Why We Need Smart Presidents

***See my next posting (chronologically) for a correction***

        I had a strong feeling that all of our great presidents were incredibly smart. And that most of our poorer ones were not. I knew there were exceptions to the rule. Nixon was quite smart but a failure, as was Hoover and Carter. LBJ, Jackson (who I believe to be overrated), Truman, and Eisenhower go the other way. None of them are near the bottom, but they are definitely not remembered for their brilliance, with the exception of Eisenhower battlefield abilities. No president has been dumb, in fact with the possible exception of Harding, all have had above average intelligence. Even W. was a relatively smart guy, at least in some areas.

     I was able to find a survey nearly perfect for my hypothesis. I used data from a 2010 Siena Poll of presidential scholars to calculate the correlation between intelligence and rankings. Sienna surveyed 238 presidential scholars, asking them to rate presidents in each of 20 categories. They averaged these out to come up with an overall ranking. As usual the Roosevelts, Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson stood at the top. Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, and W. Bush were the bottom of the barrel. Reagan continues to be an overrated president at 18.


    The results were better than I expected.  The regression line equation is   y= 0.8046x+4.299  where "y" is overall ranking and "x" is intelligence ranking. The r^2 value was .64737. Of course, in reality 'y' can never be greater than the total number of ranked presidents. So I also set the intersection at 0 and got y=.9528x with an r^2 value of .6184. Most would consider both of these r^2 to pretty high, but that's not for me to decide. 
        For those with not statistical background. A regression line is one where the sum of all the squares of the distances is minimized. The distance formula is simply the pythagorean theorem. r^2 is alway between 0 and 1 inclusive. The higher the better. In this case, the closer the regression equation is to y=x the stronger the evidence for my hypothesis.

Click on image for full (and readable) size.

***The Republican Risk***    

    Very few if any of the Republican candidates have IQs much more than one standard deviation above normal. Rick Perry's grades were recently leaked, which I think is unfair and unethical, not to mention illegal. And his terrible grades are not necessarily an indication of intelligence. The most telling indication of these Republicans is their denial of science. 


     I had trouble finding too much information on each candidates view on evolution, but I know that Santorum, Palin, and Bachmann (who doesn't even realize here husband is gay), Perry, and Romney all want creationism taught in schools along side the correct theory, evolution. They believe that children are smart enough to pick which one is the correct view. Obviously evolution is a scientific theory, also known as a fact, while creationism (or intelligent design, they are just different names for the same bullshit) is pure conjecture, a belief with no evidence. Of course children should be taught how to think not what to think, but schools have no business teaching religion and should avoid the possibility, no matter how remote, that one more child will turn away from critical thinking.
     I was raised a Unitarian Universalist by parents who have no interest in god.  I've been an avowed atheist since about eight and and had at least some understanding of the beauty of evolution since a little earlier than that. So I have no concept of what it's like to be taught creationism at an impressionable age. But it seems that creationism is the easier path. Evolution can be difficult to understand. Random genetic mutations can improve a species chances of survival and are more likely to pass these onto offspring. There is not universal quality that makes an individual more likely to survive. "Faster, higher, stronger" has no place in evolution. Creationism on the other hand is pretty easy as long as you don't ask any questions. Just say god did it and call it a day. 


     Of course outside of Romney, the four major candidates (also Bachmann, Perry, and the undecided Pailn) have always denied global warming. Perry has claimed that scientists manipulate data; Bachmann believes that, since CO2 is part of the regular life cycle and life can't exist without it, more is better. Interestingly Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur are also required for life on Earth; outside of Oxygen and Nitrogen I'd like to keep my consumption to a minimum.  Palin calls it snake oil. Because the Republican party is so bat-shit crazy Romney has backpedaled on his stance on global warming. He stands almost alone among high-level Republicans in accepting the frightening facts. Sort of. He seems to be turning into a denier, at least publicly. He now frames cleaner energy as an economic boon, which seems pretty similar to Obama's way of thinking. However unlike Obama, that he claims this is the only reason to not destroy our planet.


       There is John Hutsman; in a single tweet he reassured me that someone who will be standing on the Republican primary debate stage 25 more times has brains. He wrote "To be clear I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." He simultaneously shot his already slim chances to hell.


Correction: I previously stated there were only 19 categories; there are 20.