[purported presidential IQ ranking; Dubya dead last] Re: True???

geege geege@barrera.org
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:45:10 -0800


so the following ISN'T factual?

>Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW
> Bush,
> his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of 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,"

-----Original Message-----
From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of James
Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:44 PM
To: fork@xent.com
Subject: RE: [purported presidential IQ ranking; Dubya dead last] Re:
True???


>
> This sounds awfully partisan, but there's a veneer of credibility. Is
> this a hoax? Does this report even exist?


I've seen this skewered in other forums as being utterly devoid of
scientific merit by people actually qualified to make such assessments.

Therefore, it is not surprising that it was debunked on snopes.com shortly
after it started circulation.  The historical record that *is* available for
some of the Presidents listed is quite different than what is in this
report, which incidentally, was "published" in a fictious periodical.
Based on actual public record, the Democrats listed have substantially lower
IQs than what is listed, and Republicans have substantially higher IQs than
is listed.  So yes, it was a stupid partisan prank.

This article was reported as fact in several European newspapers (e.g.
Guardian), ironically with publications dates that came *after* it had been
publicly debunked.

-James Rogers
 jamesr@best.com