Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates? - Page 7

nightwood · #61 10-09-2007, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not really sure what you're trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure we all have a somewhat different opinion about what a "good" president actually is. Some of us will value the 'pure' intelligence of a candidate a lot higher than others. So for those 'intelligence-first' people the check-mate test will naturally have a bigger influence on the opinion about our wanna-be.
All I'm saying is that we need to know both: what you are looking for in a president and then if the chess-test matters toya.

hitch1978 · #62 10-09-2007, 05:35 PM

I agree.

I also think, to agree with DS, that everybody SHOULD think that this kind of thing would matter.

The only thing I disagree with is that it should matter so much that it alone should exclude you from the race.

Maybe I would change my mind if there were a long list of other things OP would like to add that should exclude you... That would hold it in a better frame of context IMHO.

andyfox · #63 10-09-2007, 05:44 PM

Von Neumann was wrong because he was blinded by his hatred of Communism; it caused him to ignore other factors, such as the Russian factor in Soviet behavior, the conservatism of Stalin's policies compared to his rheoric, etc.

But let's not hijack here. I'll post on the politics forum when I'm back in the country.

andyfox · #64 10-09-2007, 05:58 PM

I didn't mention Von Neumann to speak to the advantages or disadvantages, practically, of super-intelligence. I did so to illustrate that your point, that the inability to do a relatively simple chess or math problem automatically makes the person unable to do it a less qualified choice for president than one who can. Because even a very intelligent person, who would, in theory, be far better qualified to be president than those of inferior intelligence--because of the fact that he has superior ability to looks ahead and visualize alternatives--can make a far worse president because all things are seldom equal.

But as I think more about this, I think I get your point, if I understand it corectly. There indeed has to be a point below which we should automatically disqualify a person.

That said, you say you can think of one or two presidents who probably couldn't solve your simple problems. Who were they? And do you think they were good presidents? I know this is ancillary to your point, but I'm curious. I think we have a lot fo examples of smart people who made terrible presidents and less intelligent people who made good presidents.

andyfox · #65 10-09-2007, 06:01 PM

So if, for example, it turned out Hillary Clinton had an IQ of 131, and Rudy Giuliani one of 121, this would be a greater determinant of whom you would vote for than their public records or stands on the issues?

JMAnon · #66 10-09-2007, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Could Bill Clinton make this chess moved David Sklansky is talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he could.

IronUnkind · #67 10-09-2007, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to find out that Truman and Eisenhower were unable to pass your chess test, I would still have preferred either of them to Von Neumann. And it isn't close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that if we could raise the dead then we wouldn't need to give chess exams.

JMAnon · #68 10-09-2007, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, here in the states, we have 3 republican nominees who admit to not accepting evolution or are smart enough to claim they don't accept evolution because doing so will help get them elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. You seem to be assuming all public statements of politicians represent their true beliefs. I wouldn't make that assumption.

ZeeJustin · #69 10-09-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if, for example, it turned out Hillary Clinton had an IQ of 131, and Rudy Giuliani one of 121, this would be a greater determinant of whom you would vote for than their public records or stands on the issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A 10 point difference is rather small compared to where they stand on the issues, but I would lose a lot of respect for them BOTH.

I don't think it's 100% necessary for an average president to be a genius, but I suspect that all of the best presidents are (not just talking about the US here either).

Edit: I don't have any data to support this, but it just seems crazy to allow anyone that is not a genius to be the leader of the free world. We aren't talking about a member of the city council here. We've got hundreds of millions of candidates to choose from. Let's be a little picky.

Anyone that thinks there isn't a huge correlation between intelligence and ability to be a good president is just plain wrong.

Lestat · #70 10-09-2007, 06:22 PM

That's a good point. I'm sure many in politics just cow-tow to what the American public wants to hear. I strongly that suspect Hillary Clinton almost can't really believe in God.

Not admitting to being an atheist is one thing (and I don't like that, but it's absolutely necessary if you want to be have a political career). But saying you don't accept evolution is assinine whether you really believe it, or not.