AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12735
April 2nd, 2014 at 5:36:32 AM permalink
Quote: endermike

So what makes someone brilliant? I would assume either you have an objective criteria or is it a subjective judgement?



I'll take a stab at it. I would say to be "brilliant" a person needs to be able to get results by doing what really needs to be done, not what "science says should be done." Some examples:


Steve Jobs had a motto along the lines of, "Don't give your customer what they say they want, show them what they always wanted but never knew it." Put another way, if Steve gave me what I wanted I would not have an iPhone but rather a totally ordinary cell phone that cost $20.

Henry Ford said that if he listened to his customers they would have just wanted a better horse.

Bob Lutz is the best example. GM was able to hire the most "intelligent" people out there, if you had a 3.7 you needed not even apply. At Saturn the cars were blah, unremarkable products. When he said as much they were actually happy! Why? Because, "the research said our customers are not interested in how the car looks." But Lutz knew that is not what the customers really meant.

I could come up with more, but work calls.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
endermike
endermike
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 584
April 2nd, 2014 at 5:56:15 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I'll take a stab at it. I would say to be "brilliant" a person needs to be able to get results by doing what really needs to be done, not what "science says should be done." Some examples:


Steve Jobs had a motto along the lines of, "Don't give your customer what they say they want, show them what they always wanted but never knew it." Put another way, if Steve gave me what I wanted I would not have an iPhone but rather a totally ordinary cell phone that cost $20.

Henry Ford said that if he listened to his customers they would have just wanted a better horse.

Bob Lutz is the best example. GM was able to hire the most "intelligent" people out there, if you had a 3.7 you needed not even apply. At Saturn the cars were blah, unremarkable products. When he said as much they were actually happy! Why? Because, "the research said our customers are not interested in how the car looks." But Lutz knew that is not what the customers really meant.

I could come up with more, but work calls.



Those are some good examples of excellent businessmen. There are some skills that being an excellent businessperson and an excellent president share. However, what you cited are folks who could see what customers wanted/would purchase. More specifically people who were able to discern good advice from bad from their advisers and data on what to create. That is an indicator of brilliance, but not brilliance in it of itself.

Brilliance in the context of this thread (from thesaurus.com and http://dictionary.reference.com and edited by me for length and formatting):
2. Excellence or distinction; conspicuous talent, mental ability, etc.
Synonyms for brilliance: noun genius
cleverness, excellence, inspiration, intelligence, inventiveness, talent, wisdom, smartness, smarts

Back to my original reason for posting in this once hijacked, now properly split (thanks whoever did that) thread. President Obama is very smart. Most any unbiased, rational person would say his achievements and qualifications show him to almost surely be brilliant.

We probably do not have any hard evidence to his exact level of intelligence due to the ways politicians guard themselves. However, if soxfan wants to make a donation to my gambling bankroll, I will gladly take his bet, hey hey.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
April 2nd, 2014 at 6:04:23 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I don't think we are disagreeing on IQ, where we disagree is why does someone "seem intelligent." Those of us to right of center are asking why Obama supporters claim he is so intelligent.

I notice people find two kinds of "intelligence" in the world. The first is "school intelligence." This is the person who gets the good grades in school and after school in a corporate meeting can give the best sounding corporate-speak answer time after time.

"We need to synthesize our inputs in a way that gives good utility to our product for maximal customer satisfaction!"

Some people hear that and go goo-goo. The guy must be intelligent because after all, who else could come up with such a thing.


Then there is "utility intelligence." This is the guy who can look at a machine or situation, assess what is causing an issue, and make a correct fix. He is the one who tells the guy above, "yes, the research says your dog food is the best but the reason it does not sell is because the dogs don't like how it tastes."

I find the second guy more intelligent. Probably because I am the second guy way more than the first. I can pretend to be the first but find it a waste of time and hate life when I do it. I've had to put up with too many of the first guys in my life.



Totally get this. I could tell you how a 4-stroke, internal combustion engine works with shocking detail, all the way down to the molecular level and how the hydrocarbons break down to produce the energy. But give me that same engine I just described, and I'm not sure I could take it apart and put it back together without having a bunch of parts left over.

"Extras", I call them. I have a whole tote full from my race car build XD

Obama must have a lot of totes.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
April 2nd, 2014 at 6:43:36 AM permalink
Do we really judge presidents based on intellect? Many people would agree that Bush II wasn't a good president, but did his malapropisms and mispronunciation of the word "nuclear" really seal his fate as a poor president or was it his poor response to Katrina, rash decision to invade Iraq, and propensity for blatant distraction such as Federal Marriage Amendment that did so? Frankly, Bush did one thing very right - he surrounded himself with people who knew what they were doing.

Obama's Cabinet, as far as I can tell, is a disaster. Hillary Clinton left, Timothy Geithner couldn't keep himself out of trouble, Eric Holder appears ineffective, and don't get me started on Joe Biden, a man who should be able to work over Congress a lot better than what hes done. Sure, he can talk to people, but he can't manage people. He's a man much like Jimmy Carter - a smart man in the wrong position. Jimmy Carter would have made a great UN Secretary General because he was so concerned with human rights. As President, he was ineffective at playing the political game. Obama would be much better in a position leading educators. Think about it - Obama's other main source of income? His book. Not a business. A damn book. Obviously the man is smart, educated, and knows how to teach...y'know, since he's done it. He would probably be a phenomenal Secretary of Education. But as President? He's in the wrong position.

My personal politics lead me to prefer Obama to Bush, of course, but I take Obama simply because the mistakes he's made are less disastrous. Realistically, he's an average president who entered with ridiculously high expectations. But when it comes to where Obama fell short, it was because he had ambition to accomplish something and either failed to do so or was unable to do so. Closing Gitmo is an obvious example. Improving the economy...well, he doesn't inspire the same confidence FDR does. However, his response to Hurricane Sandy was a lot stronger than Bush's response to Katrina, and he doesn't have anything on his record close to Iraq.

As for his race...well, everyone carries baggage into the presidency. Bush II had his drug and alcohol problems and his father's legacy. Clinton had his past. Reagan was divorced. Kennedy was Catholic. FDR was in a wheelchair. Every president has had a cross to bear. People would abuse Obama for other reasons if he were white. And people will abuse the next guy (or lady, perhaps) for any old stupid reason.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14234
April 2nd, 2014 at 6:53:52 AM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer


...
As for his race...well, everyone carries baggage into the presidency. Bush II had his drug and alcohol problems and his father's legacy. Clinton had his past. Reagan was divorced. Kennedy was Catholic. FDR was in a wheelchair. Every president has had a cross to bear. People would abuse Obama for other reasons if he were white. And people will abuse the next guy (or lady, perhaps) for any old stupid reason.



I think you have a point, but presented from the wrong perspective IMO. "baggage" and "cross to bear", in most of your examples, suggest there is a legitimacy to the perception that those things listed impede a president from the performance of his duties. I would change the argument to being those who would hold ANY of these things (with the exception of drug/alchohol on 43 impairing his mental acuity) to be pertinent are themselves the problem, and that's where we need to change the conversation.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
socks
socks
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
April 2nd, 2014 at 6:57:16 AM permalink
I've seen people put Bush's IQ at 125-128 based on his Air Force test. While I don't think we have anything as solid on Obama, the most thought out estimate I've seen puts his IQ in the low to mid 140's, about the same as Nixon(143). For comparison, I believe JFK's IQ was 116.

While that difference is meaningful, I believe people think it's larger (or smaller) due to different styles of thought between the two, with Bush being a more visual thinker and Obama being more verbal.
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
April 2nd, 2014 at 7:01:01 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

I think you have a point, but presented from the wrong perspective IMO. "baggage" and "cross to bear", in most of your examples, suggest there is a legitimacy to the perception that those things listed impede a president from the performance of his duties. I would change the argument to being those who would hold ANY of these things (with the exception of drug/alchohol on 43 impairing his mental acuity) to be pertinent are themselves the problem, and that's where we need to change the conversation.



It's not necessarily something that impeded their ability to do the job, but it is something that impedes their public perception. FDR tried to avoid being photographed in a wheelchair to avoid appearing weak. JFK heard a lot of people who believed that he would just follow the Pope's orders. And since the days of Chevy Chase on SNL, any perceived weakness by a candidate has become fodder for comedy. Ford was a klutz, Clinton was a pervert, Bush II was a bumbling fool, and Obama was an exaggerated dork who couldn't bowl.

Just because something doesn't affect a person's ability to do the job (being a sex addict, a recovered drug addict, a black man, a Catholic, a klutz, etc.) doesn't mean people won't perceive it to do so.
socks
socks
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
April 2nd, 2014 at 7:07:09 AM permalink
Quote: soxfan

Obama is a creature of affirmative action, plain and simple. I've NEVER heard him say anything particularly intelligent and I'd wager heavily that his iq is one of the lowest of any sitting president, hey hey.


I heard him say something, which he didn't think was going to be on the record, about people not being able to think probabilistically. Granted, this doesn't mean that he does a particularly good job of this, but it does give some indication of how he thinks/talks when he's not talking to the lowest common voter.

Also, isn't law school grading blind? I used to think his time in law school wasn't a great indicator of his IQ, but then someone pointed that out and I reconsidered. You also have the phenomenon of minorities getting into law schools they aren't qualified for a then failing out, so I tend to think his Law School credential should be considered at face value.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12735
April 2nd, 2014 at 7:15:20 AM permalink
Quote: endermike

Those are some good examples of excellent businessmen. There are some skills that being an excellent businessperson and an excellent president share. However, what you cited are folks who could see what customers wanted/would purchase. More specifically people who were able to discern good advice from bad from their advisers and data on what to create. That is an indicator of brilliance, but not brilliance in it of itself.



This is part of why I cannot see Obama as being "brilliant." In the first place, he cannot make a decision. He still cannot decide on Keystone XL despite that we have 100s of 1000s of miles of pipelines all over the USA and it is a known technology of 80 years or more. He wants "more study." Analysis Paralysis is what he is in there. Sure he is trying to avoid the wrath of the crazy-greens, but a smart person knows a decision should have been made years ago.

Secondly he does not seem to grasp that people will change their behavior when a new policy comes into place. Take minimum wage. He thinks if you bump it then employers will just pay more. In reality they will have to do something to make up the difference.

Finally, he does not follow through on things. He acts like if he makes a speech or says for something to be done, then it is done. I tuned him out a few years back and don't even bother listening to him short of a national emergency. I am not alone. But he thought because he said Syria was not to cross a red line they would not.

Quote:

Most any unbiased, rational person would say his achievements and qualifications show him to almost surely be brilliant.



What achievements? He was elected to several posts, including POTUS. But he never really achieved anything at all. Most of his achievements seem to be him talking about himself. Ditto qualifications.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rob45
rob45
Joined: Jul 24, 2013
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 251
April 2nd, 2014 at 7:37:56 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

This is part of why I cannot see Obama as being "brilliant." In the first place, he cannot make a decision. He still cannot decide on Keystone XL despite that we have 100s of 1000s of miles of pipelines all over the USA and it is a known technology of 80 years or more. He wants "more study." Analysis Paralysis is what he is in there. Sure he is trying to avoid the wrath of the crazy-greens, but a smart person knows a decision should have been made years ago.

Sometimes I wonder exactly how much of the indecision stems from avoiding the wrath of environmentalists.
Without a pipeline, other methods of transportation (primarily RR) have to be considered.
Makes me wonder how the construction of a major pipeline would impact those industries, and who is heavily invested in those industries.
The nature of politics being as it is, were/are any of those individuals heavy contributors (AKA "in the back pocket")?

Pure speculation based upon my stubborn adherence to this belief: Always follow the money.

  • Jump to: