Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

rcne · Jun 8, 2005, 08:46 am

Quote:

Quote by: Agent007

Academic qualifications do not necessarily translate into the proper qualifications for the U.S. presidential office. Someone who studies books all of the time may not be good in diplomatic relations, even if he or she is reading political science books; that is, he or she might only know theoretical and abstract knowledge rather than practical and pragmatic knowledge. Conversely, a socialite who does not read any books may not be qualified for helping run the internal state government smoothly.

A prime example is Ex-president Carter. He is very intelligent but - as a president he was only average.

His problem, I think, was over-analyzing everything and micro-managing all activities. As an ex-president he is well respected for his humanitarian efforts, but as a president he was lacking leadership skills.

Capitalist Pig · Jun 8, 2005, 09:46 am

I've never paid attention to the academic records or IQ scores for Presidential candidates. Although the information may be of some interest to statisticians, it is of no interest when it comes to my choice of who should be the leader of the free world. Their political record, which includes the caues they champion and the positions they espouse, have always held a deeper importance for me. All of this shows nothing but that which we already know: there is no quantitative estimate of intelligence, nor are any of our estimation methods accurate in predicting an individual's success or failure in a particular endeavor. If all candidates are thought to be equally matched in both intelligence and effort, it does not mean that the poll results will come out to a perfect tie. The mechanisms of democratic elections are much more dynamic than that.

lsbskins1 · Jun 8, 2005, 12:23 pm

What I find interesting is that the American public seems to be distrustful of people they perceive to be "too smart". They are more comfortable voting for a "regular guy". They trust him more, believe his motivations and ideals are more like their own. So, either way, whether Bush is actually dumb or just pretending, he probably comes out ahead. I personally believe that it is mostly lazziness, coupled with the fact that he likes to be "misunderestimated". Kerry may not have had IQ points or GPA points on Bush, but he was most certainly more interested in knowledge and more engaged in pursuing knowledge throughout the balance of his life than Bush.

asterix404 · Jun 8, 2005, 08:41 pm

I want a brilliant presedent. I want a presedent who can do everything I can do but better. Cater is given a bum rap. He was in a shitty situation and was a liberal democrat with a concervitive republican congress... he coudldn't have done a thing... I want a presedent who is can speak so clearly and use words I didn't even know existed... I want this very badly... Also grades don't mean a thing. If you are a c and d student and have a 1.5 gpa over 2 years swich your major and get b's and A you may be able to pull off a 2.6.... I mean gpa's don't mean a thing. It's what you do with it after....

Jun 8, 2005, 09:46 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 652	I've never paid attention to the academic records or IQ scores for Presidential candidates. Although the information may be of some interest to statisticians, it is of no interest when it comes to my choice of who should be the leader of the free world. Their political record, which includes the caues they champion and the positions they espouse, have always held a deeper importance for me. All of this shows nothing but that which we already know: there is no quantitative estimate of intelligence, nor are any of our estimation methods accurate in predicting an individual's success or failure in a particular endeavor. If all candidates are thought to be equally matched in both intelligence and effort, it does not mean that the poll results will come out to a perfect tie. The mechanisms of democratic elections are much more dynamic than that. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Jun 8, 2005, 12:23 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
lsbskins1 Redskins Rule Location: South-Western Virginia Posts: 2,564	What I find interesting is that the American public seems to be distrustful of people they perceive to be "too smart". They are more comfortable voting for a "regular guy". They trust him more, believe his motivations and ideals are more like their own. So, either way, whether Bush is actually dumb or just pretending, he probably comes out ahead. I personally believe that it is mostly lazziness, coupled with the fact that he likes to be "misunderestimated". Kerry may not have had IQ points or GPA points on Bush, but he was most certainly more interested in knowledge and more engaged in pursuing knowledge throughout the balance of his life than Bush.

Jun 8, 2005, 08:41 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
asterix404 Igneous Magma Posts: 257	I want a brilliant presedent. I want a presedent who can do everything I can do but better. Cater is given a bum rap. He was in a shitty situation and was a liberal democrat with a concervitive republican congress... he coudldn't have done a thing... I want a presedent who is can speak so clearly and use words I didn't even know existed... I want this very badly... Also grades don't mean a thing. If you are a c and d student and have a 1.5 gpa over 2 years swich your major and get b's and A you may be able to pull off a 2.6.... I mean gpa's don't mean a thing. It's what you do with it after....