DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
That one was a debunked internet email hoax.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ranking Presidents by their IQ
- Thread starter DigitalDrifter
- Start date
That one was a debunked internet email hoax.
Bassman007
Platinum Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 6,995
- 1,210
- 1,095
- Banned
- #42
Well here's the guy you people are calling a moron.
Sorry, but I think he has a little more credibility than you message board know-it-all's.
Dean Simonton
AboutResearch FocusSelected PublicationsTeachingAwards
EDUCATIONPh.D., Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1975M.A., Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1973B.A., Psychology, Occidental College, 1970
About
Dean Simonton is distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis. He is a member of a number of professional organizations, having served as president of the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1, from 2011-2012 and previously as the president of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, and the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, APA Division 10. He also serves on a number of editorial committees and is currently associate editor of The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging, as well as direct submissions editor for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. At UC Davis, Professor Simonton has served in a number of executive roles, including chair of the faculty for the executive committee and representative assembly, and departmental vice-chair, among others.
Research Focus
Professor Simonton’s research focuses on genius, creativity, leadership and aesthetics, looking at the cognitive, dispositional, developmental and sociocultural factors behind eminence, giftedness and talent in science, philosophy, literature, music, art, cinema, politics and war, with the greatest emphasis on scientific genius. He has also extensively developed archival data analysis, with an emphasis on cross-cultural, transhistorical, biographical, and content analytical measures, with special stress on the historiometric analyses of eminent personalities, creative products, and notable events. In addition, he studies the history of psychology, including analyses from the standpoint of the psychology of science, especially the psychology of distinguished scientists and eminent psychologists.
Selected Publications
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual-differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66-73. Simonton, D. K. (Ed.) (2014). The Wiley handbook of genius. Oxford, UK: Wiley. Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad (creative) genius: What do we know after a century of historiometric research? In J.C. Kaufman (Ed.), Creativity and mental illness (pp. 25-41). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad-genius paradox: Can creative people be more mentally healthy but highly creative people more mentally ill? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 470-480. Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53-61.
Teaching
Professor Simonton teaches in the area of social-personality. He has taught courses in Introductory Psychology; Introductory Social Psychology; History of Psychology; and Genius, Creativity, and Leadership.
Awards
Professor Simonton has won numerous awards throughout this career for research, service and teaching. The research awards include the William James Book Award from the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1, in 2000; the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, in 1996; and the Theoretical Innovation Prize, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, APA Division 8, in 2004. Service honors include the Farnsworth Award for Outstanding Service to the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, APA Division 10, in 2011. And teaching honors include the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four Year College/University Teaching, Division 2 - Society for the Teaching of Psychology, APA, in 2006. At UC Davis, he has been awarded the UC Davis Prize for Teaching and Scholarly Achievement, the Academic Senate Distinguished Teaching Award and the Magnar Ronning Award for Teaching Excellence.
DEAN SIMONTON
Distinguished Professor
Department of Psychology
EMAILvCARD
OFFICES & LABS
Department of Psychology
102D Young Hall1 Shields AvenueDavis, CA 95616530-752-1677
Dean Simonton — People in the Division of Social Sciences at UC Davis
I did not say he was a moron, I said that people that believe the web page are morons, and that the fake web page was set up to do just that, and he found you. Thus you have demonstrated moronism quite clearly.
121.000091
Prove what I posted is fake.
I do not have to prove that, you need to prove that George Washington's IQ can be determined to the tenth of a point without ever having been tested. When you can do that, then you can prove that the info on the page is real.
You can not, so again you are proving that you are a moron, and that you believe what you read on the internet, because you read it on the internet
He didn't earn a degree in law school. He dropped out after he passed the bar.My grandfather knew FDR at Columbia Law School. Said he didnt see how he passed he was so stupid.
How fucking old are you that your grandfather knew FDR?
My great grandfather fought in the civil war, and I'm 52
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #44
Well here's the guy you people are calling a moron.
Sorry, but I think he has a little more credibility than you message board know-it-all's.
Dean Simonton
AboutResearch FocusSelected PublicationsTeachingAwards
EDUCATIONPh.D., Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1975M.A., Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1973B.A., Psychology, Occidental College, 1970
About
Dean Simonton is distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis. He is a member of a number of professional organizations, having served as president of the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1, from 2011-2012 and previously as the president of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, and the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, APA Division 10. He also serves on a number of editorial committees and is currently associate editor of The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging, as well as direct submissions editor for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. At UC Davis, Professor Simonton has served in a number of executive roles, including chair of the faculty for the executive committee and representative assembly, and departmental vice-chair, among others.
Research Focus
Professor Simonton’s research focuses on genius, creativity, leadership and aesthetics, looking at the cognitive, dispositional, developmental and sociocultural factors behind eminence, giftedness and talent in science, philosophy, literature, music, art, cinema, politics and war, with the greatest emphasis on scientific genius. He has also extensively developed archival data analysis, with an emphasis on cross-cultural, transhistorical, biographical, and content analytical measures, with special stress on the historiometric analyses of eminent personalities, creative products, and notable events. In addition, he studies the history of psychology, including analyses from the standpoint of the psychology of science, especially the psychology of distinguished scientists and eminent psychologists.
Selected Publications
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual-differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66-73. Simonton, D. K. (Ed.) (2014). The Wiley handbook of genius. Oxford, UK: Wiley. Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad (creative) genius: What do we know after a century of historiometric research? In J.C. Kaufman (Ed.), Creativity and mental illness (pp. 25-41). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad-genius paradox: Can creative people be more mentally healthy but highly creative people more mentally ill? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 470-480. Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53-61.
Teaching
Professor Simonton teaches in the area of social-personality. He has taught courses in Introductory Psychology; Introductory Social Psychology; History of Psychology; and Genius, Creativity, and Leadership.
Awards
Professor Simonton has won numerous awards throughout this career for research, service and teaching. The research awards include the William James Book Award from the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1, in 2000; the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, in 1996; and the Theoretical Innovation Prize, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, APA Division 8, in 2004. Service honors include the Farnsworth Award for Outstanding Service to the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, APA Division 10, in 2011. And teaching honors include the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four Year College/University Teaching, Division 2 - Society for the Teaching of Psychology, APA, in 2006. At UC Davis, he has been awarded the UC Davis Prize for Teaching and Scholarly Achievement, the Academic Senate Distinguished Teaching Award and the Magnar Ronning Award for Teaching Excellence.
DEAN SIMONTON
Distinguished Professor
Department of Psychology
EMAILvCARD
OFFICES & LABS
Department of Psychology
102D Young Hall1 Shields AvenueDavis, CA 95616530-752-1677
Dean Simonton — People in the Division of Social Sciences at UC Davis
I did not say he was a moron, I said that people that believe the web page are morons, and that the fake web page was set up to do just that, and he found you. Thus you have demonstrated moronism quite clearly.
121.000091
Prove what I posted is fake.
I do not have to prove that, you need to prove that George Washington's IQ can be determined to the tenth of a point without ever having been tested. When you can do that, then you can prove that the info on the page is real.
You can not, so again you are proving that you are a moron, and that you believe what you read on the internet, because you read it on the internet
This is not some obscure "internet" article.
This was a legitimate researched study by this UC Davis professor who comes with some highly regarded credentials.
If you want to blow it off go right ahead, I could fucking care less.
I for one will take his expert opinions over your message board scribbles any fucking day !
Dean Simonton
Dean Keith Simonton is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at UC-Davis. He is particularly interested in the study of human intelligence, creativity, greatness, and the psychology of science. He obtained his M.A at Harvard in 1973, and his PhD in 1975. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a fellow of the American Psychological Association.
He has over 340 publications, including 13 books. One of his books, The Origins of Genius, received the William James Book Award.
One of his findings was that the 10 years' experience of deliberate practice is not a rule, but an average with significant variation around the mean. He found that the people who achieved the greatest lifetime productivity and highest levels of eminence required the least amount of time to achieve expertise. He also found that while too much expertise can hurt one's chances of greatness, the downsides of overtraining in one domain can be ameliorated by the acquisition of expertise among numerous different domains.[1]
He also found that an association of creativity with psychopathic traits was more apparent in artists than in scientists, and that artists who operate in expressive, subjective, or romantic styles display more psychopathology than those who operate in classical or academic styles.[2]
In 2006, he published a paper that ranked the IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership of all past 42 US presidents.[3]
Dean Simonton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My grandfather was born in 1884.He didn't earn a degree in law school. He dropped out after he passed the bar.My grandfather knew FDR at Columbia Law School. Said he didnt see how he passed he was so stupid.
How fucking old are you that your grandfather knew FDR?
SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,679
- 280
- Banned
- #47
This is not some obscure "internet" article.
This was a legitimate researched study by this UC Davis professor who comes with some highly regarded credentials.
Do you actually know anything about IQ testing? Here's a tip: The number "120" is meaningless. In truth, any IQ "score" presented simply as a number alleging to be one's IQ is meaningless. At least, by itself. There are many different kinds of IQ tests out there, and they use different scales. An IQ of 120 on one scale is entirely different than a 120 as determined by another type of test.
So, what scale does this number "120" fit?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,713
- 69,864
- 2,330
Common Core Math problem.
Dubyas IQ is 130, Obama's is 100.
How much smarter is Dubya than Obama?
Dubyas IQ is 130, Obama's is 100.
How much smarter is Dubya than Obama?
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
- 1,940
- Banned
- #49
Ya, Barry's is the highest ever in the history of the universe... He knows there are 57 states.This is not some obscure "internet" article.
This was a legitimate researched study by this UC Davis professor who comes with some highly regarded credentials.
Do you actually know anything about IQ testing? Here's a tip: The number "120" is meaningless. In truth, any IQ "score" presented simply as a number alleging to be one's IQ is meaningless. At least, by itself. There are many different kinds of IQ tests out there, and they use different scales. An IQ of 120 on one scale is entirely different than a 120 as determined by another type of test.
So, what scale does this number "120" fit?
All of us mere peons think there are only 50... Ha! we were way off!!!
SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,679
- 280
- Banned
- #50
Ya, Barry's is the highest ever in the history of the universe... He knows there are 57 states.This is not some obscure "internet" article.
This was a legitimate researched study by this UC Davis professor who comes with some highly regarded credentials.
Do you actually know anything about IQ testing? Here's a tip: The number "120" is meaningless. In truth, any IQ "score" presented simply as a number alleging to be one's IQ is meaningless. At least, by itself. There are many different kinds of IQ tests out there, and they use different scales. An IQ of 120 on one scale is entirely different than a 120 as determined by another type of test.
So, what scale does this number "120" fit?
All of us mere peons think there are only 50... Ha! we were way off!!!
Where did I say anything about Obama? Oh right, I didn't.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
- 1,940
- Banned
- #51
Your idol worship betrayed you...Ya, Barry's is the highest ever in the history of the universe... He knows there are 57 states.This is not some obscure "internet" article.
This was a legitimate researched study by this UC Davis professor who comes with some highly regarded credentials.
Do you actually know anything about IQ testing? Here's a tip: The number "120" is meaningless. In truth, any IQ "score" presented simply as a number alleging to be one's IQ is meaningless. At least, by itself. There are many different kinds of IQ tests out there, and they use different scales. An IQ of 120 on one scale is entirely different than a 120 as determined by another type of test.
So, what scale does this number "120" fit?
All of us mere peons think there are only 50... Ha! we were way off!!!
Where did I say anything about Obama? Oh right, I didn't.
whitehall
Diamond Member
They say sexual psychopath Ted Bundy's I.Q was right around Bill Clinton's. What else did they have in common?
Bassman007
Platinum Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 6,995
- 1,210
- 1,095
- Banned
- #53
Well here's the guy you people are calling a moron.
Sorry, but I think he has a little more credibility than you message board know-it-all's.
Dean Simonton
AboutResearch FocusSelected PublicationsTeachingAwards
EDUCATIONPh.D., Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1975M.A., Social Psychology, Harvard University, 1973B.A., Psychology, Occidental College, 1970
About
Dean Simonton is distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis. He is a member of a number of professional organizations, having served as president of the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1, from 2011-2012 and previously as the president of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, and the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, APA Division 10. He also serves on a number of editorial committees and is currently associate editor of The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging, as well as direct submissions editor for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. At UC Davis, Professor Simonton has served in a number of executive roles, including chair of the faculty for the executive committee and representative assembly, and departmental vice-chair, among others.
Research Focus
Professor Simonton’s research focuses on genius, creativity, leadership and aesthetics, looking at the cognitive, dispositional, developmental and sociocultural factors behind eminence, giftedness and talent in science, philosophy, literature, music, art, cinema, politics and war, with the greatest emphasis on scientific genius. He has also extensively developed archival data analysis, with an emphasis on cross-cultural, transhistorical, biographical, and content analytical measures, with special stress on the historiometric analyses of eminent personalities, creative products, and notable events. In addition, he studies the history of psychology, including analyses from the standpoint of the psychology of science, especially the psychology of distinguished scientists and eminent psychologists.
Selected Publications
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual-differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66-73. Simonton, D. K. (Ed.) (2014). The Wiley handbook of genius. Oxford, UK: Wiley. Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad (creative) genius: What do we know after a century of historiometric research? In J.C. Kaufman (Ed.), Creativity and mental illness (pp. 25-41). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2014). The mad-genius paradox: Can creative people be more mentally healthy but highly creative people more mentally ill? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 470-480. Simonton, D. K. (2014). More method in the mad-genius controversy: A historiometric study of 204 historic creators. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 53-61.
Teaching
Professor Simonton teaches in the area of social-personality. He has taught courses in Introductory Psychology; Introductory Social Psychology; History of Psychology; and Genius, Creativity, and Leadership.
Awards
Professor Simonton has won numerous awards throughout this career for research, service and teaching. The research awards include the William James Book Award from the Society for General Psychology, APA Division 1, in 2000; the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, in 1996; and the Theoretical Innovation Prize, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, APA Division 8, in 2004. Service honors include the Farnsworth Award for Outstanding Service to the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, APA Division 10, in 2011. And teaching honors include the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four Year College/University Teaching, Division 2 - Society for the Teaching of Psychology, APA, in 2006. At UC Davis, he has been awarded the UC Davis Prize for Teaching and Scholarly Achievement, the Academic Senate Distinguished Teaching Award and the Magnar Ronning Award for Teaching Excellence.
DEAN SIMONTON
Distinguished Professor
Department of Psychology
EMAILvCARD
OFFICES & LABS
Department of Psychology
102D Young Hall1 Shields AvenueDavis, CA 95616530-752-1677
Dean Simonton — People in the Division of Social Sciences at UC Davis
I did not say he was a moron, I said that people that believe the web page are morons, and that the fake web page was set up to do just that, and he found you. Thus you have demonstrated moronism quite clearly.
121.000091
Prove what I posted is fake.
I do not have to prove that, you need to prove that George Washington's IQ can be determined to the tenth of a point without ever having been tested. When you can do that, then you can prove that the info on the page is real.
You can not, so again you are proving that you are a moron, and that you believe what you read on the internet, because you read it on the internet
This is not some obscure "internet" article.
This was a legitimate researched study by this UC Davis professor who comes with some highly regarded credentials.
If you want to blow it off go right ahead, I could fucking care less.
I for one will take his expert opinions over your message board scribbles any fucking day !
Dean Simonton
Dean Keith Simonton is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at UC-Davis. He is particularly interested in the study of human intelligence, creativity, greatness, and the psychology of science. He obtained his M.A at Harvard in 1973, and his PhD in 1975. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a fellow of the American Psychological Association.
He has over 340 publications, including 13 books. One of his books, The Origins of Genius, received the William James Book Award.
One of his findings was that the 10 years' experience of deliberate practice is not a rule, but an average with significant variation around the mean. He found that the people who achieved the greatest lifetime productivity and highest levels of eminence required the least amount of time to achieve expertise. He also found that while too much expertise can hurt one's chances of greatness, the downsides of overtraining in one domain can be ameliorated by the acquisition of expertise among numerous different domains.[1]
He also found that an association of creativity with psychopathic traits was more apparent in artists than in scientists, and that artists who operate in expressive, subjective, or romantic styles display more psychopathology than those who operate in classical or academic styles.[2]
In 2006, he published a paper that ranked the IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership of all past 42 US presidents.[3]
Dean Simonton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stephen Hawking had credentials until he admitted that everything he wrote about black holes was wrong. Again I am waiting to hear how a persons IQ is measured to a tenth of a point without being tested. Are there experiments where this knucklehead can prove his theory by predicting the IQ of random people to the tenth of a point, or do morons like you not ask for proof?
U R A RETARD
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,164
- 47,312
- 2,180
This is the top 27, we'll do a countdown to the smartest:
They're smart, yeah smarrrrrt !
#27
George H. W. Bush
IQ: 130.1
College: Yale University
Before he attended Yale, George H. W. Bush enlisted in the Navy and served until the end of World War II. He also had a successful career in the oil industry before turning to politics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#26
William McKinley
IQ: 130.2
College: Allegheny College (withdrew)
Although William McKinley dropped out of Allegheny College, he would later earn a law degree from Albany Law School. President McKinley was tragically assassinated just six months into his second term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#25
James K. Polk
IQ: 130.2
College: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Polk has been called the “least known consequential president.” In his one term as president, Polk presided over the Mexican War, dramatically expanded the size of the country and overhauled the nation’s finance system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#24
Grover Cleveland
IQ: 130.9
College: None
Cleveland couldn’t afford a college education but that didn’t stop him from becoming a successful lawyer. As president, Cleveland earned a reputation for his honesty and work ethic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#23
Richard Nixon
IQ: 131.0
College: Whittier College
Nixon may have had the mostscandal-filled presidency, but there’s no doubting his intelligence. Before he resigned from office, Nixon actually accomplished some major foreign policy goals and pushed for more environmental regulation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#22
Dwight D. Eisenhower
IQ: 131.9
College: U.S. Military Academy (West Point)
Before becoming president, Eisenhower served as a five-star general in the army during World War II and was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. Eisenhower also served as the president of Columbia University from 1948 to 1953.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#21
Benjamin Harrison
IQ: 132.2
College: Miami University
Benjamin Harrison had a successful career as an attorney before and after his one-term presidency. He even represented the Republic of Venezuela against the United Kingdom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#20
George Washington
IQ: 132.5
College: None
Washington managed to become the first U.S. president without a college degree. In addition to having a sharp political mind, Washington was also a skilled military commander.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#19
Martin Van Buren
IQ: 133.4
College: None
Van Buren began reading law at the age of 14 and was admitted to the bar just seven years later. Along with Andrew Jackson, he was one of the most influential architects of the original Democratic Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#18
Rutherford B. Hayes
IQ: 133.9
College: Kenyon College
Like his predecessor, Ulysses S. Grant, Hayes struggled to reconcile the country after the Civil War. He is generally regarded as an unexceptional president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#17
William Henry Harrison
IQ: 133.9
College: Hampden-Sydney College (withdrew)
Sadly, William Henry Harrison’s presidency ended just 32 days into his first term, when he died of pneumonia. Before his presidency, Harrison gained fame for his military career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#16
Franklin Pierce
IQ: 134.8
College: Bowdoin College
Not even a brilliant mind could save Pierce from a disastrous presidency. His failure to deal with the issue of slavery helped escalate the onset of the Civil War.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#15
Millard Fillmore
IQ: 136.0
College: None
Like Pierce, Fillmore failed to adequately address the issue of slavery. Although he never attended college, he helped found the University at Buffalo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#14
John Tyler
IQ: 136.2
College: College of William and Mary
Tyler has an impressive pre-presidency career, serving as a governor, U.S. representative and senator. However, he had a fairly unimpressive presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#13
Franklin D. Roosevelt#13
IQ: 139.6
College: Harvard University
In terms of influence, few presidents can match FDR’s 12 years as president. Roosevelt was also one of the most intellectual presidents to occupy the White House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#12
Abraham Lincoln
IQ: 140
College: None
With an estimated IQ of 140, Lincoln is undoubtedly one of the smartest presidents. Despite never obtaining a college degree, Lincoln was a highly-respected lawyer and a skilled orator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#11
James Madison
IQ: 141.3
College: Princeton University
As the “Father of the Constitution” and one of the key architects of the Bill of Rights, James Madison was certainly one of the most intelligent and influential U.S. presidents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#10
Chester A. Arthur
IQ: 141.5
College: Union College
Despite being one of the most intelligent presidents, Chester A. Arthur is generally regarded as being an inconsequential leader. Nonetheless, Arthur deserves credit for championing reform in a time of rampant political corruption.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#9
James Garfield
IQ: 141.5
College: Williams College
Garfield excelled as a student at Williams College, where he graduated second in his class. It was said that Garfield could writeLatin with one hand and ancient Greek with the other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#8
Theodore Roosevelt
IQ: 142.3
College: Harvard University
Teddy Roosevelt was certainly one of the most intellectually curious presidents to occupy the White House. A prolific author, he published 35 books on subjects ranging from the War of 1812 to African game trails. He was also a respected naturalist and conservationist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#7
John Adams
IQ: 142.5
College: Harvard University
Adams was a highly intellectual political theorist, historian, lawyer and politician. Growing up, he excelled in Latin school and was admitted to Harvard College at the young age of 15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6
Jimmy Carter
IQ: 145.1
College: U.S. Naval Academy
Jimmy Carter is a case where a high IQ didn’t necessarily equate to a successful presidency. Before becoming president, Carter graduated with a bachelor of science degree from the Naval Academy and later took graduate courses on nuclear physics at Union College.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5
Woodrow Wilson
IQ: 145.1
College: Princeton University
Wilson earned a Ph.D. in political science and was chosen to be president of Princeton University, a position he held from 1902 to 1910. As president, Wilson was a key figure in the Progressive Movement and presided over World War I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4
Bill Clinton
IQ: 148.8
College: Georgetown University
Clinton was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Georgetown University and won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he studied philosophy, politics and economics. He also received a law degree from Yale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3
John F. Kennedy
IQ: 150.7
College: Harvard University
At 43, Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president. Although he frequently struggled with health issues, Kennedy was nonetheless an avid scholar and an ambitious statesman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2
Thomas Jefferson
IQ: 153.8
College: College of William and Mary (withdrew)
When speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Laureates, JFK famously noted, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Jefferson certainly was a true Renaissance figure, studying everything from agricultural innovation to architecture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the president with the highest IQ..................drum roll please !
#1
John Quincy Adams
IQ: 168.8
College: Harvard University
Like his father, John Quincy Adams was an esteemed lawyer and a formidable presence in court (he earned a law degree from Harvard). He was also a brilliant statesman, negotiating several key international treaties. Remarkably, Adams was fluent in at least four languages and regularly translated Latin and ancient Greek as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5315/most-intelligent-presidents#27-John-Quincy-Adams
The I.Q. test didn't even exist until 1916
Wyld Kard
Platinum Member
Dubya is smarter than Obama
Obama is a smart man, and he's better than all conservative presidents combined and comparing him to Bush...I'll pass, its not even worth a response.
Obama is a smart man
Maybe to gullible Kool-Aid drinking nutjobs like yourself who fail to see and understand just how incompetent he really is.
Last edited:
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #56
This is the top 27, we'll do a countdown to the smartest:
They're smart, yeah smarrrrrt !
#27
George H. W. Bush
IQ: 130.1
College: Yale University
Before he attended Yale, George H. W. Bush enlisted in the Navy and served until the end of World War II. He also had a successful career in the oil industry before turning to politics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#26
William McKinley
IQ: 130.2
College: Allegheny College (withdrew)
Although William McKinley dropped out of Allegheny College, he would later earn a law degree from Albany Law School. President McKinley was tragically assassinated just six months into his second term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#25
James K. Polk
IQ: 130.2
College: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Polk has been called the “least known consequential president.” In his one term as president, Polk presided over the Mexican War, dramatically expanded the size of the country and overhauled the nation’s finance system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#24
Grover Cleveland
IQ: 130.9
College: None
Cleveland couldn’t afford a college education but that didn’t stop him from becoming a successful lawyer. As president, Cleveland earned a reputation for his honesty and work ethic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#23
Richard Nixon
IQ: 131.0
College: Whittier College
Nixon may have had the mostscandal-filled presidency, but there’s no doubting his intelligence. Before he resigned from office, Nixon actually accomplished some major foreign policy goals and pushed for more environmental regulation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#22
Dwight D. Eisenhower
IQ: 131.9
College: U.S. Military Academy (West Point)
Before becoming president, Eisenhower served as a five-star general in the army during World War II and was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. Eisenhower also served as the president of Columbia University from 1948 to 1953.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#21
Benjamin Harrison
IQ: 132.2
College: Miami University
Benjamin Harrison had a successful career as an attorney before and after his one-term presidency. He even represented the Republic of Venezuela against the United Kingdom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#20
George Washington
IQ: 132.5
College: None
Washington managed to become the first U.S. president without a college degree. In addition to having a sharp political mind, Washington was also a skilled military commander.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#19
Martin Van Buren
IQ: 133.4
College: None
Van Buren began reading law at the age of 14 and was admitted to the bar just seven years later. Along with Andrew Jackson, he was one of the most influential architects of the original Democratic Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#18
Rutherford B. Hayes
IQ: 133.9
College: Kenyon College
Like his predecessor, Ulysses S. Grant, Hayes struggled to reconcile the country after the Civil War. He is generally regarded as an unexceptional president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#17
William Henry Harrison
IQ: 133.9
College: Hampden-Sydney College (withdrew)
Sadly, William Henry Harrison’s presidency ended just 32 days into his first term, when he died of pneumonia. Before his presidency, Harrison gained fame for his military career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#16
Franklin Pierce
IQ: 134.8
College: Bowdoin College
Not even a brilliant mind could save Pierce from a disastrous presidency. His failure to deal with the issue of slavery helped escalate the onset of the Civil War.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#15
Millard Fillmore
IQ: 136.0
College: None
Like Pierce, Fillmore failed to adequately address the issue of slavery. Although he never attended college, he helped found the University at Buffalo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#14
John Tyler
IQ: 136.2
College: College of William and Mary
Tyler has an impressive pre-presidency career, serving as a governor, U.S. representative and senator. However, he had a fairly unimpressive presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#13
Franklin D. Roosevelt#13
IQ: 139.6
College: Harvard University
In terms of influence, few presidents can match FDR’s 12 years as president. Roosevelt was also one of the most intellectual presidents to occupy the White House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#12
Abraham Lincoln
IQ: 140
College: None
With an estimated IQ of 140, Lincoln is undoubtedly one of the smartest presidents. Despite never obtaining a college degree, Lincoln was a highly-respected lawyer and a skilled orator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#11
James Madison
IQ: 141.3
College: Princeton University
As the “Father of the Constitution” and one of the key architects of the Bill of Rights, James Madison was certainly one of the most intelligent and influential U.S. presidents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#10
Chester A. Arthur
IQ: 141.5
College: Union College
Despite being one of the most intelligent presidents, Chester A. Arthur is generally regarded as being an inconsequential leader. Nonetheless, Arthur deserves credit for championing reform in a time of rampant political corruption.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#9
James Garfield
IQ: 141.5
College: Williams College
Garfield excelled as a student at Williams College, where he graduated second in his class. It was said that Garfield could writeLatin with one hand and ancient Greek with the other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#8
Theodore Roosevelt
IQ: 142.3
College: Harvard University
Teddy Roosevelt was certainly one of the most intellectually curious presidents to occupy the White House. A prolific author, he published 35 books on subjects ranging from the War of 1812 to African game trails. He was also a respected naturalist and conservationist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#7
John Adams
IQ: 142.5
College: Harvard University
Adams was a highly intellectual political theorist, historian, lawyer and politician. Growing up, he excelled in Latin school and was admitted to Harvard College at the young age of 15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6
Jimmy Carter
IQ: 145.1
College: U.S. Naval Academy
Jimmy Carter is a case where a high IQ didn’t necessarily equate to a successful presidency. Before becoming president, Carter graduated with a bachelor of science degree from the Naval Academy and later took graduate courses on nuclear physics at Union College.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5
Woodrow Wilson
IQ: 145.1
College: Princeton University
Wilson earned a Ph.D. in political science and was chosen to be president of Princeton University, a position he held from 1902 to 1910. As president, Wilson was a key figure in the Progressive Movement and presided over World War I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4
Bill Clinton
IQ: 148.8
College: Georgetown University
Clinton was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Georgetown University and won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he studied philosophy, politics and economics. He also received a law degree from Yale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3
John F. Kennedy
IQ: 150.7
College: Harvard University
At 43, Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president. Although he frequently struggled with health issues, Kennedy was nonetheless an avid scholar and an ambitious statesman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2
Thomas Jefferson
IQ: 153.8
College: College of William and Mary (withdrew)
When speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Laureates, JFK famously noted, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Jefferson certainly was a true Renaissance figure, studying everything from agricultural innovation to architecture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the president with the highest IQ..................drum roll please !
#1
John Quincy Adams
IQ: 168.8
College: Harvard University
Like his father, John Quincy Adams was an esteemed lawyer and a formidable presence in court (he earned a law degree from Harvard). He was also a brilliant statesman, negotiating several key international treaties. Remarkably, Adams was fluent in at least four languages and regularly translated Latin and ancient Greek as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5315/most-intelligent-presidents#27-John-Quincy-Adams
The I.Q. test didn't even exist until 1916
(sigh) Again, I will point to the study this came from.
This research was conducted by a UC Davis professor
Here's his research:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf
Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives Author(s): Dean Keith Simonton Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Aug., 2006), pp. 511-526 Published by: International Society of Political Psychology Stable URL: Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives on JSTOR Accessed: 04/03/2010 02:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at International Society of Political Psychology on JSTOR. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology. JSTOR Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2006 Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives Dean Keith Simonton University of California at Davis Individual differences in intelligence are consistently associated with leader performance, including the assessed performance of presidents of the United States. Given this empirical significance, IQ scores were estimated for all 42 chief executives from George Washington to G. W Bush. The scores were obtained by applying missing-values estimation methods (expectation-maximization) to published assessments of (a) IQ (Cox, 1926; n = 8), (b) Intellectual Brilliance (Simonton, 1986c; n = 39), and (c) Openness to Experience (Rubenzer & Faschingbauer 2004; n = 32). The resulting scores were then shown to correlate with evaluations of presidential leadership performance. The implications for George W. Bush and his presidency were then discussed. KEY WORDS: Presidential leadership, IQ, Openness to Experience, Intellectual Brilliance, intelligence Perhaps no individual-difference variable has more practical consequences than does general intelligence. This impact is witnessed at five levels of specificity. First, at the broadest level of applicability, intelligence is closely associated with the cognitive complexity necessary for meeting the demands of modem life (Gottfredson, 1997). Second, and more specifically, cognitive capacity is the best single predictor of job performance in a wide range of occupations (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005). Third, and yet more narrowly, individual differences in intelligence correlate positively with leader performance (Bass, 1990; Simonton, 1995). For instance, according to one meta-analysis of 151 independent samples (Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004), the overall correlation is .27 (when corrected for range restriction). Fourth, this association holds for a more specialized form of leadership, namely the performance of political leaders (Simonton, 1990). For 511 0162-895X ? 2006 International Society of Political Psychology Published by Blackwell Publishing. Inc., 350 Main Street, Maiden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, and PO Box 378 Carlton South, 3053 Victoria Australia example, a historiometric study of 342 European monarchs found that intelligence correlated .32 with eminence and .67 with leadership (Simonton, 1984; see also Simonton, 1983, 2001a). Fifth, and most specifically, assessed intelligence has a positive correlation with the performance of U.S. presidents (Simonton, 1986c, 1988, 2001b), where performance was based on surveys of presidential experts, including both political scientists and historians. In fact, out of more than two dozen individual-difference variables examined, intelligence was the only one to display consistently positive correlations with all available measures of presidential greatness (Simonton, 1992; cf. McCann, 1992). Indeed, it constitutes the only direct individual-difference correlate of performance once situational factors are taken into account (Simonton, 1991b, 1992; see also Simonton, 1986a, 1996). Intelligence is a crucial component of leader performance, in part, because it is associated with other advantageous attributes, such as charisma and creativity (Simonton, 1988). Given that most presidents of the United States died long before the advent of intelligence tests, it is imperative to specify the basis for the scores used in these investigations (Simonton, 1986c, 1987). Assessment began by extracting personality descriptions from several biographical sources for 39 presidents from Washington through Reagan. All identifying information was then removed to produce anonymous biographical profiles. Several independent judges used these profiles in conjunction with the Gough Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) to rate the presidents on 300 descriptors, obtaining reliable assessments for 110 adjectives (cf. Deluga, 1997, 1998; Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative, 1977). These latter measures were then subjected to a factor analysis that obtained 14 distinct dimensions. One of these factors included such items as "intelligent," "wise," "inventive," "interests wide," "artistic," "curious," "sophisticated," "complicated," and "insightful" (but not "dull" or "commonplace"). Moreover, a factor score defined by the linear composite of these items yielded a measure having an internal-consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of .90 (Simonton, 1986c). The resulting factor was then interpreted as assessing the chief executives on Intellectual Brilliance. This measure was then validated a number of ways. For example, the variable correlates with objective biographical events, such as the chief executive's preelection publication record (Simonton, 1986c), a variable that prior research showed was associated with presidential greatness (Simonton, 1981). In addition, Intellectual Brilliance correlates with alternative assessments of presidential intellect. For instance, the measure has a correlation of .80 with Thordike's (1950) intelligence evaluations of 10 chief executives based on his reading of pertinent biographical data (Simonton, 1986c). Even more significant for our current purposes, Intellectual Brilliance correlates .70 with the IQ scores that Cox (1926) had calculated for eight U.S. presidents as part of Terman's (1925-59) classic study of the relation between intelligence and achievement (Simonton, 1986c). These IQ scores, though 512 Simonton extracted from biographies using historiometric methods, used an entirely different operational definition of intelligence and therefore focused on contrasting sources of information. In particular, Cox compiled chronologies of childhood and adolescent achievements to detect any signs of intellectual precocity. Using a team of independent raters, the ages at which certain accomplishments appeared were compared with the average ages at which those achievements would be expected in the general population. The IQ scores were then defined according to the traditional concept of the intelligence quotient as 100 x MA/CA, where MA is mental age and CA is chronological age (extended from Terman, 1917). The method was applied to only eight chief executives because the sample consisted of 301 leaders and creators from numerous nations and periods of history (Cox, 1926). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the IQ scores for this sample correlated .25 with individual differences in eminence (using an archival space measure devised by Cattell, 1903; cf. Simonton, 1986c). Furthermore, high IQs in Cox's (1926) sample are linked with traits that have a close affinity with those defining Intellectual Brilliance, namely, originality of ideas, profoundness of apprehension, pervasive cognitive activity and drive, and intellectual versatility (Cox, 1926; Simonton, 1976; White, 1931). The Intellectual Brilliance assessment was validated much later via a totally divergent methodology (Simonton, 2002). Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, and Ones (2000) assessed the 41 U.S. presidents prior to George W. Bush on the NEO, a standard measure of the "Big Five" personality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1992a,b). The assessment was executed by having recognized experts on specific presidents rate their subjects on the items making up the key facets and factors of the NEO. From these questionnaires useful measures were obtained for all of the NEO scales, at least for a subset of 31 chief executives for whom sufficient ratings were available. The resulting measure of special relevance here is Openness to Experience, a cognitive proclivity that encompasses unusual receptiveness to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. In the general population this factor is positively associated with intelligence (Bates & Shieles, 2003; Gignac, Stough, & Loukomitis, 2004; Harris, 2004). In the specific case of presidents, as well, Openness correlates .71 with the Intellectual Brilliance factor (Simonton, 2000, 2002). In other words, Intellectual Brilliance has almost the exact same correlation with Openness as it does with the Cox (1926) IQ scores. Thus, it is very likely that the three measures, despite their distinct origins, are all tapping into the same underlying construct-each president's broad intellectual breadth, power, and energy.1 As further support for this conjecture, the Openness Some would argue that general intelligence (or Spearman's g) can be psychometrically discriminated from Openness (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992a,b). From this perspective the high correlation observed between Openness and the other measures may be suspicious because it is more than double the correlation usually observed in the general population. However, the two constructs may be more closely related in samples of presidents because of how such individuals are recruited to enter and succeed in politics. There is a precedent for such a selection effect in the fact that the power and Presidential IQ 513 scores also predict the performance ratings that the presidents receive from historians and political scientists who have expertise in the American presidency (Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000). In fact, not only does Openness predict presidential success better than any other Big Five factor, but it correlates with "ethics on the job" as well (Ones, Rubenzer, & Faschingbauer, 2004). Most recently, Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004) published the book Personality, Character, & Leadership in the White House in which they could elaborate and extend the findings reported in Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, and Ones (2000). Among the many additions in this later publication is the inclusion of NEO scores for George W. Bush, thereby enlarging the sample of assessed presidents from 31 to 32. This enlargement provided the impetus for the current investigation. Specifically, the goal is threefold. First, by applying modem statistical methods for reconstructing missing values, I provide estimates of IQ, Openness, and Intellectual Brilliance for all 42 presidents. Second, these objective (even if tentative) estimates will be correlated with the most up-to-date measure of presidential performance for the 41 presidents for whom ratings are possible. Third, the association from this result will be used to predict George W. Bush's most likely performance rating were it based on intellectual ability alone. Method The sample consists of all presidents of the United States from George Washington to George W. Bush. Although Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd President of the United States, he was only the 42nd U.S. president (because Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms as the 22nd and 24th president of the United States). Hence, the sample size is 42 rather than 43. Intellectual Capacity Measures The factor scores for Intellectual Brilliance were taken from Simonton (1986c, p. 154). All presidents between Washington and Reagan were assessed (n = 39), the scores having been standardized to a zero mean and a unit standard deviation (i.e., z scores). The Openness scores came from Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004, pp. 26, 200, 302). These scores have a hypothetical range of 0 to 100, and the actual range is very close to that. Even though presidents from Washington to George W. Bush were assessed, 10 presidents could not be reliably scored because of the unavailability of appropriate experts, thereby reducing the sample size (n = 32). Finally, IQ estimates were adopted from Cox (1926) for the small subset of presidents who were of sufficient renown to make it into the sample achievement motives are more highly correlated among presidents than in the population at large (Winter, 1973, 1987). Thus in the case of U.S. chief executives (and perhaps other political leaders) high general intelligence may be more strongly linked with the qualities associated with Openness. 514 Simonton of 301 geniuses (n = 8). Actually, there were four estimates for each president. First, IQs were calculated for two periods of biographical data, the first from birth to age 17 and the second from age 18 to age 26. These were identified by Cox as IQ I and IQ II. Second, the raw IQ scores for each of these periods were corrected for measurement error (see Cox, 1926, pp. 82-83, for the specific formula). This statistical correction for attenuation was deemed necessary because some biographies had more adequate information than did others. Hence, each period has both uncorrected (U) and corrected (C) IQ scores. The outcome is four IQ scores: I-U, I-C, II-U, and II-C. The original scores on Intellectual Brilliance, Openness to Experience, and the four Cox (1926) IQ estimates are shown in boldface in Table 1. These numbers have been rounded off to the first figure to the right of the decimal point. Table 2 shows the basic statistics for each measure, including the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). It should be observed that the four IQ estimates differ in three systematic ways. First, the corrected scores (C) tend to be larger than the uncorrected scores (U). This is not surprising given that the correction for attenuation is supposed to have this consequence, but it does raise the issue of whether the corrected scores might be too high. Second, the first-period estimates (I) tend to be smaller than the second-period estimates (II). Third, the dispersion, as indicated by the standard deviations, tends to be larger for the first-period estimates (I) relative to the second-period estimates (II).2 Lastly, it is worth noting that although the presidents range tremendously in Openness, the mean for the group falls in the low end of the distribution. Leadership Performance Measure The measure of presidential leadership was based on the ratings or rankings contained in the following 12 sources: the Schlesinger (1948) survey, the Rossiter (1956) rating, the Schlesinger (1962) second survey, the Bailey (1966) rating (as quantified by Kynerd, 1971), the Maranell (1970) survey, the Chicago Tribune Magazine poll (as reported in Murray & Blessing, 1983), the Porter poll (also as reported in Murray & Blessing, 1983), the Murray and Blessing survey (1983), the Siena Research Institute survey (Kelly & Lonnstrom, 1990), the Ridings and McIver (1997) survey, and a survey conducted by C-Span (C-Span Survey of Presidential Leadership, 2000). When necessary, the original scores were inverted so that higher numbers signified greater presidential performance. All 12 measures were then standardized to produce z scores (i.e., M = 0 and SD = 1). The average of these dozen standardized measures defined the indicator of each president's leadership performance (or "presidential greatness"). 2 Because these IQs were based on the old definition of the intelligence quotient as a ratio of mental to chronological age (rather than the modem definition of IQ in terms of the normal distribution), the scores have no pre-set standard deviation (16 or 15 in most modem tests). Nonetheless, the standard deviations for the entire sample tend to be between 14 and 15 (Simonton, 1976). Presidential IQ 515 Table 1. Original and Imputed Scores for 42 Presidents IQ estimates President Intellectual brilliance Openness I-U I-C II-U II-C Washington 0.3 14.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 J. Adams 0.6 61.0 120.0 150.0 145.0 155.0 Jefferson 3.1 99.1 145.0 160.0 150.0 160.0 Madison 0.6 62.0 120.0 150.0 135.0 160.0 Monroe -1.4 3.7 109.0 120.7 128.2 138.6 J. Q. Adams 1.2 98.0 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0 Jackson -0.6 0.5 110.0 120.0 130.0 145.0 Van Buren -0.3 31.0 119.4 132.9 135.1 146.0 W. Harrison -0.1 31.5 120.3 133.6 135.5 146.3 Tyler 0.2 37.9 122.9 136.6 137.2 148.1 Polk -0.6 21.0 116.0 128.7 132.7 143.4 Taylor -1.2 9.0 110.8 122.7 129.3 139.8 Fillmore -0.7 46.0 120.8 136.7 137.4 149.0 Pierce -0.3 37.0 120.6 134.8 136.3 147.4 Buchanan -0.8 5.0 111.9 122.8 129.4 139.6 Lincoln 0.8 95.0 125.0 145.0 140.0 150.0 A. Johnson -1.2 8.0 110.8 122.7 129.3 139.8 Grant -1.4 2.3 110.0 115.0 125.0 130.0 Hayes -0.1 31.5 120.3 133.6 135.5 146.3 Garfield 0.9 52.9 129.0 143.5 141.2 152.3 Arthur 0.9 52.9 129.0 143.5 141.2 152.3 Cleveland -0.5 23.0 116.9 129.6 133.3 144.0 B. Harrison -0.7 30.0 117.5 131.4 134.3 145.4 McKinley -0.6 20.8 116.0 128.6 132.7 143.4 T. Roosevelt 0.9 56.0 129.7 144.6 141.8 153.0 Taft 0.0 1.0 114.5 123.8 129.8 139.5 Wilson 1.3 64.0 133.0 148.3 143.9 155.2 Harding -2.0 10.0 107.8 121.1 128.4 139.9 Coolidge -1.5 17.0 111.4 124.8 130.6 141.6 Hoover 0.5 8.0 118.0 127.5 132.0 141.6 F. Roosevelt 0.9 45.0 127.4 140.9 139.7 150.5 Truman 0.2 1.7 115.5 124.6 130.3 139.8 Eisenhower -0.7 29.0 117.3 131.1 134.1 145.1 Kennedy 1.8 82.0 138.9 155.7 148.2 159.8 L.Johnson -0.2 7.0 114.8 125.2 130.7 140.6 Nixon 0.4 14.0 118.9 129.2 133.0 142.9 Ford -0.6 8.0 113.3 124.4 130.2 140.4 Carter 0.0 77.0 130.2 149.0 144.4 156.8 Reagan 0.4 10.0 118.0 127.9 132.2 141.9 G. H. W. Bush -0.3 18.0 116.5 128.4 132.6 143.0 Clinton 1.0 82.0 135.6 153.6 147.0 159.0 G. W. Bush -0.7 0.0 111.1 121.4 128.5 138.5 Note. Original scores are in boldface, estimates in regular font. All statistics are rounded off to one decimal place. Intellectual brilliance is expressed by z scores with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 (from Simonton, 1986c). Openness is expressed as a percentage score ranging from 0 to 100 (from Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004). The four IQ estimates originate in Cox (1926) and represent standard IQ scores with a hypothetical mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. The latter represent four estimates: I-U (ages 0-17, uncorrected), I-C (ages 18-26, corrected for data reliability), II-U (ages 0-17, uncorrected), and II-C (ages 18-26, corrected for data reliability). 516 Simonton Table 2. Basic Statistics for Original Measures IQ estimates President Intellectual brilliance Openness I-U I-C II-U II-C n 39 32 8 8 8 8 Minimum 2.0 0.0 110.0 115.0 125.0 130.0 Maximum 3.1 99.1 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0 M -0.0 35.4 127.5 142.5 140.6 151.9 SD 1.0 32.5 18.7 19.3 12.7 13.9 In line with previous research demonstrating the impressive expert consensus on the differential reputation of the U.S. presidents, the resulting 12-item composite had an internal-consistency (coefficient alpha) reliability of .99, which is as close to perfection as can be expected for real data (see also Simonton, 1986b, 1991a). As further validation of this measure, it was correlated with published ratings of supposed components of presidential leadership. In particular, the greatness measure correlated positively with Maranell's (1970) assessments of presidential prestige (r = .95), strength (r = .96), activity (r = .90), and accomplishments (r= .97) and with Ridings and McIver's (1997) assessments of presidential leadership (r= .93), accomplishments (r= .94), political skill (r= .90), and appointments (r = .90). Hence, the leadership criterion reflects the essential features of presidential performance. Results The first step in the analysis was to use the observed scores in Table 1, indicated in boldface, to reconstruct the missing values (Little & Rubin, 2002). This was possible for three reasons. First, every president has at least one score that is not missing. Second, statistical tests indicated that one could not reject the null hypothesis that the scores are "missing completely at random" (MCAR = 5.03, df= 4, p = .284). That is, the scores seen in Table 1 can be said to be representative of the population of scores rather than having some selection bias. Third, the six measures are highly intercorrelated, indicating that there is enough redundant information to predict (or impute) the missing scores with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The magnitude of this redundancy is shown in Table 3, which gives the Pearson product-moment correlations using pairwise deletion (i.e., each correlation is calculated across all cases for which both scores are available). It should be immediately obvious that the six variables are assessing the same underlying quality of cognitive power. Not only are the four Cox (1926) scores highly intercorrelated, but also all four are strongly correlated with both Intellectual Brilliance and Openness to Experience. The smallest correlation is that between the last two variables, yet even this is high enough to suggest considerable overlap Presidential IQ 517 Table 3. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations among Original Measures Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. Intellectual brilliance 2. Openness .69 3. IQ I-U .71 .74 4. IQ I-C .82 .92 .84 5. IQ II-U .72 .80 .94 .92 6. IQ II-C .70 .81 .81 .94 .89 Note. All correlations are significant at the p < .05 level or better except for that between Intellectual Brilliance and IQ II-C (p = .054). between the two constructs. What renders these strong associations all the more remarkable is that the variables are based on three disparate methodologies: ratings based on personality profiles extracted from biographies (Intellectual Brilliance), evaluations obtained by surveying biographers (Openness), and scores calculated from chronologies of early childhood and adolescent accomplishments (IQ). Although each technique will have its own distinctive methodological advantages and disadvantages, the methods still converge on a consistent overall assessment. The missing values were imputed using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm that constructs the complete data matrix according to the patterns displayed by the nonmissing scores (Little & Rubin, 2002). This iterative procedure uses the maximum-likelihood criterion to compute the missing values. Because it takes into consideration the entire data structure, EM has been shown to be superior to alternative imputation procedures, such as regression (see, e.g., Gold & Bentler, 2000). The EM algorithm was specifically implemented via the Missing Value Analysis module in SYSTAT 11 (SYSTAT 11, 2004, vol. 2, chap. 7). The outcome is shown in Table 1, the imputed scores given in regular font. The reconstructions are greatest for the four IQ estimates, least for the Intellectual Brilliance scores. Although the IQ scores must therefore be considered more tentative and approximate than the other two scores, they do have the asset of a substantive meaning comparable to scores on standardized IQ tests. That renders them more interpretable to a broad audience. To obtain a better idea of the nature of these imputed values, Table 4 provides the basic statistics for the completed data matrix. Overall the results are fairly similar, except that the IQ estimates have lower means and standard deviations. Because far more missing values are estimated for the IQ scores than for the Intellectual Brilliance and Openness measures, the replaced values are more likely to regress toward the mean and to reduce variance. Although it is not obvious from mere inspection, the scores on all six measures appear to be free of any political bias. In particular, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that Democratic and Republican presidents have the same expected intelligence. This null result holds 518 Simonton Table 4. Statistics and Leader Performance Correlations (rs) for Measures with Imputed Values (N = 42) IQ estimates President Intellectual brilliance Openness I-U I-C II-U II-C Minimum -2.0 0.0 107.8 115.0 125.0 130.0 Maximum 3.1 99.1 165.0 170.0 165.0 175.0 M -0.0 33.4 121.0 134.4 136.0 146.8 SD 1.0 29.6 10.9 12.5 7.6 8.3 r .56 .34 .34 .35 .32 .31 Note. The rs are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. All coefficients except the last are significant at the p < .05 level, and for the last (p = .054). The correlation for Intellectual Brilliance is significant at the p < .001 level. whether the sample includes all presidents since Jackson (when the Democratic Party began) or just all presidents since Lincoln (when the Republican Party began). But how do these reconstructed scores correlate with the leadership performance criterion? The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are given in the last row of Table 4. It is evident that all six measures are positively correlated with presidential leadership, and all measures but one have about the same effect size (viz. about 10% of the variance is shared). Moreover, with that one exception, the correlations are about the same size as Ones, Rubenzer, and Faschingbauer (2004) found between Openness and their assessment of presidential success. The lone departure from the general pattern is Intellectual Brilliance, which has a correlation noticeably larger than the other five. Hence, if it was necessary to identify a single predictor variable, this would be the measure of choice. This explanatory superiority may help explain why it has consistently emerged as a significant predictor in a series of investigations published between 1986 and 2002 (e.g., Simonton, 1986c, 1988, 2001b, 2002). These studies also indicate that the impact of intelligence on greatness has not changed over the course of U.S. history.3 That is, its predictive power has neither increased nor declined with time. For instance, an early study of 36 presidents obtained a standardized partial regression coefficient of .26 (Simonton, 1986c) while a much later study of 41 presidents obtained a coefficient of .29 (Simonton, 2002), a trivial difference. This temporal stability would not hold if either (a) the cognitive assessment of recent presidents was more or less reliable than the assessment of earlier presidents or (b) the structural association between intelligence and leader performance had weakened or strengthened in the U.S. modem presidency. 3 Contrary to what has been suggested in some leadership research (Simonton, 1985), presidential greatness is not a curvilinear, inverted-U function of Intellectual Brilliance (Simonton, 1986c). Instead, the function is positive and linear. This is not to say that exceptional intellect cannot be a liability: Highly intelligent presidents are much less likely to win election by landslide victories (Simonton, 1987). Presidential 519 IQ Discussion Ever since George W. Bush was elected to the presidency, questions have emerged about his general intelligence (Sailer, 2004). Although some of these attacks were nothing more than internet hoaxes, and others were founded solely on his frequent verbal slips, still others were based on more serious speculations, such as attempts to estimate his IQ from his reported performance on the SAT (Immelman, 2001). The results reported in Table 1 provide a more objective and quantitative means to address this issue. Two points should be clear from the imputed IQ scores. First, Bush is definitely intelligent. The IQ estimates range between 111.1 and 138.5, with an average around 125. That places him in the upper range of college graduates in raw intellect (Cronbach, 1960). Admittedly, this average is influenced by Cox's (1926) corrected scores, which may be overestimates. Yet even if we focus on just the uncorrected IQs, the range is between 111.1 and 128.5, with a mean around 120, which is about the average IQ for a college graduate in the United States. In addition, the figure is more than one standard deviation above the population mean, placing Bush in the upper 10% of the intelligence distribution (Storfer, 1990). These results endorse what has been claimed on the basis of his SAT scores and his Harvard MBA, namely, that his IQ most likely exceeds 115 (Immelman, 2001). He is certainly smart enough to be president of the United States (Simonton, 1985). Second, Bush's IQ is below average relative to that subset of the U.S. citizens who also managed to work their way into the White House. In fact, his intellect falls near the bottom of the distribution. When compared with twentieth-century presidents from Theodore Roosevelt through Clinton, only Harding has a lower score (at least on three of the four estimates). A similar conclusion is suggested by the Intellectual Brilliance measure, albeit in this case there are now two twentiethcentury presidents with lower scores, namely, Harding and Coolidge. Moreover, Bush's IQ falls about 20 points-more than one standard deviation-below that of his predecessor, Clinton, a disparity that may have created a contrast effect that made any intellectual weaknesses all the more salient. Clinton's intellectual attainments as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate, his demonstrated capacity for mastering impressive amounts of complex and detailed information, his verbal eloquence and fluency, and his logical adroitness and sophistication-at times, as during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, verging on sophistry-places Clinton head and shoulders above his successor in terms of intellectual power. Needless to say, it can be argued that the Intellectual Brilliance and IQ estimates are biased downward. George W. Bush may be much smarter than Table 1 implies. The counterargument must aim at the score he received on Openness, a score that provided the only information for the imputation of his IQ and Intellectual Brilliance estimates. This score placed him at the very bottom of the distribution of U.S. presidents. Indeed, the score puts him toward the bottom of 520 Simonton the general population as well. One reason to question this placement is that Rubenzer and Faschingbauer obtained Bush's NEO scores in a different manner than they did for the preceding presidents. As they expressed it, "We depart here from our usual method; rather than having biographers rate the president, the authors read biographies and then rated him. This was done for one simple reason: None of the few biographers available returned our questionnaires" (2004, p. 301). Although these assessments were supplemented somewhat by a last-minute questionnaire response received right before the book's publication they warned "Although we did eventually obtain three raters, greater caution is called for here in reading our results" (pp. 301-302). After all, "None of us have a deep knowledge of Mr. Bush comparable to the presidential experts that provided the other ratings" (p. 302). Thus, the authors themselves claim that their scores, including the Openness assessment, can only be considered tentative. Even so, there are several reasons for suggesting that the numbers reported in last row of Table 1 are not unreasonable. To begin with, it is likely that his Openness score would not be higher than his father's, whose score of 18.0 put his IQ estimates in the low end of the distribution as well. If anything, the son's score should be lower given that his intellectual curiosity appears to be noticeably more restricted than his father's. As one national correspondent for United Press International put it, "despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running, fishing and baseball" (Sailer, 2004, p. 2). In fact, with respect to the Intellectual Brilliance evaluation, it would seem that the younger Bush does not make the impression of having wide interests or of being especially artistic, curious, sophisticated, complicated, and insightful. The same holds for the Openness measure. Presidents who score high on this assessment tend to rate high on the following facets: (a) Openness to Fantasy-"Vivid imagination and rich fantasy life; dreamy," (b) Openness to Aesthetics-"Deep appreciation of art, music, poetry, beauty; artistic, original," (c) Openness to Feelings-"Receptivity to own inner feelings and emotions. Experience emotions fully and value them; excitable, spontaneous," (d) Openness to Actions-"Willingness to try new activities, go new places, do things differently; wide interests, adventurous," (e) Openness to Ideas-"Intellectual curiosity, willingness to consider new ideas; idealistic, inventive," and (f) Openness to Values-"Readiness to reexamine (or reject) social, political and religious values; unconventional" (Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004, p. 12). At best, according to the three raters, Bush only shows some proclivity for one facet, namely, Openness to Feelings, and many close observers of the president would probably agree (see, e.g., Suskind, 2004). Finally, Bush's low Openness score is corroborated by a totally independent methodology: content analytical measures of integrative complexity. Applied to verbal materials such as speeches (with identifying material deleted), this objective technique gauges the extent to which the individual can differentiate multiple perspectives on an issue and integrate those perspectives into a single coherent Presidential IQ 521 point of view (Suedfeld, Guttieri, & Tetlock, 2003; Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992). Low scorers on integrative complexity can only see things from a single perspective-their own-and so no integration is necessary. One analysis showed that Bush's pre-9/11 baseline complexity was appreciably lower than that of Tony Blair, the prime minister of Great Britain during the same period (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002). Bush's specific score is indicative of someone who discusses issues without taking alternative points of view into serious consideration. Significantly, the score that Bush received is markedly below that of every single elected U.S. president from McKinley through Carter inclusively (as reported in Tetlock, 1981). In addition, his score is below that of most U.S. senators and Supreme Court justices, albeit under certain circumstances it stands at about the same level as highly conservative senators and justices (using statistics reported in Tetlock, 1983; Tetlock, Berzweig, & Gallant, 1985; Tetlock, Hannum, & Micheletti, 1984). Yet these outcomes cannot simply be attributed to his being a conservative Republican: Bush's integrative complexity is also comparable to (a) extreme abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates in antebellum United States (as contrasted with free-soil Republicans and Buchanan Democrats; Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994), (b) hard-line communists in the Soviet leadership (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989), and (c) the extremist Islamic Fundamentalists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002)-with the notable exception of Osama bin Laden, who is lower still. Even more tellingly, Bush's score does not change with the political conditions, unlike what usually holds for successful political and military leaders (e.g., Suedfeld, Corteen, & McCormick, 1986; Tetlock, 1981), but rather stays consistently low (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002), and thus reveals a trait-like stability. Given the objective nature of these integrative complexity scores, their apparent lack of political bias, and their prima facie connection with both Openness to Ideas and Openness to Values, the overall Openness score Bush received in Table 1 may not be too far off the mark.4 If we assume that Bush's scores on Intellectual Brilliance, Openness, and IQ are in the right ballpark, then his expected presidential leadership would be lowered. The predicted disadvantage is most apparent in the case of Intellectual Brilliance because this measure has the highest correlation with performance as judged by historians and political scientists best qualified to evaluate U.S. presidents.5 Specifically, on the basis of this trait we would predict that Bush's ultimate standing with posterity will fall about two-fifths of a standard deviation below the 4 For the 11 presidents for which measures were available, integrative complexity correlated .58 with Openness to Experience, suggesting that they overlap conceptually, albeit the former variable is supposedly more responsive to situational influences whereas the latter purports to represent a stable trait. 5 In fact, when entered into a multiple regression equation that includes five other predictors of presidential greatness (years in office, war years, assassination, scandals, and war hero), only Intellectual Brilliance emerges as a significant predictor (P = .29, p < .01, versus p = .19, p > .05, for the other five intellect measures). 522 Simonton mean (i.e., -0.7 x .56 = -0.39). This would put him on about the same level as Jimmy Carter (Simonton, 2002). In terms of the presidential rankings, he would come in 26th out of 42 chief executives. To be sure, intellect is not by any means the only predictor of presidential leadership. Many other variables are involved as well, including both personality traits (McCann, 1992; Ones, Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2004; Winter, 1987) and situational factors (Kenney & Rice, 1988; Nice, 1984; Simonton, 1987, 1993). Some of these variables can raise his final assessment to that of an average, and even above-average, chief executive (but see Immelman, 2002). Yet the conclusion remains, however tentative at this point in time, that Bush's intellect may be more a liability than an asset with respect to his performance as the nation's chief executive. His strengths most likely lie elsewhere. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dean Keith Simonton, Department of Psychology, One Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616-8686. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES Bailey, T. A. (1966). Presidential greatness. New York: Appleton-Century. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bates, T. C., & Shieles, A. (2003). Crystallized intelligence as product of speed and drive for experience: The relationship of inspection time and openness to g and Gc. Intelligence, 31, 275-287. C-Span Survey of Presidential Leadership. (2000). Retrieved November 17, 2000, from http:// www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp. Cattell, J. M. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 62, 359-377. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 653-665. Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and related performance. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 51-65. Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265-291. Gignac, G. E., Stough, C., & Loukomitis, S. (2004). Openness, intelligence, and self-report intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 133-143. Gold, M. S., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Treatments of missing data: A Monte Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation, and expectation-maximization. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(3), 319-355. Presidential IQ 523 524 Simonton Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79-132. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1965). The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience, and creativity. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 913-929. Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative. (1977). Assessing historical figures: The use of observerbased personality descriptions. Historical Methods Newsletter, 10, 66-76. Immelman, A. (2001). Bush gets bad rap on intelligence. St. Cloud Times, January 14, p. 11B. (Available online at http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm) Immelman, A. (2002). The political personality of U.S. president George W. Bush. In L. O. Valenty & O. Feldman (Eds.), Political leadership for the new century: Personality and behavior among American leaders (pp. 81-103). Westport: Praeger. Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542-552. Kelly, T., & Lonnstrom, D. (1990). Presidents' survey. Unpublished manuscript. Siena College. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1988). The contextual determinants of presidential greatness. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 18, 161-169. Kynerd, T. (1971). An analysis of presidential greatness and "President rating." Southern Quarterly, 9, 309-329. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken: WileyInterscience. Maranell, G. M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the Schlesinger polls. Journal of American History, 57, 104-113. McCann, S. J. H. (1992). Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of U.S. presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 469-479. Murray, R. K., & Blessing, T. H. (1983). The presidential performance study: A progress report. Journal of American History, 70, 535-555. Nice, D. C. (1984). The influence of war and party system aging on the ranking of presidents. Western Political Quarterly, 37, 443-455. Ones, D., Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Predicting presidential success. In S. J. Rubenzer & T. R. Faschingbauer, Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents (pp. 38-59). Washington: Brassey's. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Cognitive ability in selection decisions. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 431-468). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Ridings, W. J., Jr., & McIver, S. B. (1997). Rating the presidents: A ranking of U.S. leaders, from the great and honorable to the dishonest and incompetent. Secaucus: Citadel Press. Rossiter, C. L. (1956). The American presidency. New York: Harcourt Brace. Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, & leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents. Washington: Brassey's. Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7, 403-420. Sailer, S. (2004). Analysis: How smart is Bush? Retrieved August 25, 2004, from Top News, Latest headlines, Latest News, World News & U.S News - UPI.com view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r Schlesinger, A. M. (1948). Historians rate the U.S. presidents. Life, 25 (18), November 1 pp. 65-66, 68, 73-74. Schlesinger, A. M. (1962). Our presidents: A rating by 75 historians. New York Times Magazine, July 29 pp. 12-13, 40-41, 43. Presidential IQ 525 Simonton, D. K. (1976). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218-226. Simonton, D. K. (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we predict leadership in the White House? Journal of Personality, 49, 306-323. Simonton, D. K. (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual differences in hereditary monarchs: Genes, role-modeling, cohort, or sociocultural effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 354-364. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational determinants of monarchal eminence. Journal of Personality, 52, 1-21. Simonton, D. K. (1985). Intelligence and personal influence in groups: Four nonlinear models. Psychological Review, 92, 532-547. Simonton, D. K. (1986a). Dispositional attributions of (presidential) leadership: An experimental simulation of historiometric results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 389418. Simonton, D. K. (1986b). Presidential greatness: The historical consensus and its psychological significance. Political Psychology, 7, 259-283. Simonton, D. K. (1986c). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149-160. Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven: Yale University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928-936. Simonton, D. K. (1990). Personality and politics. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 670-692). New York: Guilford. Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Latent-variable models of posthumous reputation: A quest for Galton's G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 607-619. Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Predicting presidential greatness: An alternative to the Kenney and Rice Contextual Index. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 21, 301-305. Simonton, D. K. (1992). Presidential greatness and personality: A response to McCann (1992). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 676-679. Simonton, D. K. (1993). Putting the best leaders in the White House: Personality, policy, and performance. Political Psychology, 14, 537-548. Simonton, D. K. (1995). Personality and intellectual predictors of leadership. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 739-757). New York: Plenum. Simonton, D. K. (1996). Presidents' wives and First Ladies: On achieving eminence within a traditional gender role. Sex Roles, 35, 309-336. Simonton, D. K. (2000). D6ej vu. Monitor on psychology, 31(11), 8, 86. Simonton, D. K. (2001a). Kings, queens, and sultans: Empirical studies of political leadership in European hereditary monarchies. In O. Feldman & L. O. Valenty (Eds.), Profiling political leaders: Cross-cultural studies of personality and behavior (pp. 97-110). Westport: Praeger. Simonton, D. K. (2001b). Predicting presidential greatness: Equation replication on recent survey results. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 293-307. Simonton, D. K. (2002). Intelligence and presidential greatness: Equation replication using updated IQ estimates. Advances in Psychology Research, 13, 143-153. Storfer, M. D. (1990). Intelligence and giftedness: The contributions of heredity and early environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Suedfeld, P., & Leighton, D. C. (2002). Early communications in the war against terrorism: An integrative complexity analysis. Political Psychology, 23, 585-599. Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S., & McCormick, C. (1986). The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 498- 507. Suedfeld, P., Guttieri, K., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Assessing integrative complexity at a distance: Archival analyses of thinking and decision making. In J. M. Post (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 246-270). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suskind, R. (2004). The price of loyalty: George W Bush, the White House, and the education of Paul O'Neill. New York: Simon & Schuster. SYSTAT 11. (2004). Richmond, CA: SYSTAT Software, Inc. Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209-215. Terman, L. M. (1925-59). Genetic studies of genius (5 vols.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tetlock, P. E. (1981). Pre- to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 207-212. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Cognitive and rhetorical styles of traditionalist and reformist Soviet politicians: A content analysis study. Political Psychology, 10, 209-232. Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 115-126. Tetlock, P. E., Bemzweig, J., & Gallant, J. L. (1985). Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1227-1239. Tetlock, P. E., Hannum, K. A., & Micheletti, P. M. (1984). Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 979-990. Thordike, E. L. (1950). Traits of personality and their intercorrelations as shown in biographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 193-216. White, R. K. (1931). The versatility of genius. Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 460-489. Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press. Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #57
AND YES I'M AWARE THE FUCKING IQ TEST ITSELF WAS NOT AROUND WHEN MANY OF THESE PRESIDENTS WERE ALIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,164
- 47,312
- 2,180
AND YES I'M AWARE THE FUCKING IQ TEST ITSELF WAS NOT AROUND WHEN MANY OF THESE PRESIDENTS WERE ALIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why should anyone put any stock in the scores for presidents who lived before 1916. In fact, did any of these men ever take an I.Q. test?
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #59
I would love to see one of you message board pilots debate this guy, and see if you would last for more than one sentence !
Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D.
Dean Keith Simonton (PhD 1975 Harvard University) is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His curriculum vitae lists more than 430 publications, including a dozen books. Among the latter are Genius, Creativity, and Leadership; Scientific Genius; Greatness; Genius and Creativity; Origins of Genius; Great Psychologists and Their Times; Creativity in Science; Genius 101; and Great Flicks.
Simonton received the William James Book Award, the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance and President’s Awards from the National Association for Gifted Children, the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching, the Farnsworth Award for Outstanding Service to the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, and the UC Davis Prize for Teaching and Scholarly Achievement.
He is Fellow of several scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Psychological Science, and ten divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA). He has served as President of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics and the Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA, Division 10), and is the current President of the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1). His research covers diverse manifestations of genius, creativity, leadership, talent, and aesthetics. Simonton’s Google Scholar h-index is 48.
- See more at: Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D. | The Creativity Post
Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D.
Dean Keith Simonton (PhD 1975 Harvard University) is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His curriculum vitae lists more than 430 publications, including a dozen books. Among the latter are Genius, Creativity, and Leadership; Scientific Genius; Greatness; Genius and Creativity; Origins of Genius; Great Psychologists and Their Times; Creativity in Science; Genius 101; and Great Flicks.
Simonton received the William James Book Award, the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance and President’s Awards from the National Association for Gifted Children, the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching, the Farnsworth Award for Outstanding Service to the Society for Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, and the UC Davis Prize for Teaching and Scholarly Achievement.
He is Fellow of several scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Psychological Science, and ten divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA). He has served as President of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics and the Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA, Division 10), and is the current President of the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1). His research covers diverse manifestations of genius, creativity, leadership, talent, and aesthetics. Simonton’s Google Scholar h-index is 48.
- See more at: Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D. | The Creativity Post
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #60
Similar threads
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 220
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 906
- Replies
- 219
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 219K
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 117
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-