Jessica Simpson has a 160 IQ, really!

[superiorlobe]

There are some IQ researchers who view the only accurate approximation of IQ to be success.  Being really good at the SAT but never accomplishing anything with your life does not make you smart.  But massive success means you're smart in the way that really counts.

Look at George Bush vs. Al Gore, for instance.  Bush beat Gore in the debates.  There might be some nit-picky academic way in which Gore is smarter than Bush, but if Gore can't beat Bush in a debate, then to say that Gore is smarter than Bush is sort of meaningless.

Jessica Simpson is incredibly successful, and the only accurate measure of IQ is success.  I would say that 99% is probably a low estimate of Jessica Simpson's IQ.  Madonna and J.K. Rowling, though, probably easily score around 99.9999%.

[EnglishToLaw]

Not sure the "success" model helps, Lobe, since success can be construed so variously. Gore is clearly the superior intellect in your example, but thanks to our Electoral College system, it's doubtful he'll ever reach W's current stature, or what some might call his "success." Some succeed socially, others economically, still others in their careers, blah blah blah.

I used to teach an intriguing essay by Marjorie Garber called “Our Genius Problem,” in which she argues that  we are “addicted to the idea of genius” in our culture and should “swear off the genius model to represent our highest aspirations for intellectual or artistic innovation." Mostly she offers evidence to suggest that measuring intelligence historically has been flawed, politically motivated, and prone to category mistake--and basically continues to be.

She casts doubt on the efficacy of IQ tests specifically, making the point relevant to our Jessica Simpson thread. Here's a link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/12/garber.htm

Fun stuff. 

[superiorlobe]

In politics, what counts is getting elected.  In Physics what counts is coming up with the right equations.  If you say "so and so is smarter than Einstein -- he just didn't happen to come up with the equations because of this or that reason" well, frankly I don't give a *#@&.  Likewise, I don't care about the ways in which Gore is supposedly superior to Bush -- maybe he is better dressed and has a nicer haircut -- but when it comes to politics, Bush has him beat.  Excuses and "yeah buts" just don't cut it in this dog-eat-dog world.

Go Bush.

[EnglishToLaw]

Likewise, I don't care about the ways in which Gore is supposedly superior to Bush -- maybe he is better dressed and has a nicer haircut -- but when it comes to politics, Bush has him beat.  Excuses and "yeah buts" just don't cut it in this dog-eat-dog world.

Sounds a bit more like partisanship than analysis, but many of us are guilty on that charge. I'd say Bush's advisers (especially Karl Rove) have Gore's (former) advisers beat, but Bush is just as lacking in natural political instincts. Witness some of the prime-time interviews he's done about the Iraq War and his requirement that male private part Cheney be at his side during the 9/11 commission's questioning. When he has to go off script, Shrub flubs. His approval rating also managed to dive-bomb by 40 points in the aftermath of the U.S. occupation in Iraq, so how you define "success" matters here.

For the record, I think Bush is a better dresser. He's got better hair, too. We don't all "misunderestimate" him. 

[BAFF213]

It's not only the fact that she got a 160, which is rather hard to believe, but that it occured in the fifth grade! I believe that Anti-Ivy may have been a kid genius, but Jessica Simpson...

I also don't believe she scored a 160 or even close to that.  However, I disagree that the fact they are claiming she scored that high as a child even more evidence against their claim.  From what I gather, IQ tests measure your intelligence in relation to others of your own age or age group.  This may introduce other confounding variables that could have resulted in Jessica having an abnormally high score (that she would no longer be able to attain).  One such variable that could have thrown off her score is rate of maturity.  I know that I matured faster both physically and intellectually than others (in 3rd grade I scored post-high school on standardardized tests), but now others have caught up to me somewhat.  Jessica could have matured earlier than others and thus have had the brain capacity of a 10th grade in 5th grade.

[superiorlobe]

You're misinterpretting trollishness as partisanship.

Read the latest Atlantic Monthly -- it has a great article about Bush's fantastic record as a debater.  He has basically never been beaten.

[superiorlobe]

The article from the Atlantic Monthly isn't online yet, but here is the teaser:

When George Meets John
George W. Bush and John Kerry are opposites in character and skills—but both can boast of never having lost a debate. A viewer's guide to this fall's version of "asymmetric warfare"
by James Fallows

[EnglishToLaw]

I've read it. James Fallows. It's an upbeat appraisal (by someone who is NO Bush fan, by the way), but Fallows never says he's NEVER been beaten. 

[superiorlobe]

I've read it. James Fallows. It's an upbeat appraisal (by someone who is NO Bush fan, by the way), but Fallows never says he's NEVER been beaten. 

The article from the Atlantic Monthly isn't online yet, but here is the teaser:

When George Meets John
George W. Bush and John Kerry are opposites in character and skills—but both can boast of never having lost a debate. A viewer's guide to this fall's version of "asymmetric warfare"
by James Fallows

I copied that directly off the Atlantic's website.

[EnglishToLaw]

George Meets John
George W. Bush and John Kerry are opposites in character and skills—but both can boast of never having lost a debate. A viewer's guide to this fall's version of "asymmetric warfare"
by James Fallows

I copied that directly off the Atlantic's website.

I know you did, but the teaser blurb is a bit misleading. Fallows does say that both Bush and Kerry can "boast of never having lost a debate," but if you read the article closely, you see that Fallows carefully qualifies that assessment. For starters, he is impressed that Bush can get through the following simple sentence without stumbling: "To lay out my juvenile-justice plan in a minute and a half is a hard task, but I will try to do so." The bar seems lowered here, but there are other examples. Fallows points to Bush's ability to stay "on message," which is a rhetorically savvy strategy, but hardly the basis for "winning." Again, we're back to definitions, which are not easily dismissed.

Fallows says that neither Bush NOR Kerry has lost a debate in what he calls "the only way that matters: a serious post-debate decline in the polls or an electoral defeat." That's a pretty shaky way to define winning, in my view; it assumes that people watch the debate and then change their mind if the candidate does poorly. (The criteria for how poorly a debater does are subjective and usually partisan when you're talking about presidential politics.) Are post-debate poll results the "dog eat dog" world you're talking about? Fallows makes it clear that Bush "wins" in debates primarily because his handlers set the expectations so low. As long as his opponent doesn't force him into a major gaffe, Bush "wins." (I'm not the only one using the quotation marks; Fallows does it, too.) He quotes Mary Beth Rogers to this effect throughout the article.

Likeability is a key factor. Bush seems more likeable, so most viewers overlook the substance of W's remarks (or lack thereof) and base their judgments on who they'd like to have a beer with.