the shootings helped obama.

#80
#80
IPorange said:
Maybe I'm not articulating the basis of that well. He's shown himself to be fairly ignorant on economic issues. With labor issues. Foreign affairs. Geography. Etc. He comes across as an idealist, not a man of the world. These are not things that speak of him as being exceptionally brilliant.

I'm not saying that I'M not exceptionally brilliant. I'm not. But I get by alright. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Why is the perceived super-intelligence (you said top 1 %. I wonder what IQ value that would correspond to?) of our President so important? Why can't I think he's just pretty smart and very talented?

For the record, i think all but a mere handful of people are truly EXCEPTIONALLY intelligent, and statistical studies (which is what IQ scores are based on) back that up. The overwhelming majority of us are within a couple standard deviations of the mean. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

You disagree with some of his positions, so he is of lower intelligence. O.K, that's a different weird, but I understand it. As to your second point, I never claimed he was the smartest man in the world(I even made a note to distinguish Hawking), I just claimed all evidence points to him being at worst in the top 1%. I would argue your positions are naive and his are more practical, but whatever.
 
#82
#82
droski said:
you are an idiot if you think they've only made exceptions once. the harvard law review is a political animal.



no just an explanation as to why obama with his superior grades never once made the list.
Click to expand...

Ooh name-calling. I'm sure they give it to their worst students all the time. Obama coming from a family with no influence, in a class with the sons of senators and the like would be the perfect recipient of a politically based honor. Your logic is on fire today.
 
#85
#85
Ed12111 said:
Ooh name-calling. I'm sure they give it to their worst students all the time. Obama coming from a family with no influence, in a class with the sons of senators and the like would be the perfect recipient of a politically based honor. Your logic is on fire today.
Click to expand...

i guess being the first black head wouldn't be important for liberal harvard students right? only favoritism can come from being rich. got it.
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
IPorange said:
I looked it up. The top 1 % have an IQ at or above 135.

I could believe he has an IQ of that, actually.
Click to expand...

I believe that's around the 98% percentile. I can't remember the name, but it's the test that Mensa most readily recognizes. That's pretty much the bottom-line cutoff point and I think that's also the cut-off point for "borderline genius" through 150. 150-175 is genius and 175+ is supergenius.

Of course a high IQ is not a one-all-end-all. The individual still has to be able to adapt to their surroundings to be successful. I remember this from my Phych 101 class.... I think the highest grossing incomes are between 120-150. For reference, I think most doctors are around 120-125.

/tangent

I agree, IP. I think Obama is smart, not a genius. Like Bush, he leans on his staff to be the brains of the operation and he's the charismatic leader. It's kind of like a band where the bassist/guitarist write the lyrics and music and the front-man just sings and gets all the publicity. Difference between Bush are mostly in charisma. Bush was not charismatic.
 
Last edited:
#87
#87
Not sure how relevant this is, and it is also from Wiki, so take it for what it is worth:

Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#90
#90
Ed12111 said:
You disagree with some of his positions, so he is of lower intelligence. O.K, that's a different weird, but I understand it. As to your second point, I never claimed he was the smartest man in the world(I even made a note to distinguish Hawking), I just claimed all evidence points to him being at worst in the top 1%. I would argue your positions are naive and his are more practical, but whatever.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between disagreeing with some of his positions, and him approaching them in an elementary way.

After looking up what the 1 % threshold is, I concede that it is possible. I'm not sold that he is, but it isn't out of the question.
 
#92
#92
Ed12111 said:
195, but I was an infant.
Click to expand...

The reason why they're mentioning the "when" on the tests is that IQ tests are obviously not perfect, and fluctuate a lot when taken at young ages, generally skewing upwards. But I'm sure you knew that.
 
#93
#93
droski said:
yup. gibbs created both. all 3 going immediately to happiness indexes was the tell.
Click to expand...

not to mention the need to engage in pedantic, esoteric circular arguments in which they continually shifted their ground so as to not ever concede a point
 
#95
#95
IPorange said:
There's a big difference between disagreeing with some of his positions, and him approaching them in an elementary way.

After looking up what the 1 % threshold is, I concede that it is possible. I'm not sold that he is, but it isn't out of the question.
Click to expand...

Harvard's average LSAT is a 176. Unless you're one to think Harvard lets minorities in with 160's and can still maintain a near perfect average then he is assuredly in the top 1%. The LSAT can be correlated to SAT and IQ tests. How sold you are doesn't matter.
 
#97
#97
IPorange said:
The reason why they're mentioning the "when" on the tests is that IQ tests are obviously not perfect, and fluctuate a lot when taken at young ages, generally skewing upwards. But I'm sure you knew that.
Click to expand...

Thank you kindly.
 
#99
#99
Ed12111 said:
Harvard's average LSAT is a 176. Unless you're one to think Harvard lets minorities in with 160's and can still maintain a near perfect average then he is assuredly in the top 1%. The LSAT can be correlated to SAT and IQ tests. How sold you are doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

LSAT Results Undermine Undergraduate Achievement for Minority Law School Applicants | FairTest

Issue: Oct 1998
A new study of admissions at the University of California (UC) at Berkeley's law school, Boalt Hall, shows that minority applicants from competitive undergraduate institutions lag behind their white counterparts on LSAT scores, even when matched by undergraduate grade-point average (UGPA).


The study, carried out by Testing for the Public, a nonprofit education research group, looked at 1,366 minority students who had attended Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles (UCLA) and who sought admission to Boalt Hall between 1996 and 1998. Each student from a minority group was matched with all white applicants from the same college whose four-year UGPAs differed by no more than one-tenth of a point, on a four-point scale.



The LSAT score gap between white and minority group applicants with similar grades was 9.3 points for African Americans, 6.87 for Chicanos and Latinos, 3.77 for Native Americans and 2.48 for Asian-Americans. The LSAT is scored on a scale of 120 to 180. As pointed out by William Kidder, the Boalt Hall student who did the score matching, "[C]ollege achievement built over four years is routinely destroyed in four hours on the LSAT." This holds true even for students from the most rigorous undergraduate institutions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top