![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
~
"We all do this to some extent, of course, discounting data points that don't fit our preconceptions. My Times colleague John Tierney wrote a few days ago of a new report suggesting, based on their scores on military intelligence tests taken in the 1960's, that Mr. Bush had an I.Q. in the 95th percentile of the population and that John Kerry's was in the 91st percentile. Yet most liberals have not revised their view that Mr. Bush is a nitwit."
-- Nicholas D. Kristof for The NY Times
This was a striking proposition. In spite of being in ideological opposition to Dubya, Monk thought that Bush is smarter than most people give him credit for, in part, making too much of how he has his father's lack of eloquence. But one wouldn't have suspected that Dubya's IQ is in the 95th percentile - higher than Kerry's!
Mr. Kristof discusses Bush's freedom with the facts, presumably in the service of over-arching truths. Though, given Bush's poor management of the Iraq War and his well-known lack of curiosity, not to mention his religious fundamentalism, one is also inclined to take this as more evidence that IQ tests aren't all they are cracked up to be.
Whenever I say that President Bush isn't a liar, Democrats hurl thunderbolts at me. And when I say Mr. Bush isn't truthful, Republicans erupt like Mount St. Helens.
So what do I mean?
Let me offer an example - not from Iraq but from Mr. Bush's autobiography. In it, he tells a charming little story involving his daughters in 1988, on the eve of the presidential debate between his father and Michael Dukakis:
"One night, Laura and I were out of town campaigning, and Barbara and Jenna spent the night at the vice presidential mansion. Dad had spent the day preparing for a debate with Michael Dukakis. Unfortunately, Barbara lost her sleeping companion, Spikey, her favorite stuffed dog. She complained loudly that she could not sleep without Spikey, so 'Gampy,' better known as Vice President Bush, spent much of the night before his debate searching the house and grounds of the vice presidential residence, flashlight in hand, on a mission to find Spikey. Finally, he did, and Barbara slept soundly. I don't know if my dad ever went to sleep that night."
It's a heartwarming tale of family values. And while it's not malicious enough to count as a lie, it's laced with falsehoods.
We know that because Mr. Bush's mother wrote about the same incident much earlier, in 1990, in "Millie's Book," nominally written by her dog. For starters, the episode occurred when the girls were five and a half, in 1987, a year before the presidential debate.
What's more, "Millie's Book" says that Spikey was a cat, not a dog. And instead of searching all night and finally finding Spikey, Vice President Bush gave up, grumbling: "I have work to do. What am I doing searching for a stuffed animal outdoors in the dark?" Anyway, little Barbara had already fallen asleep with another stuffed animal. Spikey turned up the next day behind the curtains.
(I can hear some of you protesting: "You're gonna take a dog's word over our president's?" Well, frankly, no one has ever impugned Millie's word. And Millie has witnesses. The first President Bush and his wife, Barbara, later confirmed to me through a spokesman that they did not believe that Spikey had been lost on the eve of a presidential debate.)
The current president's hyped version of the incident reflects his casual relationship with truth. Like President Ronald Reagan, reality to him is not about facts, but about higher meta-truths: Mom and Dad are loving grandparents, Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and so on. To clarify those overarching realities, Mr. Bush harnesses "facts," both true and false.
We all do this to some extent, of course, discounting data points that don't fit our preconceptions. My Times colleague John Tierney wrote a few days ago of a new report suggesting, based on their scores on military intelligence tests taken in the 1960's, that Mr. Bush had an I.Q. in the 95th percentile of the population and that John Kerry's was in the 91st percentile. Yet most liberals have not revised their view that Mr. Bush is a nitwit.
In fact, I'm convinced that Mr. Bush is not only smarter, but also a better man than his critics believe. Most important, he's not a panderer. While Mr. Kerry zigs and zags on trade and Middle East policy, Mr. Bush has a core of values and provides genuine leadership (typically, I believe, in the wrong direction, by trying to reshape America and the world according to a far-right agenda).
One example is Mr. Bush's determination since 9/11 to add to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though this pushes up gasoline prices. Mr. Bush's approach is foolish economically, and it is crazy politically. Yet his grim willingness to raise gas prices during his re-election campaign underscores a solidity of character and convictions.
But that's also the problem with his administration: his convictions are so solid that they're inflexible and utterly impervious to reality. When Mr. Bush pumped up the intelligence on Iraqi W.M.D., his exaggerations reflected the overriding truth as he saw it - that Saddam Hussein was a menace. I think Mr. Bush considered himself truthful, even when he wasn't factual.
If Mr. Bush were a private citizen, I would admire his tenacity, just as I respect Barry Goldwater, Red Sox fans and Flat-Earthers. But for a president, I wish we had a clear-eyed thinker who understood the difference between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or between a stuffed dog and a stuffed cat.
-- Kristof, "Pants of Fire?"
.
"We all do this to some extent, of course, discounting data points that don't fit our preconceptions. My Times colleague John Tierney wrote a few days ago of a new report suggesting, based on their scores on military intelligence tests taken in the 1960's, that Mr. Bush had an I.Q. in the 95th percentile of the population and that John Kerry's was in the 91st percentile. Yet most liberals have not revised their view that Mr. Bush is a nitwit."
-- Nicholas D. Kristof for The NY Times
This was a striking proposition. In spite of being in ideological opposition to Dubya, Monk thought that Bush is smarter than most people give him credit for, in part, making too much of how he has his father's lack of eloquence. But one wouldn't have suspected that Dubya's IQ is in the 95th percentile - higher than Kerry's!
Mr. Kristof discusses Bush's freedom with the facts, presumably in the service of over-arching truths. Though, given Bush's poor management of the Iraq War and his well-known lack of curiosity, not to mention his religious fundamentalism, one is also inclined to take this as more evidence that IQ tests aren't all they are cracked up to be.
Whenever I say that President Bush isn't a liar, Democrats hurl thunderbolts at me. And when I say Mr. Bush isn't truthful, Republicans erupt like Mount St. Helens.
So what do I mean?
Let me offer an example - not from Iraq but from Mr. Bush's autobiography. In it, he tells a charming little story involving his daughters in 1988, on the eve of the presidential debate between his father and Michael Dukakis:
"One night, Laura and I were out of town campaigning, and Barbara and Jenna spent the night at the vice presidential mansion. Dad had spent the day preparing for a debate with Michael Dukakis. Unfortunately, Barbara lost her sleeping companion, Spikey, her favorite stuffed dog. She complained loudly that she could not sleep without Spikey, so 'Gampy,' better known as Vice President Bush, spent much of the night before his debate searching the house and grounds of the vice presidential residence, flashlight in hand, on a mission to find Spikey. Finally, he did, and Barbara slept soundly. I don't know if my dad ever went to sleep that night."
It's a heartwarming tale of family values. And while it's not malicious enough to count as a lie, it's laced with falsehoods.
We know that because Mr. Bush's mother wrote about the same incident much earlier, in 1990, in "Millie's Book," nominally written by her dog. For starters, the episode occurred when the girls were five and a half, in 1987, a year before the presidential debate.
What's more, "Millie's Book" says that Spikey was a cat, not a dog. And instead of searching all night and finally finding Spikey, Vice President Bush gave up, grumbling: "I have work to do. What am I doing searching for a stuffed animal outdoors in the dark?" Anyway, little Barbara had already fallen asleep with another stuffed animal. Spikey turned up the next day behind the curtains.
(I can hear some of you protesting: "You're gonna take a dog's word over our president's?" Well, frankly, no one has ever impugned Millie's word. And Millie has witnesses. The first President Bush and his wife, Barbara, later confirmed to me through a spokesman that they did not believe that Spikey had been lost on the eve of a presidential debate.)
The current president's hyped version of the incident reflects his casual relationship with truth. Like President Ronald Reagan, reality to him is not about facts, but about higher meta-truths: Mom and Dad are loving grandparents, Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and so on. To clarify those overarching realities, Mr. Bush harnesses "facts," both true and false.
We all do this to some extent, of course, discounting data points that don't fit our preconceptions. My Times colleague John Tierney wrote a few days ago of a new report suggesting, based on their scores on military intelligence tests taken in the 1960's, that Mr. Bush had an I.Q. in the 95th percentile of the population and that John Kerry's was in the 91st percentile. Yet most liberals have not revised their view that Mr. Bush is a nitwit.
In fact, I'm convinced that Mr. Bush is not only smarter, but also a better man than his critics believe. Most important, he's not a panderer. While Mr. Kerry zigs and zags on trade and Middle East policy, Mr. Bush has a core of values and provides genuine leadership (typically, I believe, in the wrong direction, by trying to reshape America and the world according to a far-right agenda).
One example is Mr. Bush's determination since 9/11 to add to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even though this pushes up gasoline prices. Mr. Bush's approach is foolish economically, and it is crazy politically. Yet his grim willingness to raise gas prices during his re-election campaign underscores a solidity of character and convictions.
But that's also the problem with his administration: his convictions are so solid that they're inflexible and utterly impervious to reality. When Mr. Bush pumped up the intelligence on Iraqi W.M.D., his exaggerations reflected the overriding truth as he saw it - that Saddam Hussein was a menace. I think Mr. Bush considered himself truthful, even when he wasn't factual.
If Mr. Bush were a private citizen, I would admire his tenacity, just as I respect Barry Goldwater, Red Sox fans and Flat-Earthers. But for a president, I wish we had a clear-eyed thinker who understood the difference between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or between a stuffed dog and a stuffed cat.
-- Kristof, "Pants of Fire?"
.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 09:57 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 09:45 am (UTC)From:But I would stress that IQ tests are... well, as you said, not reliable enough to be making any snap judgments about whether he's "smarter" than Kerry or not. I mean, by that scale... I'M smarter than Kerry, and that is something I very much doubt.
At any rate, I'd take a leader who panders over a leader who's sneaky.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:02 pm (UTC)From:At any rate, I'd take a leader who panders over a leader who's sneaky.
I think duplicity as standard operating practice is more worrisome, too - that Nixonesque quality to Bush.
(I hope your writing work is going well.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:09 pm (UTC)From:By the way, I have acquired an interesting tidbit from a VERY good source... you know this mysterious sickness Arafat has? Apparently, the actual deal is that he had a gargantuan stroke and he will be dying at any moment, but he'll almost certainly be dead by Friday.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:10 pm (UTC)From:By the way, I have acquired an interesting tidbit from a VERY good source... you know this mysterious sickness Arafat has? Apparently, the actual deal is that he had a gargantuan stroke and he will be dying at any moment, but he'll almost certainly be dead by Friday.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:12 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:28 pm (UTC)From:I've been surprised to see you here as much as we have. Congrats on the political gig, writing on the election! That is more prestigious, no? I hope you post that one.
As for Arafat, the first instinct was to think this is ultimately a real break for the Palestinians, but now I'm not so sure after a moment's pause. A power struggle can go all kinds of way. It looks like the Middle East will be getting only more interesting in the coming weeks and months. These are interesting times...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:44 pm (UTC)From:As I was saying to someone else, a part of me is kind of... shocked? to realize that he's got one foot in death's door. For some reason he was one of those types that I figgered would outlast all of us... I always just assumed that old bastard would live to be like, three hundred or something. You know how it is when certain figures seem so damn obstinate.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:07 pm (UTC)From:Nice points about the substance abuse. I suppose there are the makings for a good ad against substance abuse in this material, heh.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:18 pm (UTC)From:So what? That doesn't necessarily mean he's smarter than 95% of the population, it just makes him average. John Kerry's 91st percentile actually makes him the slightly smarter one of the two.
"95 percent of the population scores within the interval 70-130"
http://www.psyonline.nl/en-iq.htm
Always amuses me how statistics can be spun...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:10 pm (UTC)From:But it is an impressive showing. Who would've bet on that? I doubt even his loyal partisans would've taken that bet.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 06:13 pm (UTC)From:Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest would say. My girlfriend and I were just discussing the other day what IQ tests cover...and it's not intelligence! LOL They measure logic and spatial ability often, but are related to culture, gender, blah blah blah. But it depends what intelligence we're talking about, too. An IQ test can't measure complex problem-solving ability, creativity, interpersonal skills, mastery of language, wisdom, amount of knowledge you have stored, etc..
As I told my girlfriend about the gifted and talented program I was in, I knew some REALLY stupid "smart" kids and some really smart kids that weren't in the program.
I've said before that I call Bush stupid when he really isn't...but he isn't what most people would call smart either. I think people love to make fun of him for lack of intellect because he is so contrary to what we think of as a dignified leader of a nation. He's not intellectual or academic or a great communicator or thoughtful or good at bargaining or anything we associate with setting an example in the positive sense like poise or commanding respect. As President or a human being.
It goes back to the fact that I personally would say you cannot be intelligent and be conservative. Are there conservatives that could go on Jeopardy and do fine? Sure. But there is something fundamentally unbalanced about your intelligence in my mind if you have education and have a little brainpower and yet can't find your way into more thoughtful stances on politics. Rain Man could count cards afterall!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 10:19 pm (UTC)From:If you would say 'religious fundamentalist' instead of 'conservative,' I'd be more willing to agree with you. Whatever one might think of, say, Robert Bork's conservatism, he is a brillian man. George Will is no intellectual slouch.
There's a respectable philosophy behind conservative politics. I think it's more a question of attitude than intellect. Conservatives are more pessimistic about human possibilities, and hence don't want to see more power given to government, thinking that more harm than good will be done in the long term, because more power corrupts more. That doesn't seem inherently unreasonable.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 08:17 am (UTC)From:But I think certainly religious fundamentalist is an extreme example, but in the greater scheme it is true for "conservative" too...it is not a respectable philosophy. George Will or Robert Bork are not what would call of low capacity...but I would say that they both are ignorant and foolish. There is something low and stuffy that I find in conservative outlooks. It is, to use my current reading, not hip and most definitely square. It looks at the world as an outsider, not an insider. It is removed, it sees the world as problem and not mystery--to use Gabriel Marcel briefly.
Conservaties may indeed be skeptical of humanity and therefore government, but why give so much power to individuals and autonomy to those that can construct a further imbalance in the world and further corrupt the species and governments? That is the fundamental flaw in conservative intelligence. They act like government is some oppressive body lording it over the People. It can be, but that is the beauty of checks and balances and separation of powers and a Bill of Rights. They think of Government simply as "authority" or "power" when Government is the organization of laws and principles carried out for the benefit of the greatest good for the greatest number.
That is the fundamental breakdown...I think it may have been Bork I found last night in my radio dialing and whoever it was was going on and on about "who ARE these liberals?" Like we're an alien lifeform. Amusing, scary, very illustrative. We are at odds, profoundly, in this nation over the role of government and I think we're reaching a point where there is a deep and wide valley between the two sides.
There is something inherently unreasonable, I would say, about viewing the best protection (no it's not a gun as some might claim) against tyranny and inequality and a host of other world issues as a problem. Good government is a solution, the answer, not something to run from. Or as something to be limited or something flawed. Yes, all government is flawed, even the best ones. But good government is all we have. There may be no utopia down the progressive road, but there is at least a chance. Down the conservative path there is nothing. Which is what I find to be unintelligent about conservative viewpoints. They may complain that we liberals cling to hope or a dream, but better to cling to that than whatever void or emptiness comes from believing in either every man for himself or a kind of conformity to either fascism or dogma or whatever brand of "tradition" mongering we need to throwback to.
The collective is best served not through individual autonomy or in service to the State, but in a balance of power where we are all both free and taken care of. I think there has to be good enlightened government by intelligent individuals in order to allow people both the greatest freedom to live life how they want, and the greatest protections and benefits possible from the strength of a unified group.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 05:48 pm (UTC)From:Are you so certain that it's not the other way around? Aren't you the one who is focused on a world to come - and hence, in a sense, outside of the world as it is. Conservatives, philosophically speaking, those of the Bork and Will variety, are wholly enmeshed in our world as it is, believing that the fundamentals of social reality don't change, just as human nature may not change.
If some conservatives speak of progressive liberals as alien, it may be due to such things as the political correcness movement and the apparent program to apparently mold human nature. It can seem a little cultish, as exemplified by your language of 'enlightenment,' as though such thinking is not grounded in reality but in some revelatory vision - one which if followed would lead to a Stalinist hell.
I think the issues are more complex than you are willing to credit. These uses of the concepts of 'ignorance' and 'enlightenment' are more evasive than illuminating, I think.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 07:01 pm (UTC)From:So in that way, both are operating on a future world to come. Of course, conservatives will say they "see the world as it is." But unfortunately human nature does change over time, social realities change. That is what I meant by stuffy is that a guy like Will might be in the world as he sees it, but he's not in the real world...the world that has (that word again) nuance and subtle shifts and color and tone. The world they live in now, thus, they are too static for and the world they want is based on negativity. I'm a progressive because A) I believe we must adapt to the world as it is now and B) the world as it is now and as it will be should be viewed in a positive light. Like government, life is flawed but beautiful. Wicked, but absolutely pure and perfect.
I suppose it is a little cultish in some ways...as I mentioned in another response, conservatives are so much on the defense in our world against the constant onslaught of modern liberal society that I suppose one can't help but dig in and feel outside it helpless. But see, that is just the reason conservatives are negative. Instead of seeing, say, political correctness as just a (possibly overly aggressive) attempt at fairness and diversity, they see "molding human nature." But I do think of intelligence sometimes as a kind of knowledge that is not open to all...my elitist streak again. Some people will, in fact, never get it. It's not to say I don't wish the whole world was magically intellectual, but that isn't the case at least for the imaginable future. But it is there--revelatory vision or not--but you have to be receptive to it. I fear most conservatives are simply not of the right mind to receive that kind of understanding about life. It's why I say conservative and enlightened are for the most part mutually exclusive.
We all interpret reality in our own way...the question becomes which system is more practical for making the world livable and endurable for us all. By their fruits you shall know them. The greatest human beings in history have all been liberals...and not by coincidence.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 08:51 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 02:37 pm (UTC)From:About the morals, it's a little funny, seeing how he walks with Jesus. But I'm not one inclined to think religion is the same as morality, heh.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-06 07:03 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-11-06 08:27 pm (UTC)From:I wouldn't have been quick to assume him a genius, which I've understood to be at plus 150. You probably have a better grasp of how these IQ stats play out. I imagine that the 95th/91st percentiles would fall shy of 150 - maybe from 135 to 150. But I'm winging it on my notion of 150 being the genius mark and that only 2% of the people are geniuses.
I think all people - geniuses and non-geniuses - are lost, in our won personal ways...
Maybe some of us more than others, heh.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-07 08:44 am (UTC)From:I have no reason to suspect that Bush is smarter than 91% of the population or whatever. I do suspect that there are a lot of people out there who are happy to distort known facts and create non-existent ones in order to 'prove' their political leanings are right. I do wish they'd grow up. I suppose I only dropped by because you're clearly not one of them.
I don't think we would necessarily agree a lot, but we seem to be able to disagree in style, and you could well be my best source of American hard news, as opposed to what we get over here. (The only news source I respect in the UK is BBC Newsnight. The government's complaints about the BBC in respect of Iraq were well merited - maybe the BBCs complaints about the government were as well in places, but I want facts all the time from a news agency).
So are you happy for me to add you? I'd like that.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-07 09:55 am (UTC)From:But's let's give it a try!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-07 10:15 am (UTC)From:Since my opinions have changed a lot over the years, it would be a bit much to hate people for thinking things that I used to think. That would be tantamount to hating myself. (What's that, join the queue? :) )
I see you have added me already. So expect poetry, mainly. Talking about my own take on life would be so far away from most people, that I'd rather start where they are.