[gorush]

Garfield was certainly very smart...unfortunately his term was cut very short by either an assassin or a very bad Doctor, depending upon whom you ask.

[Bringbackthedraft]

What is so important about an IQ, when we live in a world where a constant line BS rules and wins elections?

[Jeff Chandler]

Kennedy wasn’t that smart. He was rich and connected. Hell, he didn’t even write his own college thesis.

[Swordmaker]

I love this. . . I went to look at this so-called study of Presidential IQs. . . and here's what it says about Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton: His SAT Score at 1032 which translates to an IQ of 110. However, his actual IQ is probably closer to 137. There is no need to argue his IQ. We know that Bill is indeed an intelligent former president.

In other words, if it doesn't fit their preconceived notion, FUDGE the conclusion.

They based W's IQ on his SAT scores and came up 123. . . but Clinton's lower score had to be adjusted upwards to give him a much higher IQ than Bush. After all, he's a Democrat, and obviously all Democrats have to smarter than Republicans.

The above comments are referencing another presidential IQ study that the four listed below, all of which show a distinct liberal bias in my opinion:

Source "PresidentialIQ, Openness,IntellectualBrilliance,and Leadership:Estimatesand Correlationsfor 42 U.S. Chief
Executives", by Dean Keith Simonton,
University of California at Davis

[mom.mom]

JFK’s IQ recorded at Choate was 119.

[poinq]

This seems pretty stupid. Its totally subjective to say what president is productive. And Its also impossible to determine the IQ f a person dead for over 200 years.

I disagree with their assessments of how intelligent ex-presidents were. And I disagree with their gauge of past presidential productivity.

[irv]

The studies I’ve read show a poor correlation between education and intelligence (unless your field is math or physics, and even then it’s not a perfect correlation). And that’s only one obvious flaw in this “historiometric approach.”

This article seems to be BS.

[grateful]

I have an IQ of 154. I understand Obama completely. He’s not that smart and certainly not qualified to be president.

[norwaypinesavage]

I give this article the same credibility as any other Scientific American article - zero. With their history on failing to recognize the global warming hoax, how could they get anything else right?

They say "IQ correlated positively with a measure of “presidential greatness” based on multiple rankings and ratings of presidents’ leadership ability—and the relationship went in a straight line."

Of course they would get straight line rankings. The same people guessed at both the rankings AND the greatness. A true test of correlation would have three different groups of people, all blind to the others, one group ranking IQ, another ranking "greatness", and the third performing the correlation.

[5th MEB]

Scientific American has been nothing but a political rag since 1968, I canceled my subscription in 1972.

[jaydee770]

I’ve worked with folks who have multiple PHDs and are scary-smart in their field - yet they can’t tie their own shoes. I’ve worked with folks who are not degreed at all, but are perhaps the best broad-range problem solvers I have ever met. I’ve worked with good managers and bad. Education/IQ does not seem to form any pattern in my experience.

Serial killers have been known to have a relatively high IQ.

So, although *some* level of intelligence is desirable, I want a President who can *LEAD*, argue his policies coherently both to Congress and The People and delegate responsibly to execute those policies. I doubt many Presidents have the understanding of every single issue they deal with, compared to the understanding of their chosen advisors. If the President surrounds himself with good people, it increases the odds we will have good results.

Case in point: Valerie Jarrett.