Posted on 02/17/2010 8:52:38 PM PST by Nachum
Most three-year-olds are fascinated by cars and trucks.
But few can read and remember their number plates like William Potter does.
He can also name most towns and cities in the British Isles - and has just become one of the youngest people ever accepted as a member of Mensa.
With an IQ of 140, his intelligence is said to be on a par with that of Bill Clinton and, apparently, Napoleon Bonaparte.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I would venture to guess that at least 1/4 of freepers have an IQ of at least 135, and 140 is definitely not ‘significantly’ high.
135 is the lower cut-off for military flight training.
Most three-year-olds are fascinated by cars and trucks. But few can read and remember their number plates like William Potter does.
Since they were talking about cars and trucks I'd say its a license plate.
Then they need to cut his hair, so he’s not messed up by people mistaking him for a girl...or maybe mum and her “partner” can’t afford scissors after springing for the calculator.
Well I was born in August and I have scored around 140 on a few IQ tests, but I often think that if I was any dumber I wouldn’t be able to stay alive. Common sense trumps intelligence and fortunately I have some of that.
I don’t trust the leadership of really smart people because I think they over-reach a lot. Really dumb people are worse, but it is usually obvious that they are dumb so nobody pays attention to them.
I have made some major screw-ups because I outsmarted myself and decided that I have a really hotshot idea. If I had been a little dumber, I would have saved myself some trouble.
Come to think of it, this is starting to seem like a dumb post.
I was 138 last quiz I took here
was about 15 points higher younger(35 years ago) and before two chest crackings
I never thought Slick was smarter than me....
It's a myth. Nothing more.
Since IQ is the mental age of the subject divided by the actual age of the subject times a hundred, doesn’t that simply mean the three-year-old has the intelligece of someone slightly over four years old?
Nah,
Them weren't brains.
Most likely that's because he is always sipping his and you are always filling yours. :-)
140 is far from genius level. Besides, IQ is kind of meaningless when used to describe adult tests. It only makes sense during developmental years. If Clinton took the test when he was seven, say, it would mean that he had the intelligence of the average ten-year-old—pretty good, but no cigar.
I cannot think of one Republican president in my lifetime who was not denigrated as being stupid by the left except Richard Nixon whom they were at pains to tell us was evil.
It seems to me that in judging a candidate we should look for character, ideology, and intelligence and in that order. Democrats are willing to rationalize any trespass betraying bad character so long as the ideology is pure. Republicans are not so forgiving nor are they permitted by the press to enjoy the luxury of hypocrisy. So Republicans who get into bed with women with whom they are not married, or with lobbyists, are held to account but Democrats are granted a pass.
The left's obsession with rationalizing the IQ of their own candidates and demeaning Republicans comes out of their worldview and often leads them to absurd excess. I can remember being solemnly told as a child that President Eisenhower was so stupid he could scarcely tie his shoes. This was the man who less than a decade before had successfully managed the greatest invasion in world history and successfully conducted a Crusade in Europe against an unbelievably powerful military foe. Thereafter he managed NATO and Columbia University. Amazing how such a bumbling fool was always advanced beyond his competence. I guess the Democrats faced a dilemma. Everybody knew just by looking at him and listening to him that Ike was a man of integrity so the left went after his IQ. Interestingly, years later documents written by Ike, like documents written by Reagan in his own hand, demonstrate beyond doubt the competence of the men as president.
Ike's electoral opponent was the professorial Adlai Stevenson who was not the kind of guy you wanted to have a beer with. Americans don't react well to professorial types such as Woodrow Wilson and Adlai Stevenson. But even today historians of the left, that means historians of the establishment class, are wistful as they report the loss of the elections in the decade of the 50s by the elegant Governor Stevenson to the vacuous Eisenhower.
There was another elegant man of high intelligence on the scene prior to Ike's election, Alger Hiss. There could hardly be a better example of the left confusing the trappings of intelligence with character. There could hardly be a better historical example of rationalizing the most absurd facts because Alger Hiss was possessed of the right provenance, pedigree, and elegance. Whittaker Chambers and Richard Nixon were not in the eyes of the left so blessed with Hiss' virtues and they were viciously maligned. Of course, Chambers and Nixon had got it right, Alger Hiss was a traitor. If it were not for communication intercepts made public years later confirming Hiss' guilt, there would be even more leftists today proclaiming his innocence despite the accumulation of mountains of evidence over the decades.
There was another man who figured in the life of Richard Nixon who possessed a higher degree of elegance than did the evil Nixon, John F. Kennedy. Today we know that he was addicted to drugs and a profoundly sick sex addict. We know that his marriage and Camelot were shams. But even today when a television treatment of Kennedy threatens the Camelot image, the left leaps to the defense of its fraudulent contrivance. Incidentally, it was confided to us that John F. Kennedy was brilliant and to prove it we were told he was a speed reader-false.
It is not surprising that the politicians of the left who despise religion are indifferent to character and value only ideological purity. Once a candidate's ideological bona fides are established, the rationalization machine moves into high gear and the world is persuaded that their man is a genius and possessed of the most sterling character the side of Camelot. But that is for consumption by the useful idiots, among the elites there is no deference to integrity and qualities of character like humility because these things are but impediments to leftists in their never-ending obsession to play God
The differences between the parties and between the right/ left divide in these respects are not mere accidents of history rather they are symptoms of competing worldviews. The greatest victims of these frauds and hypocrisies committed by leftists and their henchmen in the press are well-intentioned independent voters. Perhaps a few of them will read this.
My question is, who took the other half?
way too many under 100 and that is going up I think
and it’s worse for some groups, better for others
lots of smart folks who can’t reason but can absorb and recite knowledge like encyclopedias
So what value IQ should I claim when I say “I’ve forgotten more than you’ll ever know”?
I still have my Mensa card from the 1970’s. What a boring bunch of idiots. I was hoping they would play Scrabble or Monopoly, but they sat around trying to show how smart they were. I never went to another meeting. BTW - The meeting was at a vegetarian restaurant. I should have known.
And... 140 is the bottom of the scale.
“I read that stormin’ Norman was around 180.”
That’s damned smart. 160 is pretty high. 180 is exceptional.
Thanks for the comment!
Ater reading it, it was hilarious to read others here bragging about their scores (one of them mentioning a 138, LOL!).
Ah, the myth of Bill Clinton’s intelligence. The same script for Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.