Intelligence VS Experience

[miketheidiot]

wasn't the 'einstein got poor grades' thing just an urban legend?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
wasn't the 'einstein got poor grades' thing just an urban legend?

Yes

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lets be honest, neither experience or intelligence are particularly good predictors of how a president will perform.

:thumbsup:

Obama is still better though.

 

[DukeN]

Well, McLame isn't intelligent nor does he have a clue about economics. But he'll "WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ!!". (as soon as he figures out who exactly the shiites, sunnis, etc are).

 

[naddicott]

A certain level of intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient. Due to the Einstein, Gates, etc. phenomenon, you really can't assess whether someone has the necessary level based upon college grades. There's a minimum age to run for president, and by that age, there's always more current information on a candidate to get a better sense of their intellectual capacities (eg. recently published books if not ghost written).

What doesn't get discussed as much as it should, IMO, is how candidates' management of a campaign reflects on their potential management aptitude in office. Running out of money, having intra-factional power struggles, and replacing top jobs mid-campaign are all indicators that someone is either inept at leading a large organization, or is a bad judge of people, or both. I'm more worried about the disorganized mess, or at least the appearance of one, in McCain's campaign than his college grades.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: DukeN
Well, McLame isn't intelligent nor does he have a clue about economics. But he'll "WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ!!". (as soon as he figures out who exactly the shiites, sunnis, etc are).

Neither candidate has any grasp of economics whatsoever, and if they do, they're hiding it well in favor of spouting empty rhetoric to appease the voter base.

It's my absolute dream to have a top tier economist (left, right, whatever) run this country. It'll never happen, people don't want realities, and they don't want to compromise, they prefer to elect people who promise everything and have economic scarcity be a "surprise" at the end.

Oh, and a 3.8 in political science, I don't care where, isn't that impressive. It's just not that hard of a major. 4.0 in law, though, that's impressive.

I still wouldn't vote for either of these guys. They have too many interests within their own parties to appease, they have no time to think about what's good for the country and act on it. They might get lucky here or there, but it's not their primary motive.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Neither candidate has any grasp of economics whatsoever, and if they do, they're hiding it well in favor of spouting empty rhetoric to appease the voter base.

Here's Obama's educational resume:

Education

Undergraduate

Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA
Undergraduate, 1981-1983

Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament

Graduate

Harvard Law School
J.D. magna cum laude 1988-1991

President, Harvard Law Review

Obama was at the top of his classes while McCain was at the bottom of his, and Obama's fields of study are much more related to economics than whatever areas McCain barely grasped or forgot from his education.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Harvey


Obama was at the top of his classes while McCain was at the bottom of his, and Obama barely grasped or forgot from his education.

:thumbsup:

 

[nageov3t]

how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

I was replying to Harvey's comment that Obama's studies are somehow related to economics.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lets be honest, neither experience or intelligence are particularly good predictors of how a president will perform.

This was on page one and yet the thread lives!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

I was replying to Harvey's comment that Obama's studies are somehow related to economics.

Have you taken a course in political philosophy? Economics? They both deal with rationality and human nature, amongst other things.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

I was replying to Harvey's comment that Obama's studies are somehow related to economics.

Have you taken a course in political philosophy? Economics? They both deal with rationality and human nature, amongst other things.

that's pretty much any liberal arts degree. I wouldn't say that merely touching on econ vaguely as footnotes qualifies for really having an understanding of economic theory.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
how are poli-sci and law related to macro economics of one of the largest economies of the world?

Because we usually elect economists to be President?

I was replying to Harvey's comment that Obama's studies are somehow related to economics.

Have you taken a course in political philosophy? Economics? They both deal with rationality and human nature, amongst other things.

that's pretty much any liberal arts degree. I wouldn't say that merely touching on econ vaguely as footnotes qualifies for really having an understanding of economic theory.

That's arguable. Economic theory has everything to do with constraints and rationality. It really doesn't get more basic than that. In political philosophy you deal with the political economy, which deals with property rights and justice within the constraints of society. Tell me another major that has such similarities.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I had a 3.8 my senior year in HS despite skipping 44 class days my last semester. I had a 4.0 inmy freshman year of college before I dropped out.

I also have a 145+ IQ.

1. Intelligence has nothing to do with getting good grades.
2. Despite my stellar stats compared to the current batch of candidates... nobody wants me to be president.

 

[owensdj]

What experience does McCain have? Logging time in the Senate isn't the same as being President.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lets be honest, neither experience or intelligence are particularly good predictors of how a president will perform.

I disagree, slightly. I think a more intelligent president will perform better. With that said, I agree with what others have said, GPA is hardly a predictor of intelligence.

 

[Fox5]

GPA is a pretty good indicator of someone putting in the necessary effort (whatever that is, including studying or sucking up to teachers) to do well in a given field. A lower GPA in a field indicates ineptitude of a lack of interest. Experience is probably worth more, if it's good, positive experience. Bush's track record, even prior to becoming president, ain't that great, and I'd hold it against him. McCain doesn't strike me as leader material either. I'd rather give the new kid a chance then pick a known loser. Younger people are quicker to adapt and tackle new situations that old "experienced" people who are stuck in their ways.

 

[blinky8225]

Originally posted by: conehead433
At least McCain actually graduated from college, even if he was 5th from the bottom of his class. Daddy Bush bought junior's degree.

McCain was a son of privilege, too. His father and grandfather were both Navy Admirals. Basically, there was no way that he was going to be dismissed from the Naval Academy.

 

[yllus]

In his memoirs, Alan Greenspan wrote that Nixon, Clinton and Carter were the most intelligent presidents he ever dealt with (in that order). Take from that what you will.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lets be honest, neither experience or intelligence are particularly good predictors of how a president will perform.

As "good" predictors you may be correct. But all other things being equal, would anyone given the choice between candidates with greater or lesser relevant experience and intelligence choose the "lesser" candidate?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lets be honest, neither experience or intelligence are particularly good predictors of how a president will perform.

As "good" predictors you may be correct. But all other things being equal, would anyone given the choice between candidates with greater or lesser relevant experience and intelligence choose the "lesser" candidate?

Well that's true and all, but in my opinion it comes down to if you want 5 sprinkles on your ice cream cone or 4. Sure everyone picks 5, but really you can't tell the difference.

 

[trenchfoot]

When i conducted job interviews for certain positions in our company, what i looked for was aggregate qualifications. Those qualifying indicators were spread over a wide gamut of factors, but mostly to do with technical and social skill sets.

Those interviewees that posessed leadership potential immediately stood out from the rest. It didn't take a battery of tests to determine who they were. All it took was a face-to-face comparison.

There is no reliable way that i know of to quantify and make tangible what it takes to be a good leader, but from the years of experience i had interviewing prospects, hiring them and watching their performance over a number of years, the "feel" that i acquired for having a sense of who would make a good manager or not became quite evident based purely on cause and effect.

We all have this "sense" in one way or another, depending on the need and the exposure we get from life's experiences.

I know of no other deciding factor that supercedes the one that makes us evaluate a person based on the "feel" we get from being in contact with them, however close or remote that contact is. This "feel" represents the culmination of the skills we have acquired in evaluating others. Certainly, the closer the relationship we have with a person the better we can evaluate their performance, but how is a close relationship possible with a person running for public office?

Based on my experience, and from a non-partisan POV, the "feel" i get is that Obama will outperform McCain as POTUS.

If all personal biases and agendas are laid aside, Obama would then be the obvious choice between the two.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Neither candidate has any grasp of economics whatsoever, and if they do, they're hiding it well in favor of spouting empty rhetoric to appease the voter base.

Here's Obama's educational resume:

Education

Undergraduate

Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA
Undergraduate, 1981-1983

Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament

Graduate

Harvard Law School
J.D. magna cum laude 1988-1991

President, Harvard Law Review

Obama was at the top of his classes while McCain was at the bottom of his, and Obama's fields of study are much more related to economics than whatever areas McCain barely grasped or forgot from his education.

Political Science has nothing to do with economics.

Law doesn't either, and I can tell you with near certainty, as I'm entering my final year of law school.

I never made any remark about either candidate's overall intellect, all I said was that neither appears to know anything about economics, and I stand by that. I may not have a PhD, but I do have an economics degree, and am not seeing any principles demonstrated by either candidate.