I'd like to know the average I.Q. of our Congressional Rep's! How 'bout you?

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
January 18, 2008 12:02pm CST
Yup, I'd like to see some I.Q. scores for the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Why do I want to know whether these folks are functional idiots? Well, because "Stupid is a stupid does"! Below is a snippet from the news story. Read it and weep! "LONDON - UN climate chief Yvo de Boer on Wednesday hailed as a "Marshall Plan" for climate change news that the United States will set up a multi-billion dollar fund to help developing nations acquire clean power technologies." http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46461/story.htm
3 people like this
7 responses
• United States
18 Jan 08
I would estimate the average IQ of our elected officals at the federal level to be about 120. The average IQ of all persons is supposedly 100 with a standard deviation of 15. That would make an IQ of 120 somewhere in the top 5 - 10% of the population. 115 is in the top 15% (1 std dev above mean). 130 is in the top 2% (2 std dev above mean). Extrapolating in my head, I estimate top 5-10% for 120. Well, if they are so smart, why all the stupid ideas? Easy. They are ego driven, arrogant and dishonest. Knowing they are smarter than most, they figure they don't have to fool all of us, just most of us. Usually, they do. Until the voters of the USA again realize the honesty of a person has to be the primary number 1 qualifying characteristic to hold office, we are going to continue to be screwed over.
5 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Hello Red, Wow, you're alot more generous than I am about speculating on the average I.Q. of Congress! Rather than thinking they're stupid, you think the issue has a much more insideous undercurrent?
2 people like this
• United States
18 Jan 08
Correct. I do think the problem in our legislature is not stupidity, but dishonesty and ego. Except for people like Al Gore and Ted Kennedy, who got their positions because of nepotism, the people in the Senate and the House are pretty smart really. However, they do seriously over estimate their own intelligence. I'll grant they are in the top 5 - 10 % but they probably estimate themselves to be in the top 1%. Only a very few are that smart. If there was an intellectual honesty quotient, our elected officials would be in the bottom 2 %. That's where I think the problem lies.
4 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Hello Red, Your points are very valid, my friend! Yet, your theory does not explain why our rep's would be agreeing to give billions of dollars to other nations to help combat global warming (as she says with frozen fingers & toes -- burrrrrr!). That's what the article is announcing; the gleeful reaction of the U.N. over our Global 'Warming Marshall Plan'. Yup, billions to other nations while our The House & Bush are in a competitive 'one-up' match over who can suggest a larger economic stimulus package to try to fend off a recession!
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Jan 08
Hello ladyluna, I did see the news story but it isn’t detailed enough to formulate an opinion. By details, I mean that it does talk about setting up of fund but has not given any details as to how this fund will actually be translated to practical measures on ground. Shortly speaking, it hasn’t discussed the “mechanism” of this proposed aid and ‘how’ this fund will be used to help developing nations acquire clean power technologies. Why I am saying this is because ‘if’ the mechanism of providing and using this fund is like Economic and Military aid to different countries then you need not get angry or lose your sleep over this fund. I’ll give an example to clarify myself. USA gives Israel a huge amount in aid. But, Israel is restricted to use almost all of Military portion (major part) of this aid in Military purchases ‘only’ from American defense Industry and the rest (economic part) is also mostly used in repaying loans for earlier Military purchases. Only a very tiny amount is used for economic purposes in Israel. This not only, in itself, keeps American Defense manufacturers afloat, rather prosper, but also secures 10s of thousands of jobs in America (at least 60,000 to my last knowledge). But that’s not all about it; it has farther and more profound healthy implication and benefits for American Defense corporations and economy at large. This aid forces Israel’s Arab neighbors to make Military purchases worth tens of billions of dollars from America. So, America is actually only giving few million dollars to Israel and gets back 10s of billions of dollars in return along with 10s of thousands of jobs for its citizens, not to mention funding research in defense to keep it’s Military technology atop others. Same is the case with $10 billion Aid to Pakistan “most” (more than 90%) of which was restricted to be used in Military purchases from American defense corporations. No body of knowledge of these affairs would contend that this amount should be directly spent in America because there needs to be a ‘demand’ for American defense industry to ‘supply’. So a better approach would be to question what are the terms and conditions and strings attached to the release of these funds. I don’t know yet, but It may be that those countries are helped but with the condition that they buy American technology or collaborate with American corporations OR they must share, without conditions, the results of their research and development with America. One may think that this can be better done in America! Yes, sure. Surely, involving a third party will incur some loss, but this loss is compensated by political gains. So, knowing exact details, you may even like to congratulate your congressional reps for their genius and then you will be celebrating their higher IQ :-) But, as I said before, I personally don’t know, it all depends on what are the conditions and details (mechanism) of this fund, and hence I can’t formulate an opinion as yet. What I have learnt through years is that American Congressmen and senators are not moralists, by and large, they are pragmatists.
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
9 Feb 08
Hello Kamran, You have my sincerest apologies for having completely overlooked this discussion, and your reply for the last two weeks. I simply don't know how I overlooked your response here. Granted, I've been swamped, though that is no excuse. I am sorry! You raise some interesting points here. Not the least of which is that a formal announcement has been made, whereby my nation's elected representation has committed itself (and the citizens) to an aid program, where no details of the commitment have been revealed. Regardless of whether this is funded through taxation, or business costs passed on to the U.S. consumer, it is the taxpayer who will foot this bill. So, on the merit of that argument alone, it is highly unlikely that I will ever congratulate 'The Hill' for such an action. The elected representation of my country have a long history of fiduciary malfeasance, particularly in the arena of perceived international good will. And, where their intentions were never realized because of third party corruption. Yes, you're right! The details would be most helpful. As would our Congress committing themselves to govern within our national budget, while adhering to our Constitutional principles.
1 person likes this
@merrydew (60)
• United States
18 Jan 08
The article suggests the fund may be financed by private money, from investors in clean technology. It's not clear how much public money will be used. This doesn't sound such a bad idea. That said, politicians obviously will not always do the right thing (defined by what I would want them do. :-)). They'll often do what is most politically advantageous for them, and so will somewhat reflect the IQ of those they represent. And then there are the kick-backs, bribes, etc.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
19 Jan 08
Hello Merrydew, How's your dive into the MyLot waters going? I hope it is exceeding your wildest expectations for fun, community interaction and the exchange of ideas. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the announcement. For me, it sounds an awful lot like the U.S. taxpayer/ consumer once again being forced to contribute to international and corporate welfare. The snippets below are the cause of my jitters: "... news that the United States will set up a multi-billion dollar fund to help developing nations acquire clean power technologies. Few details are yet available about the proposed new fund, such as whether it would be loans or grants, who would administer it and over what period. Extending the analogy of the Marshall Plan which combined public with private money,... The fund is expected to draw finance from the major developed nations ... De Boer said that while the main thrust of the new fund, announced in Washington on Monday, ..." I don't see any mention of a single private corporation. I suspect the reason is that many U.S. corporations are themselves struggling with how to meet the increasing pressure of clean fuel requirements.
1 person likes this
• United States
19 Jan 08
Hello LadyLuna, It's been mostly an interesting fun, ride so far, thanks. Though a bit depressing in a way - so many opinions that I find frustrating, and based, to my mind, on base, self-serving motives. Hell is other people, as Sartre stated. :-) Anyway, I'm all for clean fuel initiatives and regulations, unless totally impractical. I guess what's practical can be a point of disagreement. But global warming, pollution, destruction of the environment, seem to be issues to concern us (but in the context of all the other problems that we seem to be facing).
2 people like this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
8 Feb 08
"I don't see any mention of a single private corporation. I suspect the reason is that many U.S. corporations are themselves struggling with how to meet the increasing pressure of clean fuel requirements." U.S. corporations are struggling? With their multi-BILLION dollar profits and CEO salaries in the hundreds of millions? They're only struggling to figure out new ways to screw the consumers and their employees. Annie
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
19 Jan 08
One thing that I have learned about members of Congress is that they never let actual facts get in the way of a feel good idea. Never mind that man is not responsible for any climate change or global warming - or cooling either for that matter... never mind that CO2 emissions have no real bearing on climate change.... never mind that global warming really isn't, that instead the earth seems to have been cooling since 1998... never mind that the IPCC and their consensus was politically motivated and is an attempt to grab world power.... and never mind that Al Gore is a blithering idiot who fancies himself as an environmental scientist, and whose "Inconvenient Truth" has been judged as a work of fiction on nine counts by a British Court. Congress does not want to be bothered by any of these facts because they are too busy trying to prove that they "care" about the world and are desperately trying to save us all from imminent impending doom while the "evil realists" are in complete denial and taking kickbacks from "big oil" and "soulless corporations". Congress doesn't want to acknowledge any of this because that means that they would have to admit that they were wrong. It also means hat they would have no more excuse for the exorbitant tax increases that they have planned in the name of stopping global warming and climate change. Anyone who buys into this charade is being foolish and demonstrating a naivety that is usually demonstrated by the liberals in our society... and it is all based on emotion and feelings and not a logical assessment of actual facts. In short, it is nothing more than a bill of goods and a big fat scam aimed at the American taxpayer. When it comes to liberals in any kind of position of power then it is time for a BOHICA Alert, because the American people are about to get screwed...again.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
19 Jan 08
Hello Destiny, I find no inaccuracy with any of your statements. In fact, you, me, and many others have frequently offered logical arguments outlining the absurdity of the GW argument. I suggested the possible need for I.Q. tests for members of Congress for two reasons: First, by now they must realize that news of these closed-door public funded policy decisions will surely get out to the public. This latest announcement was made on Monday of this week. Did they think that no one would notice? And second, because after the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Policy released their findings a few weeks ago, compiled by voluntary submission from over 400 highly respected international scientists debunking the garbage science that makes up the GW argument (over 400 scientists vs. the 4 scientists who substanitated the UN's Global Warming findings), that our Congress would have figured out that the American people are going to hammer them over agreeing to a multi-billion dollar program funded to help other nations develop clean fuel technology, when American corporations are themselves struggling to meet these increasing demands for clean fueled manufacturing. Either our elected representatives are genuine idiots, or they are completely uninterested in America, our businesses, and the taxpayer's burden.
1 person likes this
• United States
19 Jan 08
"Either our elected representatives are genuine idiots, or they are completely uninterested in America, our businesses, and the taxpayer's burden" I choose door number 2... especially given the fact that certain liberals in Congress recently announced their intention to impose the "mother of all tax increases" to the tune of $1.3 trillion, which just so happens to coincide with the amount of President Bush's tax cuts. They hate Bush and the American people so much that they are willing to ensure this country goes into a recession, much like the one we were in when Clinton left office. We already know that the liberals don't have any regard for business, although there are many very rich people in the democrat camp. We also know that they consider the American taxpayer to be an inexhaustible money supply, while at the same time mouthing platitudes about the poor and uninsured. It is their intention to keep Americans poor and dependent, an that is the purpose of their intended tax increases. That is the true goal of the liberals, and they are a very real threat to our freedom.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
20 Jan 08
Well then, it would seem that the mysterious 'twin mind meld' between you and Red is still alive and well. He seems to choose option #2 as well. Perhaps I'm being too generous in thinking that they just don't have their heads screwed on right.
1 person likes this
@drannhh (15240)
• United States
18 Jan 08
I get your drift, but I don't think that IQ scores necessarily measure any real values, and there is quite a bit of risk that they would be altered anyway. I've seen first hand some of the conditions under which those tests are administered and in my opinion there is quite a bit of room for error in the first place. Here is my prescription. Get a nice tall drink of iced tea or if it is cool up there today, a nice warm glass of spiced apple juice or hot chocolate, sit down, watch the 1979 movie called Being There, starring Shirley MaClaine and Peter Sellers, and repeat after me, "I can't read."
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Hello Drannhh, OK, the movie is not ringing a bell for me. Is your point that I should just find a pleasant distraction? If so, I'll add the movie to my "To See List". However, no movie is going to calm my fury at our elected representatives pledging billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to help foreign nations obtain clean fuel technology. That's what I mean by "Stupid is as stupid does". I'm pretty dad gum outraged over this. Today's headlines are the one-upsmanship between Congress & Bush over an economic stimulus package to cushion the blow of an American recession. Yet, Congress is pledging billions to pay for other nations to combat global warming?
1 person likes this
@drannhh (15240)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Nah, I don't usually regard diversions as pleasant. Besides, everyone is ignoring the rampant threat of global freezing, which is probably more imminent. Gives a new meaning to the word "Chill!" don't you think. I can't believe you never saw that movie. I hardly ever watch movies, but that one even I saw. I'm going to go have another glass of wheat grass juice. Mumble.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
18 Jan 08
Wow, somebody's certainly got her thinking cap on today. Yup, freezing is a distinctly unpleasant thought! Especially for desert heat lovers, like yourself. Incidentally, did you happen to catch the recent research (especially coming out of Russia) on global cooling? I have to hope the cooling theory supporters are just as screwy as the warming theory supporters. OK, that hot cider & a movie is sounding a whole lot more appealing now! 'Course, as soon as it's over, I'm gonna' get back to work researching why this international welfare pledge wasn't made public before it was passed. Grrrr!
2 people like this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
8 Feb 08
Am I the only one who caught the fact that India and China were the two prime countries mentioned in the article?....Yeah, I think I was considering the answers that I read. India and China just entered into an all encompassing agreement that seems to be holding very well. It covers military, economics, education, etc., etc. If this awesome agreement holds, it makes this the most formidable agreement ever written between two countries ever. It will make these two countries the biggest super power in the world. Do you suppose it is time for some Burro behind kissing? I do not think that in this case the Congressmen were showing their stupidity. They were showing their fear! They still have not made a wise choice. The money that is turned over will not be used for antipollution controls. It will undoubtably be used to further their (China,India)own agendas, but I think the Congresmen/women are grasping at straws, because they read what I read and it really scared me! Shalom~Adoniah
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
9 Feb 08
Hello Adoniah, I see that you got that new graphic uploaded -- very cool! Yes, this new, broad agreement between China and India is very troubling indeed. It is so on a great many levels, not the least of which is the fact that they are the two largest polluting 'developing' nations, who are exempt from internationally agreed upon pollution control measures. Perhaps you're right, that it is based in fear. Though, I'm more inclined to believe that it is more deeply steeped in the Congressional trend of appeasement for public relations purposes. And, that it is an effort by certain individuals to extend an olive branch for the U.S. having refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Either way, it is foolhearty -- until our own businesses get a handle on improving the efficiency rates of pollution limiting technologies, so as to meet the growing list of restrictions. Then again, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with your fear theory!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
8 Feb 08
Having a high I.Q doesn't guarantee one will have common sense and some whose I.Q. scores may not be quite in the "genius" range may actually have more common sense than their "less intelligent" counterparts. That having been said, I fear that while many of our members of Congress may have high I.Q.'s they may not fare as well if there were a "C.S." test given. However, having read the article you referenced, I can't see any problem with the plan so far. I'm not in the Climate Change Denial Club so I think it's a problem that definitely needs to be addressed and from what this article stated this may be a good start which will benefit the U.S. as much as it benefits other nations in the long run. How new is that? It doesn't say they will be using billions of our tax dollars, in fact it doesn't say they will use any of our tax dollars, but even if they did I'd say it's money much better spent than on this never-ending war in Iraq and all the funds being given to Bush's pals by way of no-bid contracts. Annie
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
9 Feb 08
Hello Anniepa, You're right about the gap between intelligence and common sense. Though, I think this void of specifics commitment exemplifies a deficiency in both. Please re-read the article and you cannot miss the comparative reference to the Marshall Plan. Which was heavily reliant on U.S. taxpayer dollars.
1 person likes this