For JFred's eyes only: (I spoke about you behind your back)
Subject:
Re: Fwd: IQ
Date:
Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:49:31 -0700
From:
"Michael J. Sphar" <msphar@ix.netcom.com>
Organization:
Mike Sierra Enterprises
To:
MileeEd@
References:
1
I find it very specious. It reported very little in the way of comparative rankings and seemed to be totally focused on the educationally elitist aspects of individuals without really developing why these particular characteristics ought to considered in any way necessary for qualifying a leader in the art of leading and didn't build any reasonable foundation for its few claims. For instance, I think we could reach a general agreement that his predecessor was undoubtedly more scholarly in his youth. But did coming up with "I smoked but I didn't inhale" really absolve him of anything or characterize himself as someone you would choose to cite to children as a great role model? And what about that definition of "is" anyway? What the hell was that supposed to mean? But I digress.
I think there are characteristics of true leadership that have nothing to do with native intelligence, formal education or quickness of wit. This last concept, that wit has anything whatsoever to do with smartness is particularly galling to me, as I am personally very slow witted. Car salesmen can drive circles around me, yet I think my ability to grind out ideas and probe these to their depths eventually proves my cause. Computers need to be fast, an a priori assumption, but do humans really need this "asset" also? And especially in such a principal fulcrum of power and might? Does having a hair triggered, quick witted smart ass with his hand on the mass destruct knob sitting in the Whitehouse make one sleep more peacefully at night?
I think leadership has to come from within, is not necessarily connected directly to intelligence as measured academia and isn't necessarily based on the art of reaching political compromise. Since when does self measurement constitute objective measurement? Self being a propaganda arm of the intelligensia, lest this be misconstrued.
One of the most historically knowledgeable persons that I know, who is also aware of modern businesses and technological development on a lot of different scientific fronts and is genuinely deadly in a scholarly debate is a postal worker (common mailman type - drives a car, has a route, delivers the stuff). Never graduated from college. I met him through the internet about 6 years ago. He is a fanatic and articulate debater and wily stock investor. Reads voraciously.
Leadership is really a blend of certain characteristics that set the individual apart from the masses. We can identify a lot of these pretty easily. Integrity leaps to my mind, as in "don't lie cheat or steal". That eliminates most of the study base for this piece of work. Charisma is definitional. Who is the more charismatic? Certainly Bill had a lot but I personally think his severely compromised ethics discredited this aspect. Dubya has a certain folksy sort along the lines of Truman. RR was the most charismatic since FDR and probably surpasses him but who alive today could actually judge this ? Vision? The vision of politicians is always excellent when J.Q. Public's wallets are involved. But other than that, vision has been lacking in most if not all of the Presidents that I can recall. "I have a dream" required vision, but who said that? "Tear down this wall" expressed some visionary instincts but may have been a more calculated political ploy. "Ask not what your country..." was borderline but more mass pablum than great rhetoric. Sadly, we will never really know if he could have achieved and maintained the greatness of leadership that was posthumously ascribed to him because of the style of his untimely death. I could go on but this must be boring...I might start talking about "highest ethics" and you can guess where that would take us.
For me, Dubya represents a refreshing change from the status quo that his been sliming the great historical monuments of DC for decades. The mere fact that he doesn't fit the precepts of intelligensia's design is a conundrum that I don't wish to see solved or resolved. A true leader has not been needed for decades, we know this to be pretty self-evident. We are pretty lucky, just think if something happened and that pinnacle of Harvard Law School legalizemanship had somehow wedged his way into our system. His name escapes me now but I'm sure you remember him as he pled his case from courtroom to courtroom up to the highest Court of the land, which finally slapped him down. Wouldn't that nameless, souless, lying, conniving, chad counting, partially balding, sack of excrement be a truly classic example of what this supposed and supposedly intelligent "study" would hold up as an exemplary model for a President? What was that worthless lawyer's name anyway? See, my wit fails me again.
No, I'm tired of the Harvard Lawyer model. I'm tired of lawyers populating positions of political power, especially smart lawyers. They are all truly dangerous. Look at Chandit. I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty. But really... Look, if you have to choose from one of the disciplines, its a flawed system. What you want is a charismatic person of the highest integrity who is ethically pure and equally a person of vision. They don't make em that way anymore. This person would be a blend of the managerial, the militarist, the intelligensia, and the humanist and he certainly couldn't be a lawyer. I'm still struggling with what the definition of "is" really is. Is that something like counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of pin? I dunno but common sense is a really uncommon commodity these days.<g> I surf the net, therefore I rant.
Regards,
(Your cousin who proudly yet reluctantly retired early at the pen of G. Bush Sr, rather than to eventually have his military retirement letter desecrated by a camera and draft dodging philanderer. I begrudge him that.)
Major Mike, Retired.
MileeEd@ wrote:
I thougth that this was very interesting, regardless of politics. Camille
Subject: IQ
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:20:35 -0700
From: Joan_S@.com
To: bp0764@.com, MileeEd@
---------------------- Forwarded by Joan/SanDiego/C on
08/21/2001 03:16 PM ---------------------------
"S, Michelle (CCI-San Diego CCC)" <Michelle.@.com> on
08/21/2001 12:09:19 PM
To: <js@.com>, <dplay@.net>, "P, Christina
(CCI-San Diego CCC)" <Christina.l@.com>
cc:
Subject: IQ
This is interesting....
>
> >In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton,
> >Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the
> >intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the
> >Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education
> >community on each new president, which includes the famous
> >"IQ" report among others.
> >
> >According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents
> >over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all
> >rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced
> >without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several
> >other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of
> > intelligence ranking.
> >
> >The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to
> >within five percentage points:
> >
> > 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 Ford (r)
> > 175 James E. Carter (D)
> > 105 Ronald Reagan (r)
> > 098 George HW Bush (r)
> > 182 William J. Clinton (D)
> > 091 George W. Bush (r)
> >
> >The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of
> >115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155.
> >
> >President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an
> >IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156,
> >with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B.
> >Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
> >
> >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. The complete
> >report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these
> >ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence
> >analysis.
> >
> >"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under
> >their belt, and most had written several white papers during
> >their education or early careers.
>
> > Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published
> > works or writings, so in
> > many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had
> > to rely more heavily on
> > transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."
> >
> >The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high
> >caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human
> >behavior, and psychologists.
> >Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned
> >sociologist, and Professor Patricia
> >F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.
> >
> >This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9,2001 to subscribing
> > member universities and organizations within the education community. |
