Wesley Clark and the curse of intelligence: Vox Day explains why smart men do dumb things

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, January 20, 2004 | Vox Day

[JohnHuang2]

Wesley Clark and the curse of intelligence

---

Posted: January 19, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Mike Martz, the head coach of the St. Louis Rams, is widely considered to be one of the smartest men in the National Football League. He is the architect of The Greatest Show on Turf – an explosive offense that set numerous records for offensive production – and the word "genius" frequently appears in the same sentence with his name.

His team, however, has again fallen short of its Super Bowl expectations, mostly because the brilliant coach made a boneheaded decision that shocked even beer-befuddled couch potatoes across the country, only the latest in a series of inexplicably bad decisions that have cost the Rams dearly over the last three years.

John Madden, on the other hand, is hardly known for his acumen. His butcheries of the English language are legendary – "few yards are better than none yards" – but he has the diamond-encrusted ring that has so far eluded Mike Martz. And few would argue that Madden's Raiders had more talent than Martz's Rams. So, how is this possible?

The truth is intelligence is not synonymous with success. A certain amount can be very helpful, to be sure, but beyond a certain point, the ability to see diverse possibilities starts to become a hindrance. It is much easier to weigh the odds of three or four options than it is to balance 10 or 12, and it takes less time, too. As data gathering and processing capability increases, the ability to focus and ignore unwanted information becomes increasingly important. Otherwise, there is a tendency to become either paralyzed with doubt or divorced from reality as one gets lost in elaborate probability models.

George Bush is cut from the John Madden mold. He is not a stupid man – his estimated 125 IQ puts him well above the norm – but he is by no means brilliant. Like JFK, who is known to have had an IQ of 119, he has an ability to focus on the actual situation at hand, even if he does not have a gift for beautifully articulating it.

Smart politicians such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Richard Nixon, whose IQs come in at 137, 140 and 143, respectively, have for the most part been failures at the highest level. Their ability to incorporate information also gives them a strong tendency to micromanage, which is a disastrous characteristic for any executive. Note that Jimmy Carter, an unsuccessful president by any standard, was the most intelligent president of the modern era.

There is another danger, too, for the intelligent presidential candidate. To the average man, one of the great mysteries of life is how brilliant academics can be so reliably stupid. This is because there appears to be a strong correlation between one's level of intelligence and the importance one places on the abstract as opposed to quotidian reality. Thus, a brilliant Marxian economist can dismiss a century of total socialist failure with a wave of the hand, because none of the historical real-world applications precisely matches the theoretical vision in his head.

Both leading Democratic candidates appear to be highly intelligent men. Howard Dean is a doctor; Wesley Clark is a Rhodes Scholar. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that both men are more wedded to their abstract internal visions of the world than how it actually operates according to objective reality. This is how Gen. Clark can make bizarre statements about a European right of first refusal on American national security and Howard Dean can believe that raising taxes is good for the economy despite two millennia of evidence to the contrary.

Neither man makes any sense to the logical observer, but that is unimportant. It makes sense in some ideal place in their heads, and for such men, that is all that matters.

Based on the two men's comments over the last few months, I am quite sure that Wesley Clark is the most intelligent of the candidates for the Democratic Party nomination. He has said almost nothing capable of withstanding even the most cursory analysis, and his globalist view of the world appears to have more in common with Star Trek than with what history suggests is a Hobbesian free-for-all of ambitious, power-hungry men wrestling for wealth and influence. More than most, Gen. Clark appears to suffer from the curse of intelligence. America would do well to avoid him.

---

[Ichneumon]

It is hard for me to imagine Clinton -- a president of the US getting involved with a geek such as Monica -- as having a high IQ.

"Smart" people can be just as much a slave to their emotions or temperament (including a tendency towards recklessness or risk-taking) as anyone else.

We *all* know what it's like to be about to do something we know full well is stupid or risky, then go ahead and do it anyway for reasons other than how well it shapes up on the "how smart is this" meter.

[Ichneumon]

As for Clinton, here's a fascinating article I first read when it came out in 1998, and have found it to be very illuminating in the years since: Can the President Think? .

Sorry, I fumbled the link. Here's a working one: Can the President [Clinton] Think?".

If that ancient snapshot of a FreeRepublic post goes down, here's a link to an online copy of the original publication.

[monocle]

In my mind, there is a huge difference between memory and intelligence. I have known complete idiots who have photographic memories. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate facts whereas memory is only the ability to recall facts.

[Benrand]

Well Bill Belichick, the coach of the Pats, scored ove 1400 on the SAT and has a degree in economics. He's very smart, but is ruthless as all hell.

Martz is smart, but it's not that he sees 10-12 disparate possibilities, it's that he's a wuss.

[bimbo]

This story is nonsense; General Norman Schwarzkopf had an I.Q. of greater than 170. He certainly didn't have any problems analyzing and dealing with multiple scenarios.

But General Schwarzkopf was smart enough to stay out of politics.

[ovrtaxt]

On Clark: " He has said almost nothing capable of withstanding even the most cursory analysis, and his globalist view of the world appears to have more in common with Star Trek than with what history suggests is a Hobbesian free-for-all of ambitious, power-hungry men wrestling for wealth and influence. "

Star Trek is right! Leftists credit this to 'idealism', while conservatives credit this to naivete.

[Trickyguy]

Day alludes to the problem, and it's not intelligence. It's believing the map in your head matches reality outside. Worse, it's thinking you can change reality to match what's in your head. Leftists have always been masters at it. Unfortunately, leftism has infected the current administration (who are 'conservative' in name only), hence the belief they can use war, mass murder, theft and lies to 'remake' foreign societies and remold human nature. As always--as with all leftism--their plans will fail.

[Benjo]

It's a *long* read, but well worth it. At the risk of condensing it too far, it makes the case that Clinton has a superb (almost photographic) memory and a natural ability to charm people by sensing what they want to hear (and an emotional need to do so), but that he suffers from almost no ability to analyze information himself. He's just good at covering it and *looking* like his mind is going 100mph.

Thanks, I went to the piece and read it. (A good subtitle for the article would have been "The Attention Deficit Disorder President.") The Clinton it describes reminds me of myself in some ways (reading five books at once and finishing none of them).

[Benjo]

In my mind, there is a huge difference between memory and intelligence. I have known complete idiots who have photographic memories. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate facts whereas memory is only the ability to recall facts.

Well I agree. Analytical intelligence is far more important than the ability to recall information. Still I'm impressed with Clinton's ability to recall the phone number of the parents of someone he hasn't seen in ten years (as reported in the Reason article, "Can Clinton Think.")

[tsomer]

Worse, it's thinking you can change reality to match what's in your head.

I think of it as the result of confounding the aesthetic sense with politics and morality.

[William McKinley]

Where did he come up with these 'estimated' IQ numbers?

I bet that whatever source it was, was completely without merit.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

According to Thomas Sowell, socialist theory with its emphasis on central planning is critically dependent on the idea that the socialist government will be headed by the "best and brightest," who will decide things for us lowly clods. Antisocialist leaders have no need to claim genius IQs because they point out that society, through markets operating in freedom, makes such effective use of the individual expertise and competence of its many citizens that free society outclasses even the most intelligent central planner.

The article mentions the IQs of several presidents, not including Reagan--who, like all Republican presidential candidates, was called stupid by Democrats. But the ability to write the way Reagan did--all those radio scripts in his own hand, for example--is certainly indicative of intelligence. Even his eloquent Alzheimer's letter was composed more quickly and hand-written more accurately than most of us could do it.

Nominally the IQ is normalized for the mean to be 100 and the standard deviation of the bell curve to be 10. That means that a 130 IQ would be 3 standard deviations above the mean--above about 99% of the population. I don't know my own IQ, but believe it to be in that neighborhood--which means "smarter than the average bear," but also that there are millions of smarter people in the country. Some of whom are (ugh) liberals . . . and plenty of those who would test lower in IQ would test higher in bank account, too.

[Straight Vermonter]

There are multiple IQ tests available all of which draw the genius line in a different place.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

mass murder

Name 10,000 victims.

Name 100 victims.

You can't, because you have already indicted Bush on a seperate charge of "war" so there's no possible way.

Iraqis who called out Saddam for mas murder escaped the country, lived in spider holes--or died in shredders. True mass murderers are never called out publicly for their crimes in their own country--not by people who are afterward so unconcerned about their own safety that they can then sleep at night.

[Straight Vermonter]

I think that many who are the most intelligent become liberals because they are so vain they think they should be telling others how to live their lives. I think this largely explains college student liberalism. Lots of book smarts, not an ounce of street smarts, and a desire to run the world.

[Xenalyte]

Any FReepers want to volunteer their IQs? I'm curious as to how many geniuses (IQ over 132) we have on this site. I've always thought that high intelligence and common sense are normally at odds, so I'd be interested to see how many FReepers (who are, by definition, commensensical!) defy my stereotype.

I'm not sure what my IQ is exactly, but it was high enough to get me into Mensa when I was nine (and to keep me in ever since). I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . there is a reason those people have their own club.

[Xenalyte]

I used that IQ as the threshold because I believe that is what you need to join MENSA. I was under the impression that an IQ of 132 or above made you officially a "genius."

When I got in, Mensa's numerical requirements fluctuated from season to season. To qualify, you had to test in the top 2% of everyone who tested when you did. So if you tested with a bunch of morons or Xena's family, you had a lot better chance than if you tested with (say) the scarily intelligent Laz.

[Xenalyte]

And at times I can relate to the problem mentioned in the article about tending to get distracted by "too many options" (either of action, or possibilities). If you can come up with too many "what ifs" it can bog you down trying to take them all into consideration. But it's hardly inevitable, and it's just as possible to see when you're becoming too analytical and "not go there", if you take a moment to monitor your own "performance" and focus on the job requirements.

Xena's Mom (now a librarian) used to teach sixth-grade English. She had six classes ranging from Level 1 (gifted and talented) to Level 4 (foundation kids, not quite needing short buses and Special Ed), and she tested them with ScanTron forms (remember those?). Her Level 3 kids always did best on Scantron tests, because they'd just answer the questions and be done with it. Her Level 1s (and Level 2s, to a lesser extent) would always have more lower scores than her Level 3s because they'd answer the questions, look over their forms, and think, "There's no WAY there are four C answers in a row! One of them has to be something else!" And then they'd change their perfectly good (and usually correct) answers into wrong ones.

[Xenalyte]

The Clinton it describes reminds me of myself in some ways (reading five books at once and finishing none of them).

I am thinking of the Marie Antoinette bio on the edge of the bathtub, the Cleopatra on the vanity, the Henry VIII bio on the nightstand, the Caleb Carr on the end table in the living room, the the George Martin on top of my monitor, and the Morrowind manual (which shouldn't count) on my computer desk, and shuffling my feet sheepishly. (And not mentioning the copy of Dangerous Liaisons in my purse.)

[cookcounty]

Question for any DU lurker:

Before his father was famous, GWB won his Masters from Harvard. How is that possible, and why didn't you do that?