On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:56:44 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
wrote:

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

Is UP a legit source? Just to depress you some more, according to the
story, because of score inflation, his score would equate to a 1280 today,
which is the 88th percentile today.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r

Also of note in the article you linked:

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to
use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or
curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or
cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of
"openness to experience."


This brings up an interesting perspective. When looking at statements,
they fall into 4 categories: 1) Facts, 2) Opinions, 3) Feelings, and 4)
Beliefs.

Now, the statement regarding where Bush scored is a fact -- it is
something happened, is unalterable, and is not open to debate. For someone
who has been trying to show how dumb, how inept, and how stupid Bush is,
this is a problem. It undermines a primary feeling or belief possessed by
that person that Bush is unworthy.

Thus, the subsequent statements by Simonton fall into the category of pure
opinion. It is Simonton's OPINION that Bush has little intellectual energy
or curiositiy. It is his OPINION that Bush doesn't use the brains he's
got. It is Simonton's OPINION that Bush's aesthetic and cultural tastes
are not "bona fide". [Whetever *that* is supposed to mean relative to some
pretty subjective criteria]. These opinions all serve more to expose
Simonton's beliefs and feelings than they do to serve as an indication of
Bush's qualifications one way or the other.


Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide
connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running,
fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them.


First sentence again leaves a connotation of the commentator's beliefs
and opinions rather than any real substantive indictment of Bush's
abilities. The second sentence finally begins to return to statements of
fact. Now, an opinion that can be drawn from the fact that Bush "pays
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them" is that this is one of the qualities of a leader.



Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative
complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple
perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent
viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his
own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I
hear you,' but he really can't."


Again, these statements serve more to illustrate the opinions, feelings,
and beliefs of the commentator rather than serving as a substantive
assessment of the person being critiqued. Note that no facts are cited (if
such "facts" could even be ascertained regarding something so nebulous and
esoteric as "integrative complexity"). One way to restate the above that
accentuates the positive, rather than connotes a negative is to make the
statement that Bush has a solid world-view and does not change his
positions with the shifting of the political winds. Again, such a
characteristic is one of the key characteristics of a leader, one who will
stand by a decision and see it through, not shifting direction at the first
or second setback encountered along the way. [Yes, that statement is an
opinion].

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL