Samuel L. Jackson on Barack Obama.

Samuel L. Jackson, the Hollywood actor, voted for Barack Obama, he revealed in a recent expletive laden interview in Ebony magazine. Now, what struck me as very revealing was why he did so. Can you guess? Well, Samuel L. Jackson voted for Barack Obama for one reason and one reason alone – because Obama is black. That’s it. Samuel L. Jackson declared that Barack Obama’s policies meant nothing to him, really – all that mattered was that he was black. He voted for him because “he looked like me...and that is why people vote for people”. He said, in similar words.

In the same interview he accused the Tea Party of racism since their sole purpose was to get Barack Obama – a black man – out of office.

Now, these words of Samuel L. Jackson are very curious and telling. Mr. Jackson appears to be unaware that his choice of Barack Obama simply because he was black, rather any reason of substance, is, in fact, a racist choice. Samuel L. Jackson is showing an unconscious racism by this decision, whether he realizes it or not. Anyone who selects anyone, above others, for anything, for the reason of race, alone, is being racist. Race should not be reason for selecting for or against someone. Only matters of substance can form reasonable motivations for choosing one person over another. Samuel L. Jackson didn’t choose for any such reason – he chose Obama because they had the same coloured skin. This is the very same kind of reasoning which Jackson views as racist when he judges the Tea Party. They, too, are, it seems, wishing to choose a President, or determine a President, based on race...the white race. Samuel L. Jackson has declared the same motivation as the one he pins on the Tea Party – it is just the mirror image of it.

I hope for a day when race plays no part in political or other choices. People should be measured for their qualities, their abilities, their views, their aspirations and aims, their plans and their experiences – they should not be assessed on whether or not they belong to a particular race. The best candidate, in terms of a summation of all their qualities, is the one who should win – along with the best party as a summation of all they have to offer a country. The race of those politicians (or whatever other class of people is being considered under the circumstance) should not be a part of any rational, fair, humane decision making process. It should always be the best person wins. It should NEVER be – the person most like me, racially, wins. That is a racist decision, no matter who makes it, or whatever race they be.

I don’t think Samuel L. Jackson is aware that his decision was a racist one. I don’t think he has reflected too deeply on it. If he had, he would not have accused the Tea Party of similar thinking, implicitly, for he would have recognized that their views were simply mirrored echoes of his own. No. Samuel L. Jackson most probably does not intend to hold a racist view...but, in fact, he does. Sometimes people are not aware of the true meaning or implications of their own thinking. They don’t examine their own thought processes enough to become aware of them – they just act, almost reflexively. I think Samuel L. Jackson’s decision comes into this category of reflexive thought. He instinctively chose Obama because of the physical race based similarities he has with him. That is all. He never paused to reflect on whether or not such a decision was fair, reasonable or free of racist undertones. He just reacted. So many people do that. So many people “decide” without thinking. We need a different world. A world of more thinking, in which decisions are actually thought through and are not reflexive. We need a world in which people actually consider the context, implications and consequences of their thoughts before making a decision. The only basis on which Barack Obama should have been judged is on the substance of his life and his merits as a human being. No-one should have been judging based on his race. He should have been compared, in a race blind way, with all other possible humans who could have had his job – and being judged accordingly, positively or negatively. I think, had this been done, perhaps he would not have been elected. He seems, to an overseas, impartial, uninvolved eye, to have certain weaknesses as a candidate, which seemed to have been overlooked by the electorate, perhaps because they saw his race first, his suitability last.

Let future elections in America, and elsewhere be race blind. Let the decisions on who is to lead a nation be based purely on who would make the best leader, from the point of view of who would benefit the nation most. If such a person be black, then by all means elect them. However, such a person should never be elected purely BECAUSE they are black, or Hispanic, or Asian or white, etc. As always the winner should be the most optimal candidate, not the most “ethnically correct”.

The future of America is likely to see other Presidents who are minorities. I would be unsurprised to see an Hispanic President, given how quickly the Hispanic population is growing. Again, however, such a President should only ever be selected if they are genuinely the best of all candidates.

I am hopeful that some people might have learned a lesson from President Barack Obama’s election. Many people, I am sure, are a little disappointed at his performance. Yet, they should not be surprised, since many were like Samuel L. Jackson. They didn’t choose him for his capabilities...they chose him for his colour. Colour, alone, is no guide to a good leader. I hope America, and the world, choose future leaders without reference to race – for such concerns only ever corrupt and contaminate the electoral process and give rise to irrational decisions for which the country must pay the price. The world cannot afford to pay such a price – it needs to eliminate racism and choose the genuinely best candidates, in a colour blind fashion.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

A child sees the deeper truth.

“Mum,” began Fintan, eight, with an infinitely curious gaze, “Why are all the “United” countries, not United?”

The oddness of the question drew her immediate attention.

“The United States,” he continued, in explanation, “and the United Kingdom...they are not united, at all. Look at all the riots...that’s not united!”

She had to admit, he had a point. The countries of the world were just not living up to their names. Just as “Great” Britain, most certainly doesn’t live up to its.

Later on, I explained to him the political history of the United States and the United Kingdom, that gave them their names. He smiled a little to himself, on hearing this. What he was thinking, I do not know. However, I know this: Fintan sees the world more clearly than many a political figure, these days, seems to. It seems such a shame that we name our countries “United” and then fill them with such dissension. In the US, the Republicans and the Democrats are ever at each other’s throats: they can’t make a decision in Congress, without a mini-war about it first. Fintan sees this. He sees that there is no unity of mind, spirit or intention, in the USA. He looks at the UK and sees a nation simmering on the edge of chaos, made manifest in the recent riots. Our world is not a comforting one, for a child to stand witness to. It seems that adults, who should be wiser, are creating a world that seems, even to a child, to be one of fracture, and dissent. If a child sees this, so clearly, why do adults persist in ignoring it? Why is not more done about this? The USA needs a more agreeable way of governing itself – and the UK needs a more civilized way of being...or should I say, it needs to address the uncivilized element within.

I hope the world learns civility and unity, before Fintan becomes an adult and has to deal with it. However, that hope seems hopeless, in a way...for those characteristics have yet to be fully imbibed by any modern society. I wonder, shall they ever?

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Why can't the PAP find talent?

The PAP (People's Action Party) of Singapore (in fact, it seems the People's Action Party IS Singapore), has a problem: they can't find new talent. The leaders of the PAP are always bemoaning the great shortage of talent in Singapore and repeatedly state that, despite looking high and low, they can't find anyone to replace themselves, in time to come. The question that comes to me is: why?

You see mathematically, the PAP's complaint is more than a little strange. It is, for instance, a local myth that you need to be particularly talented to be an MP, in fact, Members of Parliament SHOULDN'T be particularly talented. The reason for this is simple, some research that I read long ago, but would have to source again to reference, stated that a leader should be no more than 30 IQ points above the led, so as to preserve the ability to communicate with their constituency. If the leader was too bright, there would be a disconnect with their people and communication would break down. Now, this leads us to a very interesting conclusion: there is no shortage of talent in Singapore for the PAP, or at least, there shouldn't be.

To have an IQ 30 points above the norm is not particularly rare. In fact its theoretical rarity is one person in 44. Thus, one person in 44 in Singapore is at the limit of brightness permissible in an effective leader. This means that among Singapore's 3.16 million citizens (the last time I read a figure in an article), there should be 71,818 people with IQs 30 points above the norm (or about 134 IQ points). That is a very telling result, for all those who have believed that Singapore does, indeed, have a PAP talent shortage. There are 89 PAP MPs. This means that Singapore has enough people of the right IQ to make 807 PAP parties. Furthermore, this is a gross under-estimate of the situation, for it excludes those people whose IQs are less than 134 (who are far more numerous) and who could also do a good job and communicate effectively to the people. It also excludes those whose IQs are slightly above 134 but not so far above as to have a disastrous communication gap.

Thus one can conclude that there are, in Singapore, enough people, with enough "talent" to produce thousands of political parties the size of the PAP. (For the numbers of people with adequate IQs less than 134 is far more numerous than those with IQs of 134. Note the figure 134 comes from the fact that the average IQ in Singapore, according to some studies, is 104).

So, given this super-abundance of appropriate talent, why does the PAP protest the lack of talent for their succession?

There a number of possibilities. Firstly, is the possibility that the PAP has, in its recruitment procedures decided to try to maximise the intelligence of its MPs, to the extreme limit, such that there really are only 89 candidates. This would be a startling scenario, for it implies that the IQs of these MPs is at a rarity of 89/3.16 million. That would be one person in 35,506 people. That means, given Singapore's mean of 104, that the PAP MPs must have IQs of about 168, on average. I find this absurd in the extreme, since the average IQ of Nobel Prize Winners in Science is only 159, according to the Sigma Society.

Are we really expected to believe that PAP MPs are nine IQ points smarter, on average, than Nobel Prize Winners in Science? If so, Singapore would truly have to be run remarkably well. I will leave it to your own opinions to decide whether that is so.

If, however, it is, in fact, so that PAP MPs are as smart as 168 IQ points, each, on average, then that explains something about the way government is conducted locally. People that smart cannot lead ordinary people, because they cannot communicate effectively with them. Thus, if it is so, that the PAP have set things up like this, then it is not surprising that many people are unhappy with them.

Yet, I do not think it is so. Few people who are aware of what a person of an IQ of 168 is like would confuse such a person with local MPs - at least, not from the evidence of their public utterances. Also, it would be reasonable to expect close to perfection from them, in their decision making, were they as smart, as a cohort, as this.

Thus, given the fact that the optimal IQ of a Singaporean MP is only 134 IQ points and that there are 71,818 such people in Singapore, one can conclude that another force must be at work. Quite simply Singaporeans must not want to be PAP MPs. There are over 807 times as many good candidates as there are MP jobs, yet, still the PAP has difficulty with recruitment. This means, basically, that the chance of someone wanting to be an MP is 807 to one (0.001239 of the acceptable population). In fact, of course, this is an underestimate of the unlikelihood of someone wanting to be an MP, since there are many more viable candidates who don't have the exact IQ in question. The true figure would be several thousands to one.

This analysis, which has been guided by numbers and logic alone leads me to ask a question: does the government really believe that the problem is a lack of talent? If so, this would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the electorate. There is no lack of talent. However, there does appear to be a strong desire, among Singaporeans, NOT to become involved in politics. This could be because of the way politics is conducted in Singapore. For those overseas readers who don't know, the government of Singapore is the PAP and they have a habit of crushing all nascent opposition with every means possible. This makes Singapore effectively a one party state. Perhaps the people of Singapore are uncomfortable with this way of conducting politics and wish to stay out of it.

The tale of the numbers are clear. There are only two evident explanations. Either the PAP has made a fundamental error in selection in thinking that only supersmart people should be MPs, (and the evidence of their public images is against this interpretation) or the people of Singapore simply don't want to be politicians.

The PAP explanation that there is an absence of talent is proven to be false, by these numbers. The talent is there: but perhaps the willingness to be involved is not.

I wonder if the PAP allowed other parties to flourish (which they have not) whether Singapore would discover an abundance of talent, where before there was none? It seems to me that Singapore, which has always justified its one party system on the basis that there was not enough talent to support two parties or more, has more than enough talent, statistically, for a plurality of parties. What it lacks, however, is the willingness of the government to allow any opposition within its shores.

Now, I have written this post, without any interest in the politics of the situation at all. Singapore is not my country. I am merely an observer of it. However, curiosity led me to analyse the IQ distribution and the consequences of that, to see what the true tale of the underlying talent would be. I report the results, much as a scientist does, with no opinion of the results other than to say these are the results. So, let no-one think that I have any political motive in writing this post. I have no interest in the politics of Singapore at all (it is really too dull a subject to have much interest in). I do, however, have a scientific interest in the truth - and the truth is that Singapore has an abundance of talent adequate to the task of being an MP, in Singapore. MPs don't need to be geniuses - in fact they shouldn't be. Given that, Singapore has more than enough talent to run the nation. The big question remains, of course: why is the PAP, then, having such difficulty with recruitment and succession?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Aristotle on Democracy and its Value

It often surprises me how modern the thinking of the Ancients seems. They were thinking and writing, two and a half thousand years ago, but yet they wrestled with many of the same issues that people wrestle with today. Their thoughts, in some way, could be our thoughts, if only we sat down to think them. (Most, however, sit down, now, to watch TV, not to think).

Aristotle might have had advice for Pakistan, at this time. His words are to be found in his book, "Politics".

He wrote:

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost."

It seems to me that his words are not without relevance to many modern governments. Aristotle was observing that government works best to achieve liberty - that is freedom - and equality, when all members of that society have an equal voice. That seems wise enough. The odd thing is - and it would disappoint Aristotle to learn this - that two and a half thousand years after he had this thought, many societies around the world still do not afford an equal voice to their citizens. Even many "democracies" do not truly listen to their citizens with equal weight. In many societies there persists inequality and a lack of basic freedoms.

That last thought is a marvel to me. How can mankind be so SLOW to learn? Aristotle was stating what was best, in democratic terms, two and a half millenia ago - yet still many nations have not learnt the lesson he was trying to teach.

Perhaps, at this time, we would all benefit from reflecting on Aristotle's words, on their relevance to many of today's nations - and on the uncanny fact that he observed this two and a half thousand years ago.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Benazir Bhutto's Assassination and Democracy in Pakistan

As all the world knows, Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, has been assassinated. I am not about to write an obituary, for others have done that, but I am going to comment on the wider meaning of this event.

Pakistan is a troubled country, that much is clear. It teeters on the brink of chaos. President Musharraf, who has been much criticized, has great difficulties ahead, in holding his nation together. That much is clear. However, tragic though it is for Benazir Bhutto's family and her party, the PPP (Pakistan People's Party), it has much wider implications for the prospects of democracy in Pakistan.

Already Nawaz Sharif, her political rival, and fellow opposition leader, has said his party will not run in the elections on January 8th. This is the first sign of the effects of this assassination. Politicians are human. They have hopes, fears and ambitions - and all of them, I am sure, have a deep-seated wish to live. Seeing a fellow politician murdered like this, simply for holding views not liked by the murderer will have a truly chilling effect on democracy in Pakistan. Would you, as a politician, like to say what you truly think and feel and campaign for what you truly believe in, if the consequence would be your own death - and the death of many others near you? Many people would falter at such a decision. They would do as Sharif has done: announce publicly that he will not run. I don't know the fullness of his decision making - but surely the fact that running could mean his own assassination no doubt has a great influence.

People of talent and gift, people who could contribute to the building of the Pakistani nation will remember what happened to Benazir Bhutto - and when they come to decide on what they would like to do with their lives, many who might otherwise have chosen to enter politics, may decide otherwise and choose to lead quieter, less influential lives. For what benefit is there in leading a life of influence if the penalty is death?

Ultimately, the long term future of Pakistan will suffer from this assassination rather more than people might anticipate. Relatively few people will be brave enough (or foolhardy enough) to challenge the status quo. Relatively few people will wish to upset the people, as yet undeclared, who prove to be behind this attack. Relatively few people will be truly free to engage in politics. In consequence, every Pakistani will be the poorer for it. A nation of 165 million people has lost a lot more than one charismatic political leader - they may have lost democracy itself.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Freedom of Speech and the United States

Is there true freedom of speech in the United States? Is there freedom of speech on the internet? Does it endanger international relations and stray into politics, to speak freely on the internet?

I ask these questions for a reason. You see, I keep an eye on the locations of those who visit my website and on who comments on my pages. It is helpful to keep track of such things, since then I know something of the perspective of those who comment. I have, therefore, noticed something with regards to one of my posts. I wrote of George Bush's difficulty with the English language, picking up on a Reuters report that had made his mangling of English centre stage. It seems that simply speaking of such things is not permissible, at least in the eyes of at least one American. You see, there used to be regular visitor to my blog from Bothell, Washington - or Washington, Bothell. Every day, they would visit my blog. Until, one day, I wrote about George Bush's linguistic limitations, not in censure, but with a sense of worry about the wherewithal of a nation's Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, one is not really free to speak of anything one wishes in America - at least, Americans on the ground don't really respect freedom of speech, with their hearts and minds. You see, if you speak freely, without wish to offend, they can get offended and take umbrage: so where does that leave freedom of speech? It is, in effect, only a theoretical entity, in America. That visitor from Bothell, Washington had been a steadfast regular on my blog - but after I alluded to the Reuters report on George Bush, she or he, wrote a somewhat miffed remark on the post, and then never visited my blog again.

To me, his or her action is very significant. It means that, in practice, there may not actually be true freedom of speech in the United States (or perhaps anywhere else - but most other places don't actually boast of having it in the first place). True freedom of speech, in my eyes, implies that no-one will take any kind of action against you, for voicing an opinion. Not visiting a blog, again, comes under the category of a retributive action. It indicates, therefore, that the high principle of freedom of speech is not actually respected by that individual. That action led me to wonder how many, or how few, other Americans really understand what a world where speech was truly free should be like. In such a world, no opinion would ever attract censure and all would be listened to with equal open-ness. That is the ideal that America speaks of, when it boasts of its freedom of speech. Yet, in truth, the reality falls short of that, at least if this example is anything to go by.

It is perilous, it seems, to speak of anyone in politics. People are polarized and any opinion, about anyone political, whether it be local or international, is likely to differ from the opinions of many of one's readers. In a free world, where speech was truly free, it would not matter. One's opinion would not lead to problems. I have learnt, however, from observing that event, that although one may write as one wishes, on the internet, that certain opinions - perhaps any opinion, in fact - will lead to some people taking exception to it.

We have, therefore, the freedom to write as we wish - but not the freedom to be welcomed universally.

Freedom of speech is an admirable ideal - and it is heartening that the United States says it upholds such a thing. Indeed, as I understand it, it is a First Amendment right, in the Constitution. Yet, its citizens - at least some of them - have not yet fully internalized what freedom of speech really means. I look forward to a day when all the world is free, in every way - being free in speech, is probably the easiest freedom of all - if only people would be tolerant of each other, in all our infinite variety.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and ten months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and three months, and Tiarnan, twenty months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

President Bush's IQ

How smart is President Bush? The question seems to be one that troubles many American commentators.

Before I answer I would like to point out that I have no personal interest in American politics and I live outside America, I ask the question only for what we can learn from its answer.

I have done a net search and found huge variations in claimed figures, from those who suggest that he is in the retarded range of 70 or so, to those who believe him to have an IQ of between 125 and 129. The ones who suggest the latter range do so based on his SAT college scores which would correspond to that range of IQs. Let us assume that, at one time, his IQ was in the range 125 to 129, though lifestyle habits since then may have impacted it. Is this too low an IQ for the President of America?

To understand the situations we need to know how smart the average American is. According to a study of national IQs, the mean IQ of the USA is 98. That tells me something very clearly: President George W. Bush's IQ, if it is indeed in the proposed range is actually IDEAL for a leader. Why is this? Well, there is a theory that the leader of group must never have an IQ more than 30 points above the mean of the group if he is to be an effective communicator with the group. A larger IQ differential would lead to communicative failure. Thus a leader CAN be too smart to lead effectively. The IQ range proposed for Bush places him at 27 to 31 points above the mean of his electorate...an optimal IQ, therefore, for an American leader.

There is only one thing that worries me, as an observer about this analysis: Bush's personal style does not often convey this degree of intelligence. The possibility exists, therefore, that these estimates of his understanding are too high. We may never know the truth, but the principle remains that the intelligence of the electorate places a limitation on the intelligence of the leader. If the difference is too great, the leader will not be able to communicate and so will not be able to lead.