6 ms·

Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I would be in literal, not figurative, disbelief if any p

by tormeh 9y ago

Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I would be in literal, not figurative, disbelief if any president in the history of modern US weren't. The competition for that position is very sharp and only the best make it. There are many problems with Trump, but IQ isn't one of them. Hitler wasn't dumb either. Being a good demagogue is hard. The strategy and skillset is somewhat different to ordinary politics, but don't mistake that for ease. While we're at it: Youtubers and fashion bloggers aren't dumb either. Trump is narcissistic, insecure, mean, ignorant and has no honor, but dumb he ain't. Underestimating the guy is unwise.

Retra 9y ago
Hitler put himself into a situation where the best option, in his opinion, was to blow his own brains out. So he's not winning any awards for being brilliant. Perhaps being a good demagogue has more to do with luck and circumstance than it does with skill and intelligence? Maybe that's why it's not so common? Intelligence means achieving your goals on purpose. It is something that can be taught and reproduced in others. You can't just wait for entropy to spontaneously arrange for your success and claim to be a genius, even if it works the one time you try it.
- watwut 9y ago
  Your definition of intelligence is quite unorthodox and so is idea that brilliance somehow excludes suicide or risk taking or over confidence - all things that can make you loose big time. Hitler ability to speak was not luck. It was work, skill and talent. And world did not just spontaneously arranged itself for them to get power, Hitler took a lot of calculated deeps to make it so, it is not like he was only one trying to get that power. Saying that it was nothing but luck is ahistorical. Not that it makes him any less immoral.
  - namelost 9y ago
    Hitler was perhaps one of the stupidest people to ever grace the history books, and managed to wipe out vast numbers of his own people, including himself, in a completely pointless war of his own making, wherein he managed to make enemies of three of the most powerful entities in the world at that time.
    - slededit 9y ago
      The alternative was a Germany as vassal state under crippling WWI reparations and a failing economy. The war was not "pointless" even if it ultimately failed in its goals. I'm not defending his ideology, but its important to understand the rational reasons behind his decisions if we want to prevent another global catastrophe. Even without Hitler its still likely Germany would have instigated fighting at some point.
      - lsc 9y ago
        so, that's one way of looking at it, it's the conventional view, and probably more correct, but... Another way of looking at it is that the fighting resulted because France and the allies didn't crack down on Germany when they failed to meet the terms of their surrender. Personally, I feel that your view (and the conventional view) is more correct, but it's interesting to think about the converse. I mean, we've still got troops in Germany today, right? What if that's the key? It wasn't about economically rebuilding them, but what if, instead the war didn't flare up again simply because the occupation never ended?
    - watwut 9y ago
      It was war for territory, "living space" and ultimately world domination. Effectively, it was imperial project. The other powers were not about to give power up for free. Those are quite clear points. Hitler did not valued life and got used to violence in WWI. That has nothing to do with intelligence either. Both stupid and smart people can grow to not value life and be ruthless and confident and power hungry and taking too much risk.
  - Retra 9y ago
    I didn't provide a definition of intelligence, I provided a description of it. The ability to win at dice is not intelligence. That's not a controversial claim. >Hitler ability to speak was not luck. Nor was it particularly intelligent. Plenty of people speak well. He just had a podium in front of the right people. People who wanted to hear stupid ideas delivered with emotion. If you stood him in front of his enemies, he would be insulted and denigrated, because he wasn't a good speaker so much as he was good at finding an approving audience. You're not a great runner if you happen to look around and find yourself a race where you win by moving slowest. If that brings you rewards, you're lucky. Not skilled. Hitler was an opportunist, and you can't learn to succeed in life by following his example. Because luck can't be taught.
    - watwut 9y ago
      What you wrote is not true. Hitler was very good at reading audience, adjusting speech to them and seeing how they react. His work and actions had impact on that movement sucess. I would not learn from Hitler, because his idea of sucess involves imperialistic war and multiple genocides. And his ideology praised ruthlessness as a virtue. Has nothing to do with whether he had speeking skill or not, whether he could paint well or not. Just because he was bad guy does not mean we have to go all emotional and pretend he had IQ 75. That just allowing emotions to win over what and why happened.
      - Retra 9y ago
        I'm not saying he was stupid, I'm saying he wasn't particularly intelligent. I.e., not an archetypical example of an intelligent person.
Hasz 9y ago
Some of Trump's advisers are not to be underestimated. Their brilliance is in using Trump -- who has off the charts emotional intelligence -- as a president. They frame the issues, he taunts and captivates the press. I would point to the incredible power struggle in the white house as a product of the undue behind-the-scenes influence.
- tormeh 9y ago
  Good point. I suspect Trump doesn't care about most issues, so GOP and administration gets free reign on those. I suspect that's part of why he hasn't been impeached and part of the benefits package of working for the administration.
- baybal2 9y ago
  >Some of Trump's advisers are not to be underestimated. Their brilliance is in using Trump -- who has off the charts emotional intelligence -- as a president. They frame the issues, he taunts and captivates the press. I like that you are one of the few people who seem to pick that up. The setup is almost the same for Russian political establishment, and as you see it worked with devastating efficiency.
Jyaif 9y ago
> but dumb he ain't He puts himself in trouble all the time via tweets. That's pretty dumb in my book. > Underestimating the guy is unwise I agree with that. Underestimating someone with as little honor and ethics as Trump is dangerous.
- coolso 9y ago
  He mostly gets himself in trouble with the media, and most people hate the media. Trump won because he got himself in trouble with the establishment all the time. Not sure how that’s dumb.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I think you mean rich—from below market returns on inherited wealth—and well-connected (as a result of the former) and a celebrity (largely also a result of the first item, combined with America’s idolization of wealth, both recently and more particularly in the 1980s when he established his celebrity status.)
IIAOPSW 9y ago
>Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I think you're attributing to intelligence what can easily be explained by money. Give me a few billion and a decade to turn my name into a brand then it will be a fair comparison.
user5994461 9y ago
Leaders are between 1 and 2 standard deviation on top of the average. It's been studied already.
nubbins 9y ago
I'm sure at one time he was of at least above average IQ, after all the average person accomplishes very little, wealthy parents or not. But I wouldn't call him (now at least) smart either as to me that implies some kind of skill or at least attempt at abstract reasoning. He does have a talent for tapping into this great unconscious id that I think makes him like an actor or artist in some ways.
justin66 9y ago
> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. It is more a question of whether the right people want you to.

by tormeh 9y ago

Retra 9y ago

Hitler put himself into a situation where the best option, in his opinion, was to blow his own brains out. So he's not winning any awards for being brilliant. Perhaps being a good demagogue has more to do with luck and circumstance than it does with skill and intelligence? Maybe that's why it's not so common? Intelligence means achieving your goals on purpose. It is something that can be taught and reproduced in others. You can't just wait for entropy to spontaneously arrange for your success and claim to be a genius, even if it works the one time you try it.

watwut 9y ago
Your definition of intelligence is quite unorthodox and so is idea that brilliance somehow excludes suicide or risk taking or over confidence - all things that can make you loose big time. Hitler ability to speak was not luck. It was work, skill and talent. And world did not just spontaneously arranged itself for them to get power, Hitler took a lot of calculated deeps to make it so, it is not like he was only one trying to get that power. Saying that it was nothing but luck is ahistorical. Not that it makes him any less immoral.
- namelost 9y ago
  Hitler was perhaps one of the stupidest people to ever grace the history books, and managed to wipe out vast numbers of his own people, including himself, in a completely pointless war of his own making, wherein he managed to make enemies of three of the most powerful entities in the world at that time.
  - slededit 9y ago
    The alternative was a Germany as vassal state under crippling WWI reparations and a failing economy. The war was not "pointless" even if it ultimately failed in its goals. I'm not defending his ideology, but its important to understand the rational reasons behind his decisions if we want to prevent another global catastrophe. Even without Hitler its still likely Germany would have instigated fighting at some point.
    - lsc 9y ago
      so, that's one way of looking at it, it's the conventional view, and probably more correct, but... Another way of looking at it is that the fighting resulted because France and the allies didn't crack down on Germany when they failed to meet the terms of their surrender. Personally, I feel that your view (and the conventional view) is more correct, but it's interesting to think about the converse. I mean, we've still got troops in Germany today, right? What if that's the key? It wasn't about economically rebuilding them, but what if, instead the war didn't flare up again simply because the occupation never ended?
  - watwut 9y ago
    It was war for territory, "living space" and ultimately world domination. Effectively, it was imperial project. The other powers were not about to give power up for free. Those are quite clear points. Hitler did not valued life and got used to violence in WWI. That has nothing to do with intelligence either. Both stupid and smart people can grow to not value life and be ruthless and confident and power hungry and taking too much risk.
- Retra 9y ago
  I didn't provide a definition of intelligence, I provided a description of it. The ability to win at dice is not intelligence. That's not a controversial claim. >Hitler ability to speak was not luck. Nor was it particularly intelligent. Plenty of people speak well. He just had a podium in front of the right people. People who wanted to hear stupid ideas delivered with emotion. If you stood him in front of his enemies, he would be insulted and denigrated, because he wasn't a good speaker so much as he was good at finding an approving audience. You're not a great runner if you happen to look around and find yourself a race where you win by moving slowest. If that brings you rewards, you're lucky. Not skilled. Hitler was an opportunist, and you can't learn to succeed in life by following his example. Because luck can't be taught.
  - watwut 9y ago
    What you wrote is not true. Hitler was very good at reading audience, adjusting speech to them and seeing how they react. His work and actions had impact on that movement sucess. I would not learn from Hitler, because his idea of sucess involves imperialistic war and multiple genocides. And his ideology praised ruthlessness as a virtue. Has nothing to do with whether he had speeking skill or not, whether he could paint well or not. Just because he was bad guy does not mean we have to go all emotional and pretend he had IQ 75. That just allowing emotions to win over what and why happened.
    - Retra 9y ago
      I'm not saying he was stupid, I'm saying he wasn't particularly intelligent. I.e., not an archetypical example of an intelligent person.

Hasz 9y ago

Some of Trump's advisers are not to be underestimated. Their brilliance is in using Trump -- who has off the charts emotional intelligence -- as a president. They frame the issues, he taunts and captivates the press. I would point to the incredible power struggle in the white house as a product of the undue behind-the-scenes influence.

tormeh 9y ago
Good point. I suspect Trump doesn't care about most issues, so GOP and administration gets free reign on those. I suspect that's part of why he hasn't been impeached and part of the benefits package of working for the administration.
baybal2 9y ago
>Some of Trump's advisers are not to be underestimated. Their brilliance is in using Trump -- who has off the charts emotional intelligence -- as a president. They frame the issues, he taunts and captivates the press. I like that you are one of the few people who seem to pick that up. The setup is almost the same for Russian political establishment, and as you see it worked with devastating efficiency.

Jyaif 9y ago

> but dumb he ain't He puts himself in trouble all the time via tweets. That's pretty dumb in my book. > Underestimating the guy is unwise I agree with that. Underestimating someone with as little honor and ethics as Trump is dangerous.

coolso 9y ago
He mostly gets himself in trouble with the media, and most people hate the media. Trump won because he got himself in trouble with the establishment all the time. Not sure how that’s dumb.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I think you mean rich—from below market returns on inherited wealth—and well-connected (as a result of the former) and a celebrity (largely also a result of the first item, combined with America’s idolization of wealth, both recently and more particularly in the 1980s when he established his celebrity status.)

IIAOPSW 9y ago

>Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I think you're attributing to intelligence what can easily be explained by money. Give me a few billion and a decade to turn my name into a brand then it will be a fair comparison.

user5994461 9y ago

Leaders are between 1 and 2 standard deviation on top of the average. It's been studied already.

nubbins 9y ago

I'm sure at one time he was of at least above average IQ, after all the average person accomplishes very little, wealthy parents or not. But I wouldn't call him (now at least) smart either as to me that implies some kind of skill or at least attempt at abstract reasoning. He does have a talent for tapping into this great unconscious id that I think makes him like an actor or artist in some ways.

justin66 9y ago

> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. It is more a question of whether the right people want you to.