibly stupid answers in "Parade" over the years. She's good with certain sorts of math puzzles and word games, I guess.

SqD, Fumbles ("Yes she is") got a 7 on that test. My slightly older one Jumbly-Guinterprise ("Yes you are") can barely manage a 5.

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by walto

Yeah, "Vos Savant" (real name fer sure) is a dimwit in many areas. She's given some incredibly stupid answers in "Parade" over the years. She's good with certain sorts of math puzzles and word games, I guess.

If she does have the highest IQ in the land, it's gratifying to know that she's put it to good use with that Parade column. Society is grateful.

[Nefertiti]

I just saw on german TV a dodumentation on the Bush family, and in G.W.'s speeches from the mid 90's he was actually a good speaker, completely different from what he is today.

This hasn't necessarily something to do with I.Q., but it shows that some of his mental capacities must have degraded a lot in the recent years.

[Dr Dave]

"Besides humans, the ten most intelligent animals are: chimpanzees,
gorillas, orangutans, baboons, gibbons, monkeys (many species,
especially macaques), smaller toothed whales (especially killer whales
or Orcas), dolphins, elephants, and pigs."

source: Wildly Weird Facts, hosted by rarespecies.org

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all the pigs--past, present, and future--that have died and will die so that I can eat prosciutto. On the other hand, if the situation were reversed, I doubt whether pigs would have any compunctions whatsoever about eating me.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, you'll never know for sure, I hope, Doc.

IQ is probably the dumbest way to measure intelligence, but the comment above about it not mattering if you don't use it is spot on, regardless. Lots of people's brainpower atrophies simply from disuse.

My take on Bush, having dealt with thousands of street people, is that he has organic brain damage from his many years of alcohol and drug use -- what the streetpeople call "wet brain." He has all of the symptoms.

On the other hand, however, his father had the same malady re his inability to speak in complete sentences or maintain the same thought for more than four or five words in a row. The Times used to print verbatim records of presidential news conferences, including all the stammerings and uhs and absurdly unrelated independent clauses and such. It was funny as hell reading them.

So, who knows. Perhaps they share a dysfunctional gene that leads to brainpower deterioration at relatively young ages. Bushheimer's disease, or something. Or maybe Poppy was a closet drunk.

We'll never know til it's much too late, if ever.

[Dr Dave]

The following article is from "Counterpunch," a totally scurrilous liberal journal. It is offered here not for veracity, but for entertainment value:

Addiction, Brain Damage and the President
"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and
George W. Bush
by KATHERINE van WORMER

Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the article "Dry Drunk" - - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush's speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms-- "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evil doers," "axis of evil," and "regime change", terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting is that because of the connection between addiction and "stinking thinking," relapse prevention usually consists of work in the cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the President's speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There). Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered what Bush's choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or where we would be going.

First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction

Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good."

Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is in violation, of course, of international law as well as national precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek editorial, "Iraq: It's the Oil, Stupid." Many other opponents of the Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush's logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign, "Drunk on Power." This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit."

Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long." Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq's disarmament with extreme reluctance.

Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.

To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush's personal history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield's book, Fortunate Son, Bush later explained:

"[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies....I'd lose focus." Although he once said he couldn't remember a day he hadn't had a drink, he added that he didn't believe he was "clinically alcoholic." Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was never an alcoholic. It's just he knows he can't hold his liquor."

Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian," going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I'm not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."

That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush's family is indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of course, deserves credit for his realization that he can't drink moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he doesn't drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President's thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis.

One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign policy realm relates to Bush's history relevant to his father. The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father's reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father's laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father's as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as before, in his father's footsteps. I mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do - - to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the "evildoer" Saddam.

To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are here:

the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;

"I" as opposed to "we" thinking;

the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).

His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically.

If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.

Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002). She can be reached at: Katherine.VanWormer@uni.edu

-30-

I don't believe a word of it.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).

His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically.



-30-

I don't believe a word of it.

Except those two points.

George W, by his own admission, "doesn't do nuance". There is no grey area.

Being the son who has never really succeeded at anything, must have been depressing. Imagine how pleased George H W would be if the screw-up son finally succeeded? Imagine if he not only succeeded, but succeeded where George H W is widely believed to have failed?

Fortunately, most people don't have the opportunity to redeem themselves in their family's eyes by launching a war, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

[Gary Sisco]

George, Sr., has no reason to believe he'd failed, as he had no intention in the Gulf War of doing anything other than what they did, successfully.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

George, Sr., has no reason to believe he'd failed, as he had no intention in the Gulf War of doing anything other than what they did, successfully.

I agree. However, George W seems to think that capturing Saddam Hussein, which has faded in the collective memory, and toppling his regime is the brightest plume in his own Presidential beanie.
I can't help wondering what his father really thinks of his son's ongoing fiasco.
I don't mean what he tells the press, but what he really thinks.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall, as George W tried to explain to Dad that "freedom is on the march".