The Glade 4.0

SAT's measure acheivement, not IQ.

IQ doesn't really change with age.
Achievement does to a huge degree. I took the SAT at age 12 and again at age 16. My score changed 600 points.
My IQ on the other hand, remains constant. They measure vastly different things, so I'm not convinced you can reliably use SAT's to interpolate IQ.

SAT's measure aptitude. They use a metric that requires a certain level of exposure to subject matter, unlike IQ tests. The math scores, in particular, are sensitive to education in early high school subjects. This is, largely, a non-issue, though, as the SATs are intended to be taken Junior year.

SAT-II's measure achievement.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Such is the racism of American politics. Obaman is blue, while Bush is red.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Good Lord I almost lost my lunch.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

This post is little more than your confirmation bias and predilection for his party affiliation showing.

_________________

A friend of mine in high school took the SAT three times, got a 1580, something lower, and a 1580. That's one question wrong, if you were wondering.

Right back at ya.

Actually, that's a lot more than one missed question if the 800 was in the mathematics section for a pre-1997 SAT. And a 1580 is a whole section missing for a post 1997 SAT.

_________________

Anyone can get a pretty high IQ score or SAT score if they train long enough. Also verbal scores are based on how many books you've read.

Actually, no ...

See, I think both men are fairly intelligent, but likely less intelligent than the smartest members of this forum. Politicians tend not be beyond 2 standard deviations above the population median according to more than a few studies. People 3 or more standard deviations above population median IQ tend to fall into academic or intellectual private sector jobs (research scientists, engineers, software developers, etc.).

That said, Barack Obama is far from a genius. He is politically savvy with good handlers and speech writers, but George W. Bush had better speech writers and relied less on a teleprompter (as a simple comparison). Quite honestly, given the available information, there's nothing you can do to objectively claim Obama is brilliant in comparison, especially given his disastrous foreign policy behavior.

_________________

I looked at the SAT to IQ chart published on the web (did not research it's source). My wife and I have had our IQs tested, and I can say the estimate is a little low for me ~7%, and a little high for my wife ~5%.

For what it's worth.

What do you mean by percent?

I was not in high school in 1997. Anyway, I always thought 1 missed question cost you 20 points, but each was not worth 20 points (it didn't scale). Never worried about it enough to figure out the scoring.

Anyway, the point is, the dude wanted his 1600, and everyone was making fun of him for trying to improve on a 1580.

No idea where he is now, but I'm sure it's wherever it is he wanted to be.

For example, if the estimate said my IQ was 107, and it was actually 100, it would be overestimated by 7%. (7 points off, divided by my IQ of 100).

If I woke up tomorrow morning with George W. Bush or Barack Obama's I.Q. I would jump out a **** window.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

That's actually 6.54%.

edit:

Nevermind you could be right, but only if you think your actual I.Q. is 100.

What about RangerDave's?

_________________

No, my IQ would be lower than the estimate by 6.54%, but the estimate is off the mark by 7%.

You can pretty much substitute any random individual into that sentence in place of our current and most recent presidents and I'd go along with it.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Like I said, it's been tested. And for the record, 100 is the example test result, not the actual result....

Wow, someone has a superiority complex.

So you divided your tested score by what you think it is, and got 7% which actually corresponds to 5 points or so? Gotcha.

Actually, I think that's called "Self Respect" :p~~

No. If the estimate is 107, the accurate value is 100, then the estimate is off by 7 points. 7 points off from an accurate score of 100, or 7/100 = 7%.

If the estimate is 115, and the accurate value is 120, then 115/120 is not 5%.