You know what would be helpful? To have a journalist's SATM score in his or her - or their - byline, or if on camera, scrawling below, whenever they are reporting on something that involves numbers.
I have long maintained that Obama's SATV was likely quite high - higher than many conservatives would be prepared to admit - but his SATM was likely frighteningly low - low enough that competitive-college liberals would have seen immediately what a problem this was. Once he was nominated they would keep up appearances and say it didn't matter, but there is no way in hell he would have made it through the primaries.
The reasoning for this takes a while, as his actual scores can only be estimated. But most of the estimating that is put forward in the public discussion is pure trash.
For instance, I don't think Donald Trump is more than middlin' smart. But he's smart enough, and he was aiming at a lot of the right goals. What's more important in an executive than unusual brilliance is an ability to connect goals to specific actions. A lot of very smart people never really get that. It's an executive skill, and may be nearly as rare as high standard deviations from the mean IQ. Of course, it helps to have laudable goals as well, another area where I rate Trump much higher than Obama.
If Obama had an outstanding executive skill, it was in the area of weaponizing the federal bureaucracy for political purposes. I'm still not sure whether that was his personal accomplishment or more something he more or less passively encouraged on his watch.
Donald's facility with numbers is likely high, giving him a leg up on at least the easier portions of any testing - and any real-world applications. I doubt he had Obama's verbal ability, but you need some facility even to creatively butcher the language.
6 comments:
Before or after social adjustment?
Good point, and anyway they make their probably scores obvious without having to disclose them--not to mention that I'd hardly believe them.
I would require evidence, not mere claims.
I have long maintained that Obama's SATV was likely quite high - higher than many conservatives would be prepared to admit - but his SATM was likely frighteningly low - low enough that competitive-college liberals would have seen immediately what a problem this was. Once he was nominated they would keep up appearances and say it didn't matter, but there is no way in hell he would have made it through the primaries.
The reasoning for this takes a while, as his actual scores can only be estimated. But most of the estimating that is put forward in the public discussion is pure trash.
Obama was reasonably bright for a politician, even for a president. I don't think that was his problem.
For instance, I don't think Donald Trump is more than middlin' smart. But he's smart enough, and he was aiming at a lot of the right goals. What's more important in an executive than unusual brilliance is an ability to connect goals to specific actions. A lot of very smart people never really get that. It's an executive skill, and may be nearly as rare as high standard deviations from the mean IQ. Of course, it helps to have laudable goals as well, another area where I rate Trump much higher than Obama.
If Obama had an outstanding executive skill, it was in the area of weaponizing the federal bureaucracy for political purposes. I'm still not sure whether that was his personal accomplishment or more something he more or less passively encouraged on his watch.
Donald's facility with numbers is likely high, giving him a leg up on at least the easier portions of any testing - and any real-world applications. I doubt he had Obama's verbal ability, but you need some facility even to creatively butcher the language.
Post a Comment