Is Obama Smart?

[Guest nicemac]

A terrific article in the WSJ:

Is Obama Smart?

[MacGyver]

I thought Bret Stephens was dead on yesterday. I've got a friend who agrees that he seems straight out of academia.

[Guest TresOsos]

If you have to ask..........................................

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Statistically speaking, people of higher-than-average but not cream-of-the-crop intelligence tend to be the bosses and leaders. The very smartest folks do OK in life but usually don't rise to the top in power or wealth.

It may have something to do with the flavor of intelligence measured by standardized tests. The old adage, "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" People who rise to the top in business or politics are by definition the smartest ones in the skill set of rising to the top.

It is not a foregone conclusion that Obama MUST be brilliant to have attained his educational credentials. But obviously he has extraordinary aptitude for rising to the top. His "rising to the top" aptitude does not appear to have much overlap with the "effective and beneficial leader" aptitude.

Each person has a mix of properties such as intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, values, arrogance/humility, level of sociopathy, ruthlessness (willingness to break eggs to make omelettes). Smart ain't the only relevant characteristic.

Could this be a general problem which affects many politicians? The aptitude for getting elected or keeping office may not be highly correlated with the aptitude for sane effective governance? Wonder if the two skill sets are so un-correlated that it is only a matter of chance that we occasionally get a decent politician?

Because we have many people and few politians, then by definition the politicians are many standard deviations above the mean on the "getting elected" bell curve. If the property "talent for governing" is uncorrelated, then only half of those elected would be better than average at the job they were elected to do. Only 15 percent would be noticeably better than average and only about 1 percent would be excellent at the job. And of course half of the politicians would be less competent at governing than the average joe standing on the street corner.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm... O went to Columbia and Harvard. W went to Yale and Harvard. Definitely makes one question the value of Ivy League educations...

[Guest nicemac]

Hmm... O went to Columbia and Harvard. W went to Yale and Harvard. Definitely makes one question the value of Ivy League educations...

Definitely makes you wary of Harvard…

[DWARREN123]

No. But then I believe politicians are politicians because no one else will hire them!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

No. But then I believe politicians are politicians because no one else will hire them!

That is a good point.

Given 400 average folks standing on the tarmac ready to board a jumbo jet-- Wonder if they would elect among themselves the person best qualified to fly the plane?

[BigK]

I think the IQ of the electorate is what really needs to be questioned!

He's at least smart enough to get a whole bunch of 'tards to vote for him.

[E4 No More]

Sociologist have long held the theory that people get promoted to their highest level of incompetence.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm. Let me twist the argument in a different direction.

Having O and W go to these "highest" educational institutions, begs a question:

The question is: Does "book smarts," the form of intelligence to memorize, and regurgitate on a test - which is practically the only form of intelligence tested in our present education system - equal the form of intelligence to lead?

I think I am starting to see "No" as the answer.

[kieefer]

Is Oblameo smart?

NO, he's an idiot. Nuff said.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The question is: Does "book smarts," the form of intelligence to memorize, and regurgitate on a test - which is practically the only form of intelligence tested in our present education system - equal the form of intelligence to lead?

I think the answer is "no" to the general question.

There are many kinds of smarts. There are various tests for various types of smarts. Mother Nature is the sole credentialed examiner for some kinds of smarts. If you fail Nature's tests the penalties can be severe.

Schools do not solely test on memory. Some tests contain sections difficult to study-up on. For instance, number series or various geometrical identification questions. Though those only measure limited kinds of smarts. One might practice and improve on perception and reasoning, but at the end of the day ya either got it or ya don't. Some people are talented in solving novel problems. In the real world it is a matter of probability. No person is smart enough to ALWAYS find a decently optimal solution to a novel problem, but some people have much higher liklihood of getting it right.

Some courses of study are primarily a years-long test of memory. Some fields are primarily a years-long test of problem-solving. Most fields are some mixture of the two. Virtually all fields are a years-long test of work ethic. One thing we know about any PhD is that the person was at some time in his life capable of working for years to attain a goal. We might also infer that the person was at some time in his life capable of learning.

Even if leadership and problem-solving happen to be difficult/impossible to teach (currently an unanswered question)-- A "naturally talented" leader ought to have better odds of success armed with as much knowledge and practice possible. Given two chess players of equal god-given talent, then a fellow who has studied and practiced for years most likely has a significant statistical edge over a newbie.

Maybe sometimes a person could know "too much" if he has learned nothing but wrong facts and misconceptions. But it is said that a person ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it. We probably don't improve the odds of getting a good leader by voting for the least-educated.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Define "smart." I talked about this today in my class. When people talk about being smart, they can mean:

1) Knowledge or "book smarts"

2) Intelligence or the ability to apply knowledge for a practical application

3) Common sense or "street smarts"

Obama clearly has a lot of knowledge, which I think is the least important. He totally lacks the other two, which makes him essentially useless as a leader or policy maker.

[kieefer]

Articles: The Anti-American President

[Smith]

I value wisdom far above intelligence. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. Just because you have all the pieces doesn't mean you can put it together. They dismiss the picture on the box because that is too easy and the "old" way. They want to show how smart they are and how wrong everyone else is by showing you the picture isn't really the picture. You just have to trust that their brilliance is superior to what you can see and know. Liberalism has proven this over and over and over again. They value scholastic intelligence, yet have "learned" nothing of wisdom.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Smith

[Guest lostpass]

Oh, I'd say Obama is plenty smart. Like you'd want him to take you LSAT for you smart. He's smarter than you, he's smarter than me, he's smarter than probably everyone else in the room.

Thing is that smarts isn't enough. Steve Wozniak is smarter than Steve Jobs. Paul Allen is smarter than Bill Gates. GWB was smarter than Ronald Reagan. GHB was way smarter than GWB. Al Gore was smarter than Clinton. And so on.

There is a big difference between intelligence and the ability to lead. So yeah, you want Obama and Oppenheimer to help you with your homework but does their inherent intelligence make them a good leader? Analysis by paralysis and so forth. Patton probably wasn't that smart, patton probably wasn't that realistic, Patton was a great leader.

Jimmy Carter is a really smart guy. SO smart he knew better than everyone else. So freaking smart he thought he could manage everything. Which was the fatal flaw, he was smart and he knew it. If you are the smartest guy in the room why let others make decisions? But it is a big job, people don't really elect you to do everything (you can't) people elect you to hire people to make good decisions.

But hey you're smart so you'll make every decision right?

The fallacy if the article is equating smart with good leadership. I know plenty of aspbergers type folks who are really smart but you wouldn't want them running a McDonalds much less a country.

Though it is a little funny: WSJ blogger who thinks he's the bomb because he writes for the wall street journal wonders if the guy who outfoxed the Clintons, who came from nowhere and got elected president is smart. I mean maybe he isn't smart but he is smarter than you Mr. Wall Street Journal blogger trying to get over guy. (Bud light commercial music)

[Oh Shoot]

China only picks super smart people for their 50 year embedded mole plots.

I think O is the Manchurian Candidate.

- OS

[kieefer]

China only picks super smart people for their 50 year embedded mole plots.

I think O is the Manchurian Candidate.

- OS

+1

[Mike.357]

I think O is the Manchurian Candidate.

- OS

I'd like to think that is not in jest

[Oh Shoot]

I'd like to think that is not in jest

It's not, totally. It would surely explain this "fundamentally transform America" thing, 'cause it shore as s$$t don't from any other angle except as an enemy agent.

- OS

[Mike.357]

the dude ain't stupid, he might be being controlled or brainwashed. Nothing would fly past my tin foil hat. what he is doing really just flabberghasts me. How could a sane competent person do what he does. What's the explanation?

Edited August 21, 2011 by Mike.357

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Ain't ruling out bad intentions, but as I suggested early in the thread, people are smart in many different ways. Some folks are rare geniuses at whittling animal figurines out of wood. Some folks are rare geniuses in talking people out of their money.

Nixon was a genius at politicics but was such a klutz he had issues doing simple mechanical stuff like operating an AM radio receiver.

Obama is by definition a genius at rising to the top. The accomplishment speaks for itself. But apparently he is not smart at doing much if anything worthwhile after he rises to the top. I certainly wouldn't trust him to design a circuit board, fix the plumbing, or balance my checkbook. In fact from the verbiage he spews in public, I can't offhand remember anything he ever said that gets anywhere close to critical thinking or creative thought. Maybe he keeps the creativity, critical thinking and originality closely hidden. Or maybe it ain't there.

[Mike.357]

critical thinking and originality closely hidden. Or maybe it ain't there.

aint there is a winner

[jughead]

ithink he has an agenda and he is working on it behind the scenes. i dont think it is for the betterment of the U.S.A. either.