Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Inaccurate information

All of us make a mistake at times, and I'm no exception. Most of the time, these are 'innocent' mistakes and do little harm as well. But in the case of something publicized, even 'innocent' mistakes need to be corrected.

I got a message from a fellow blogger at another blogging website, whose blog I had been to earlier for a brief look. Seeing the brevity of my visit (after midnight, which is why) I did not arrive at any definite conclusions from his site, but he struck me as being orientated towards the political Right. In such cases, I say little or nothing and visit again at a more opportune time. The blogging website is one where all visitors are clearly identified, so we both knew who the other was.

But what really struck me the next morning is that, while calling to my attention the fact that one of my posts was inaccurate and was an "urban legend", he did it in a decent manner. Having been heavily involved in political debate and also blogging on internet for some six years now, this was a first for me. I have never been decently criticized by someone from the Right in the U.S., but have often been bashed, and most of the time unfairly and inaccurately. So this was a first.

Now, my post was a piece about U.S. presidential IQs, and I should have known better, for the website that hosted it, as well as its contents, was clearly suspicious to me for a number of reasons. Yet, because of the "dumb George" image floating around the world, and a higher regard for the intelligence of other presidents, I did post it without thinking further; I just joined in the poking fun of an obviously 'challenged' puppet politician.

The website source, and its material, is false, with the exception of Jimmy Carter. My own reactions to it should have alerted me, but I just went along. This is confirmed by, which I have in on a "My Yahoo" news sources page along with other mainstream news sources, and which the fellow blogger also pointed out. Here's my article:
And here's the Snope link:

My whole point with this post is to express both surprise at the decency of this fellow blogger whom I assume is a Rightie, and to simply point out that the post should not be taken as accurate.

Nonetheless, as I mentioned to him in a quick reply late last night, the numbers published are an indication, even if exaggerated or inaccurate. I left it still posted, for it does have some entertainment value to it, and is not entirely wrong. Besides, I wish to refer to it with this post.

That said, I know what my own IQ is, having had it thoroughly tested years ago by a highly regarded psychologist. It's not on the low side, but I am NOT impressed by IQ numbers, and feel they do not give an accurate indication of someone's true capabilities, or the ability to use them. They are a good indication of potential and some other attributes, but no guarantee of many things. I know that from my own experience. Our own character traits and what we experienced in our lives have a great deal to do with the level of our abilities and 'accomplishments'. And then, much of this is not at all valued in a money orientated and often superficial society.

All this aside, I am still of the opinion that G.W. Bush is the worst president of the U.S. in my lifetime, is intellectually limited, and also the most dangerous. The fact that he is still in office does not speak well of the political process in the country, either.


Post a Comment

<< Home