What is Joe Biden's measured IQ?

I thinks it pretty tough to make informed decisions about economics, business, etc. When they only view only from the lense of governement and are ignorant to all other perspectives.

I think we should have term limits.

 

OK, not as bad as Justin Bieber, then. Bieber wouldn't tell people to clean their rooms. I guess there is still hope for Canada.

 

Then why have an IQ? Why not just a percentage?

Let us simplify it. Q = IQ, M = mental age, C = chronological age

If Q=100M/C if Q and M are constants, then M/C+n < M/C. In order for Q to be constant then Q would have to equal Q=100((M+n(M/C))/(C+n)) with C=10. Thus, one's mental age would have to increase (or descrease for those with an IQ less than 100) in proportion to ones chronological age.

 

You know, a standard deviation is a very convenient way to convey the same thing, without the disadvantage of this artificial increase/decrease you're talking about - very messy.
When you express something with a Bell curve that has a Gaussian distribution, and you call the expected value (or mean) 100, it becomes very easy to visualize. Very useful concept. Why do you want to complicate it?

 

IOW, they consider the interests of someone other than you.

May be a good idea, given the incumbent advantage.

 

How do you know? He was born in 1918, so was probably tested somewhere around 1925-30. IQ tests were quite primitive then -- risible by modern standards -- and the testing conditions could have been pretty bad, too.

No I didn't. I said they derived from the same root word.

No, if your ability to understand has increased, that means your intelligence has increased.

No. See above.

 

For kids, it gives a ready idea of how advanced they are, while for adults, it gives a good basis for comparisons. For statistical research purposes, being able to characterize a population on a normal (Gaussian) distribution is extremely convenient.

As long as you understand mental age is meaningless once maturity is reached.

It sounds like you have succeeded in constructing a perfectly meaningless metric.

 

Not sure why both of you have resorted to group averages and distributions when I was clearly talking about individuals. About how the idea of a quotient is a bit silly. How silly the equation is. How silly it is to assign an IQ to an adult.

Having been a product design engineer of cutting edge technological devices, I have had to interface with people of varying levels of intelligence, from CEO's to scientists to engineers to managers to assemblers to machinists to purchasing agents to to technical writers to stock workers to salesmen and everyone else in, around, and in between. Because, one succeeds in a manufacturing company by marshalling every resource that one can grab hold of and use to one's benefit. It quickly becomes evident that one can not talk to everyone on the same level. Thus one develops an knack for quickly sizing up another's intellectual abilities. If I am describing the operation or assembly of a product, I speak quite differently when I am speaking to a scientist than when I am talking to an assembler, or when I am talking to someone in marketing. Whenever I meet a random person, I find it rather easy to quickly assess their relative intelligence after a short conversation. I even throw in certain words or phrases, just to watch for reactions, to assess ones mentality.

This thread is about the IQ of Joe Biden. While I think it is rather silly to attempt to assign an imagined IQ to Biden, I do think that it is quite easy to assess his relative intelligence. If one watches news conferences of various politicians and then compare them, not so much on the content, although, if one's content is always loony, then obviously that politician is just loony. But compare the depth of thought, the ability to express clearly more complex concepts. Their articulation, word choices, sentence structure. The way they phrase things... When watching the hearings of the first impeachment of the Trump, I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that several of the witnesses, especially Bill Taylor and Fiona Hill impressed me with their intelligence. Bill Taylor was the one who blew the case wide open, being too intelligent, too on top of his game to not have seen the shenanigans that the Trump and Giuliani were up to. Fiona Hill was the one who told us about how the Hunter Biden case had come from the Russians. Is was from her testimony, that we were all aware that the Trump campaign was going to try to use Hunter Biden's laptop and emails to try to do a Comey on Biden. It failed because everyone knew it was coming.

I am sure that both Fiona Hill and Bill Taylor are a magnitude more intelligent than the Trump, maybe a couple of magnitudes greater. Compare Nancy Pelosi with the Trump, Pelosi is clearly more intelligent. Not as intelligent as Fiona Hill, but clearly significantly more intelligent than the Trump. From the day after the election of 2018 it was smart Nancy verses dumb Donald. And all the Trump could do was spin out of control. I watched Biden's news conference yesterday and clearly Biden is far from unintelligent, far from having the senility that the conservatives/Republicans/conformists/authoritarians have been trying to pretend. Biden is at least Pelosi's level of intelligence, but comes up just short of Obama's or Bill Clinton's. However Biden is clearly more intelligent than his Republican opponents in the House and Senate. Every last one of them. More intelligent than any of the talking heads on FOX. Plus, Biden has the advantage of the experience of the Obama administration. Obama tried really hard to work with the Republicans. Because of this, Biden is well aware of what Republicans are and does not seem willing to play that game, and wisely so. After all, he did manage to get through congress a very substantial bill, completely pushing Republican obstructionism to the side.

 

Oh gee. Pray tell. What is the difference ? This is a huge conservative problem in truthfulness. Quora is nothing more then a chat room. No one is held accountable for truthfulness of what they say. NASA or any accredited research university websites represent the work of thousands of experts in any field overtime. They use the scientific method to dined and then disseminate information. If they have consensus among institutions, it’s overwhelming more reliable.

Nope, opinions gleaned from Quora are bogus.

 

I agree 100% with you, and I voted for Biden. It's great to have a president who believes in science, for a change (I'm a medical scientist). Yes, I watched the press conference and yes, he is not demented at all, and I know what I'm talking about, having long experience with demented patients in real life. I've been saying the same. I agree with your comparison between politicians and their level of intelligence (although I wouldn't underestimate Trump; I think he is intelligent, just, a different kind, more geared towards reading a crowd and exploiting others; I think his poor vocabulary is likely more due to reduced attention span and lack of an interest for reading and learning than due to actual lack of intelligence). Trump is a pathological narcissist and a sociopath, but not dumb.

I just don't see why, what you are saying, translates into IQ not being a useful concept. No, it's not silly to measure intelligence. It can be measured. It would confirm your observation about interacting with others. It's just psychometrics. What you intuitively see as variable levels of intelligence among the people you interact with, can be measured. That's what it is. Again, sorry, but you were clearly turned off by what happened to your son, but it's not the science that is wrong; it's just that the science was misused by the idiotic principal.

 

It’s racist propaganda promoted by the worse type of motivation.

You can tell. Supporters say stuff like, “oh it’s not the same IQ tests spread on line, it’s from official sources”.

Then they go ahead and use Mensa as an example where 2/3 of the members take test somewhere else then submit results on line, or take tests from members, who are proctored by “volunteers” not professionals in the field. It’s the most bogus source of racist devised information.

 

Predictably you now appeal to the race card to deny science.

 

Quora is a chat room, but what bringiton referred to, was a reference to a scientific paper published in a bona fide, respected, peer-reviewed Psychometrics scientific journal called Intelligence, and it is irrelevant if he came across the reference in Quora or in any other place. The important part is that the article is a real one, in a real scientific journal. Similarly, I don't exclusively rely on articles written by lay press journalists when I can avoid it. But when they quote something like a scientific paper, then I go to the paper itself, read it, and if worthy, I quote it, like I did here. One could say "but Political Forum is just an Internet forum." It doesn't mean that the scientific papers I quote here are bogus, simply because they were quoted here. The authors of the paper can't control who quotes them or where people do it. But the peer reviewers from the scientific journal's editorial board do verify the solidity of the data and the methodology, and that's entirely independent from where the paper is quoted after publication.

Get it now?

By the way, I am not exactly a conservative. Not a liberal either. I'm a centrist who disagrees with most extremists who position themselves in both ends of the political spectrum, far right or far left. I have little against (and a lot for) positions that are center-right or center-left, or center, of course. This of course is an average of my positions. In any individual topic I may be of an opinion that is rightist, or leftist. For example, in matters of illegal immigration I side with the right. In matters of universal healthcare I side with the left. But even in this, my positions tend to veer towards the center. For example, in illegal immigration, I'm for generosity towards DACA kids, and in matters of universal healthcare I don't mind a hybrid system where private insurance plans continue to exist for those who desire to contract with them, side by side with an extension for public plans.

 

Bet your arse race is involved. . And early science in 1916 is not today’s. We actually know more about intellect.
They didn’t ask anyone from Ethiopia to devise the test. It was for French kids, predominantly white Europeans. And we use the same sht today ?

Let’s see the actual references, not a referral.

 

No....and fancy woo woo changes nothing. Please, let’s see any corporation or major business ( mom and pop store and Mensa doesn’t count) that uses IQ to hire.

Mr Fellow supporter tried to use the military by calling ASVAB an IQ test...it isn’t.

 

I'm not surprised that you don't get it. You've demonstrated sufficiently that not only you completely ignore and misunderstand the applied science of Psychometrics, but also, you're not willing to learn. It's a pity because I do think that you're a smart guy. If you weren't a science denialist, you would be able to do better.

This kind of response, "fancy woo woo" is what is frustrating, though. You know, if you want to hide behind this kind of prejudice against science, there won't be anything left to talk about, at least as far as I'm concerned. Me, a career scientist, won't be very encouraged by this attitude, and I'll lose interest. At this point, I *am* losing interest. So, I guess I'll take a leave of absence and allow you to continue to talk to your own belly button and to continue to deny science. Have a nice day. Oh, and you can have the last word if you want. I don't care.

 

BTW, a lot of early science was distorted and used by racist propaganda groups for their own benefit. It’s not new.

 

It's not, but science is not inherently bad. Like anything that humans touch, it can be misused, though.
Anyway, given that I don't want to continue this discussion but the notifications keep popping up, sorry but I'll temporarily put on hold any notifications from you or from this thread. I have better use of my leisure time, than continuing to talk with a science denialist. Good bye.

 

The science you refer to is not bad....it’s old . And like all science, it’s subject to change depending upon any new evidence.

Btw, was the Benet developed testing originally used to be associated with an IQ number for general intelligence ?

Just choose not to answer.

 

Get used to it. Here on line, the only thing that matters is what the real world does. Everything else is unverifiable. And, just calling yourself a career scientist isn’t enough, and even by a career scientist it doesn’t mean much. I make no claims about about being smart . I stayed in school a long time to play sports and party.

 

About the only limits that certain politicians want to vote for and impose, are the limits on the right to vote. Totalitarian regimes are famous for very long terms in office and minimal voter participation. Sound familiar, Georgia ?

 

The Constitution provides very clearly and easily for limiting terms. Every two years, the entire House and a third of the Senate can be cleared out (and should be for once, at least). The fault lies in the electorate, not just the elected. Biden's modest intelligence didn't impede his decades long installation in the lap of Federal governing. He is just average, and average would be good enough if the average voter used average intelligence to do the obvious things. It doesn't require a genius level to see and do a citizen's duty.

 

It’s about time we had a person that appealed to the average voter and not one who didn’t.

 

Joe the Sniff, was tested yesterday and his score was, 60? He can read, he knows who his handlers are, he can't remember who the reporters work for, he was disappointed that there weren't any kids in the room, etc.