<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thompson Surges in Poll</title>
	<atom:link href="http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/</link>
	<description>Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:45:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Stevens</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1230</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Stevens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1230</guid>
		<description>I have found that I have a great deal of difficulty estimating the intelligence of people I have known for years, never mind estimating the intelligence of people I have never met.  I'm going to argue that all you can tell about a person's intelligence by listening to them is that you might be able to get a rough idea of a minimum.  If, for example, the person seems to have a large vocabulary and puts together sentences well, that's an indicator of a certain minimum level.  (The smarter the person is, the more you might be able to raise that minimum, though I think people are often overpersuaded by mere articulation, which can be studied and practiced by people of quite ordinary intelligence until they &lt;i&gt;sound&lt;/i&gt; brilliant.)  However, the opposite cannot be judged.  Some of the smartest people I ever met were not very good communicators (I'm in mathematics).  They simply had not bothered to apply themselves to communicating well the same way a great many people (a far larger percentage of the population) never bother to apply themselves to mathematics.  

Similarly, I believe that honors at school virtually always indicate intelligence.  (I might even go so far as to say invariably, but I imagine there are some schools that are loose with their honors.)  The &lt;i&gt;opposite&lt;/i&gt; is not true.  You can be a genius and graduate last because you just didn't feel like working (or going to class), but you have to be pretty near the top to graduate first.  Quality of school will obviously play some sort of factor, though not as much as many people think.  Being valedictorian at a quality public college is nearly as impressive as being valedictorian at Harvard.  (Being at the bottom of Harvard is probably quite a bit more impressive than being at the bottom of a quality state school, though.)  However, I wouldn't necessarily place much stock in being top of the class at a community college or a low-quality four year college.  (I mean no disrespect to community colleges, of course, which perform a valuable function.  Nor should we assume any maximum intelligence based merely on where people went to school.  Some of the smartest people I've met never graduated, or even attended, college at all.)

By the way, I said "I have no doubts" above, but I definitely do concede the possibility that Fred Thompson is more intelligent than Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton.  I just don't think it's very likely.  If Micah had said that Fred Thompson is too sensible to be President, I would perhaps have granted that this might be true.  In general, I don't think the most sensible people &lt;i&gt;want&lt;/i&gt; to be President, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone campaign as reluctantly as Thompson did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have found that I have a great deal of difficulty estimating the intelligence of people I have known for years, never mind estimating the intelligence of people I have never met.  I&#8217;m going to argue that all you can tell about a person&#8217;s intelligence by listening to them is that you might be able to get a rough idea of a minimum.  If, for example, the person seems to have a large vocabulary and puts together sentences well, that&#8217;s an indicator of a certain minimum level.  (The smarter the person is, the more you might be able to raise that minimum, though I think people are often overpersuaded by mere articulation, which can be studied and practiced by people of quite ordinary intelligence until they <i>sound</i> brilliant.)  However, the opposite cannot be judged.  Some of the smartest people I ever met were not very good communicators (I&#8217;m in mathematics).  They simply had not bothered to apply themselves to communicating well the same way a great many people (a far larger percentage of the population) never bother to apply themselves to mathematics.  </p>
<p>Similarly, I believe that honors at school virtually always indicate intelligence.  (I might even go so far as to say invariably, but I imagine there are some schools that are loose with their honors.)  The <i>opposite</i> is not true.  You can be a genius and graduate last because you just didn&#8217;t feel like working (or going to class), but you have to be pretty near the top to graduate first.  Quality of school will obviously play some sort of factor, though not as much as many people think.  Being valedictorian at a quality public college is nearly as impressive as being valedictorian at Harvard.  (Being at the bottom of Harvard is probably quite a bit more impressive than being at the bottom of a quality state school, though.)  However, I wouldn&#8217;t necessarily place much stock in being top of the class at a community college or a low-quality four year college.  (I mean no disrespect to community colleges, of course, which perform a valuable function.  Nor should we assume any maximum intelligence based merely on where people went to school.  Some of the smartest people I&#8217;ve met never graduated, or even attended, college at all.)</p>
<p>By the way, I said &#8220;I have no doubts&#8221; above, but I definitely do concede the possibility that Fred Thompson is more intelligent than Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton.  I just don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s very likely.  If Micah had said that Fred Thompson is too sensible to be President, I would perhaps have granted that this might be true.  In general, I don&#8217;t think the most sensible people <i>want</i> to be President, and I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;ve ever seen anyone campaign as reluctantly as Thompson did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Renaissance Guy</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1224</link>
		<dc:creator>Renaissance Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1224</guid>
		<description>Andrew Stephens, you have a valid point.  The way I tend to judge the candidates' intelligence (or anyone else's) is by hearing what they say on various topics--not only what they say, but how they articulate their ideas.  I don't necessarily think that honors at school always indicate intelligence, although they certainly point toward it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew Stephens, you have a valid point.  The way I tend to judge the candidates&#8217; intelligence (or anyone else&#8217;s) is by hearing what they say on various topics&#8211;not only what they say, but how they articulate their ideas.  I don&#8217;t necessarily think that honors at school always indicate intelligence, although they certainly point toward it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Stevens</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1222</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Stevens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1222</guid>
		<description>I do object to defining intelligence so that it actually means "agrees with me the most."  This is not our common sense definition of intelligence (for one thing, because it's then hopelessly subjective).  This is why I used various academic achievements (Latin honors at college graduation, etc.) as rough proxies for estimates of intelligence.

I honestly couldn't say which candidate has the most common sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do object to defining intelligence so that it actually means &#8220;agrees with me the most.&#8221;  This is not our common sense definition of intelligence (for one thing, because it&#8217;s then hopelessly subjective).  This is why I used various academic achievements (Latin honors at college graduation, etc.) as rough proxies for estimates of intelligence.</p>
<p>I honestly couldn&#8217;t say which candidate has the most common sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Renaissance Guy</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1220</link>
		<dc:creator>Renaissance Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1220</guid>
		<description>Sadly, Thompson has withdrawn.

What appeals to me, besides his emphasis on principles, is his common sense.  Maybe that's what Micah actually means by &lt;i&gt;intelligence&lt;/i&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sadly, Thompson has withdrawn.</p>
<p>What appeals to me, besides his emphasis on principles, is his common sense.  Maybe that&#8217;s what Micah actually means by <i>intelligence</i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Stevens</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1189</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Stevens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1189</guid>
		<description>Just to nitpick a bit.

"And it also means he’s probably too intelligent to win. He appeals to my philosopher side, but I suspect campaigns are built on soundbites, not intelligence."

While that latter sentence may very well be true, the first sentence does not follow.  Bill Clinton was Phi Beta Kappa at Georgetown, a Rhodes Scholar, and received his J.D. from Yale.  I have no doubts, at least, that he is more intelligent than Thompson and Clinton won the whole thing.

In any event, intelligence is vastly overrated.  The best President of my lifetime was Ronald Reagan and nobody would describe him as an intellectual.  Harry S. Truman was a fine President and nobody accused him of being an intellectual.  The smartest person in the field is quite clearly Mitt Romney (summa cum laude from BYU where he transferred from Stanford, magna cum laude from Harvard where he earned an MBA and a J.D.).  I'm not convinced that Romney is the best candidate in the field.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to nitpick a bit.</p>
<p>&#8220;And it also means he’s probably too intelligent to win. He appeals to my philosopher side, but I suspect campaigns are built on soundbites, not intelligence.&#8221;</p>
<p>While that latter sentence may very well be true, the first sentence does not follow.  Bill Clinton was Phi Beta Kappa at Georgetown, a Rhodes Scholar, and received his J.D. from Yale.  I have no doubts, at least, that he is more intelligent than Thompson and Clinton won the whole thing.</p>
<p>In any event, intelligence is vastly overrated.  The best President of my lifetime was Ronald Reagan and nobody would describe him as an intellectual.  Harry S. Truman was a fine President and nobody accused him of being an intellectual.  The smartest person in the field is quite clearly Mitt Romney (summa cum laude from BYU where he transferred from Stanford, magna cum laude from Harvard where he earned an MBA and a J.D.).  I&#8217;m not convinced that Romney is the best candidate in the field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Politics &#187; Thompson Surges in Poll</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1183</link>
		<dc:creator>Politics &#187; Thompson Surges in Poll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:45:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1183</guid>
		<description>[...] Micah Tillman wrote an interesting post today on Thompson Surges in PollHere&#8217;s a quick excerptWhat a great phrase. “Surges in the polls.” He’s just broken the 20% barrier in SC. That’s exciting for me, because Thompson is either the only candidate who understands the difference between principles and issues, or he’s the only &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Micah Tillman wrote an interesting post today on Thompson Surges in PollHere&#8217;s a quick excerptWhat a great phrase. “Surges in the polls.” He’s just broken the 20% barrier in SC. That’s exciting for me, because Thompson is either the only candidate who understands the difference between principles and issues, or he’s the only &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Thompson Surges in Poll</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1182</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Thompson Surges in Poll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/2008/01/18/thompson-surges-in-poll/#comment-1182</guid>
		<description>[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerpt [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerpt [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
