[quote author="green_cactus" date=1216095004][quote author="Nude" date=1216085915][quote author="skek" date=1216085647]Ah, Green, you managed to miss my point and failed to answer the questions I posed. In the abstract, I think we agree on your point 1 and, to a lesser extent, points 2 and 3 (although SATs and GPAs, all else being equal, do measure <em>something</em>...). Look, I get it. You hate George W. Bush. Therefore, he must be stupid. If you think that kind of knee-jerk debating style works for your cause, have at it, bud. I'm trying to get beyond the fever swamp and have a substantive debate about his legacy -- which I think could be an interesting discussion.</blockquote>
skek, don't waste your time, that's just the way he operates: bombthrower with little regard for facts, logic, or references.</blockquote>
Nude, this time your criticism is unwarranted. You cannot deduce the IQ of someone by looking at their SAT score. The SAT is more about being able to take a test, study/prepare for it and perform well under in that specific test environment. I don't see how I'm misstating facts or being illogical this time ...</blockquote>
"this time" being the operative phrase here. While you cannot identify someone's specific IQ, it is a safe bet that they rate higher than "moron" if they score higher than the norm on a college entrance exam. Which means that it is possible to "deduce" that they fall into a certain range based on their scores. Thinking logically, while there may be some flukes, it takes at least average intelligence to pass a test designed to measure the retention of knowledge accumulated in 12 years. If a person scores high on that test, and isn't an idiot savant or a cheater, then it logically follows that they have at least an average IQ, even if a direct correlation cannot be assigned. Saying otherwise is illogical.