Articles Tagged with: dr. gina loudon
Click on this link for Fingers Malloy’s interview on The Dr. Gina Show!
Media Prattling About Political Candidates’ IQs Is Utter Nonesense
By Dr. Dathan Paterno and Dr. Gina Loudon
Published September 23, 2011 :: FoxNews.com
A raging debate in recent years about the intelligence—or lack thereof—of politicians makes one think that IQ scores are doled out like Social Security numbers and with greater transparency.Historian Michael Beschloss claimed about Obama: “This is a guy whose IQ is off the charts. … He’s probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Our nation’s foremost authority on intelligence, George Clooney, recently stated, “Look, there’s a guy in office right now who is smarter than almost anyone you know.”
One online blogger reasoned, “Since MENSA accepts various IQ tests as well as other cognitive tests to qualify for MENSA membership … Obama’s IQ Score could range anywhere from a low IQ score of 130…to a high IQ score of 148.”
Another, less-fawning author correlated SAT scores and the supposed IQ scores of several public figures: “Thus, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt drops his score to 1104, which is equivalent to an IQ of 116. That’s not bad, but it is significantly less intelligent than Hillary’s 140 IQ, as well as being lower than George W. Bush’s 125 IQ (1206 SAT).”
Rick Perry has been the latest recipient of amateur cognitive assessment. Liberal gadfly Paul Begala opined: “Even among state representatives, even among Texas Aggies (graduates of this cute remedial school we have in Texas), Perry stood out for his modest intellectual gifts…but lack of brains has never been a hindrance in politics.”
Of course, Sarah Palin has been the whipping girl of elites since September 2008. From Tina Fey’s portrayal of her as a bumbling fool who can’t find Russia on a map to U.S. News and World Report contributing editor Bonnie Erbe quoting a woman who had been an acquaintance of Palin (she was two years Palin’s junior at the same high school): “She doesn’t know a lot about politics, it’s more important to the American public that she looks like she does than what she has to say. We’re not holding her accountable the way we hold male politicians accountable. She’s unable to articulate much about her policy on oil or name a Supreme Court decision she disagrees with besides Roe. vs. Wade.”
Blogs are full of amateur psychologists, estimating the IQ of every candidate. All of them sound foolish.
Administering, scoring, and interpreting IQ tests makes up a healthy portion of a psychologist’s practice. Having given hundreds of these tests every year, we can say with authority that most of the media’s prattling about IQ scores of political candidates is unadulterated nonsense.
Very few people take reliable, valid, intelligence tests. It is doubtful that Palin, Obama, Romney, or Perry have taken a standardized IQ test in the past 20 years. Common reasons for taking IQ tests are entrance into a gifted academic program, evaluating for learning disabilities, and admission to Mensa. Even if these scores existed, it would be illegal for the psychologist to publish them. I certainly would get sued if I published confidential patient information. If someone wants to claim they know Rick Perry’s IQ score, that person had better have a good defense attorney. The only people who would likely make their own scores public are Mensa members, and these could easily be conflated (the ego seems to do powerful things to IQ scores).
Ultimately, intelligence is a construct, heavily debated over the decades since formalized intelligence testing began. Popular intelligence measures readily admit that the tests do not evaluate a person’s broader, overall intelligence. Rather, the tests are designed primarily to predict academic achievement. Wechsler chose the four most critical cognitive skills that he believed lead to academic success: verbal comprehension, visual-spatial processing, working memory and overall processing speed. While these certainly comprise the foundation for academic success, a single IQ score cannot do justice to the multidimensional nature of overall or practical intelligence, especially those skills that are required in politics.
Social skills, synthesizing concrete and abstract realities, deductive reasoning, emotional intelligence, flexibility of thought and creativity are just a few examples of cognitive abilities that are surely part of practical intelligence not evaluated on most intelligence tests.Is it altogether meaningless to suggest that a particular person is brilliant, dim-witted or moronic? Notwithstanding the ethical risks inherent in assessing another person’s intelligence—which inevitably speaks volumes about that person’s overall value as a human being—we think that formal, standardized tests cannot possibly assess a public figure’s practical intelligence.
We have developed a list of real world traits by which politicians can and should be judged regarding their intelligence. We call it Practical/Political Intelligence, or PPI for short. In Part II, which will run next week in Fox News Opinion, we will describe the traits of Practical/Political Intelligence, giving examples of public figures who exhibit these traits, some to a greater degree than others.
Dathan A. Paterno, Psy.D., is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and Clinical Director of Park Ridge Psychological Services, outside of Chicago. Working with children and families for twenty years, his expertise is equipping parents to reclaim their families using scientifically sound and proven methods. His parenting book, Desperately Seeking Parents, includes his parenting philosophy and a wealth of practical advice for modern parents. He also maintains the parenting blog found at www.desperatelyseekingparents.com.
Dr. Gina Loudon is the host of the “Dr. Gina Show” which airs in the Midwest and the South daily from 4 to 7 p.m CT. She is a national speaker analyst and writer on topics ranging from adoption to immigration and is credited as one of the “100 Founding Members” of the Tea Party movement.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/23/new-study-political-pundits-iq-lower-than-chop-suey/#ixzz1Ytf11RtI
See Dr. Gina Loudon on FOX 2 NOW discuss the State of the Union Speech.
REAGAN/PALIN APPRECIATION MONTH
WHEREAS, February is the birth month of four past and one future Presidents (Washington, Harrison, Lincoln, Reagan, and Palin), and
WHEREAS, February 6 this year is the 100th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s birth, and
WHEREAS, February 11 this year is the 47th anniversary of future President Sarah Heath Palin’s birth, and
WHEREAS, February is a very good month for the announcement of a candidacy for a Presidential run,
We ask our readers to join us in celebrating by signing this Proclamation of February 2011 as Reagan/Palin Appreciation Month.
This proclamation is partly in response to the liberal media’s proposing to make February a Palin-free month. That is fine with us, because that means our voices will be more clearly heard. So during the month of February, all of our sponsor blogs will be posting articles about Governor Sarah Palin on a daily basis. We will also be celebrating Ronald Reagan’s legacy during this month.
Governor Palin is a runner, and we see her as a torch-bearer for Reagan conservatism. As a “runner,” Sarah Palin is doing what most runners do before a race. She is stretching and warming up. She’s getting her organization together. She’s checking out the important primary states to see where she will need to spend most of her energy. And she’s fine tuning her message in preparation for hitting the campaign trail.
While we don’t necessarily expect an announcement on her intentions to run in February, we recognize February as a month when Governor Palin prepares herself to make that decision.
While the liberal media chooses to remain silent, we choose to get louder. We all recognize this as “Stretch and Warm Up” time for Sarah Palin. But while she stretches and warms up, the voices from the stands grow louder and louder. Run, Sarah, run! Run, Sarah, run!! Run, Sarah, run!!!
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PROCLAMATION
Listen to the audio here
See the original article on Big Government
We all know it is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, but apparently it is even more difficult to teach an old politician new ideas. They are still rearranging furniture in their office in preparation for this session, and the new batch of beltway babblers are acting more like Bozo the Clown than fiscal hawks. But government should not be conducted like a circus.
Raising the so-called debt ceiling will let the government continue to spend like clowns while they distract the people with their dazzling spending ability. The reality is that the spectacle has become somewhat nauseating for some and conservatives are saying that the show is over.
New Speaker of the House, John Boehner has indicated he is ready to lead the charge to immediately cut spending in an effort to avoid hitting the latest arbitrary debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says that Congress has to vote to raise the debt ceiling or incur financial disaster when creditors to the US will no longer be willing to loan us money.
The Facts
Politicians have raised the debt ceiling 74 times since March of 1962. They have raised it 10 times in the last 10 years. The debt ceiling stands at almost $15 Trillion, and increases around $19 million every hour.
The Problem
If you are a creditor to the US Government, you assumed some level of risk. It is no secret that the US Government is paying off the debt with Chinese money, not American. So the argument that we somehow lose leverage with our creditors is nonsensical. If you were a creditor, would you rather extend your AAA ratings to someone who got a new credit card from another company every time he hit his credit limits, or someone who refused the temptation, made tough choices, and took responsibility?
Democrats talk of ominous implications resulting from cutting spending. Conservatives know that if the lights have to be turned off in some bureaucrat’s office, or some pork is denied, life will go on.
The Reality
Speaker Boehner has acknowledged that America need not default on her debt in order to live within her means Refusal to raise the debt ceiling is not tantamount to fiscal ruination, it is merely an immediate and firm resolve to cut spending, as this Congress promised to do. Senator DeMint says this is “The Showdown” we have been waiting for.
Politicians love to draw false parallels (if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, then our economy will collapse) in order to elicit fear in people to act as they would have them act. But this is a show. Not raising the debt ceiling simply means our government won’t borrow any more money. It doesn’t mean we won’t honor our obligations for what we’ve already borrowed. The American people are wise to this tactic now and won’t be partaking in the kool aid any longer, thank you.
The Politics
America elected Conservatives to fix the problem of spiraling debt and spending insanity. America no longer believes the threats of the left when they promise tragic results if conservatives don’t act in accordance with the spending they need to buy off the pet constituencies that they know they need to maintain their power base. Democrats know if serious cuts in spending take place, they will lose their base. That might be the only real “tragedy” here.
Those asking us to consent to raising the debt ceiling are asking us to trust them—again. This smacks of giving a heroin addict a syringe as they promise not to actually use it. They are asking us to trust the untrustable. This is our childrens’ debt. Americans are done with that and ready to fix the problem, not prolong it.
The Call
The American voters who just flipped Congress are ready to flip who ever else continues in this spending circus. Almost everyone agrees that if we can’t borrow the money government will have to cut spending. We are asking our government to:
1) Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment
2) Cut spending
3) Leave the debt ceiling at $14 Trillion
And this should highlight our conviction and spell it out for you if no one else has: Conservatives are asking if it is possible to lower the debt ceiling.
This debt ceiling is fake—it is really no ceiling at all. Raising it is more like raising the big top of a circus tent. Now if we can just fold up the tent, get the clowns out of there, then we restore our vision of the ‘Shining City on the Hill’ with economic stability and fiscal solvency. This is one show we just cannot let go on.
As seen on Big Hollywood
Reality demonstrates that people act on their basest needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs says that basic needs are things like food, shelter, safety, and security. If one progresses up the scale, needs like love, belonging, esteem, and respect become important.
Hollywood is a competitive place to live and work. People who live and work there know that it might be the most competitive place to live in the entire world. The drive to succeed, to find an edge that propels you to the next level can be very compelling for those who are weak. Of those who crave the sort of attention that might compel them into the snake pit that is Hollywood, psychologists could agree that components in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are lacking in key areas such as confidence, friendship, and even morality. All of these mid-level needs should be met for healthy development of creativity, intellect, problem solving, and other high-level needs. Maslow might reason that in the desperate setting of Hollywood, the underdevelopment of needs like morality, confidence, respect of self and from others might lead to the malformative finding of one’s self at the top of the triangle, with many of the more basic needs still lacking. In Abraham Maslow’s terms, this is a recipe for disaster of philosophical incorporation.
Other factors contribute to misintegration of philosophical synthesis, as well.
Artists are often dependent on state funding. This may elicit a reactionary response whereby an artist who might otherwise be conservative is immediately comfortable with the idea of government finance and control in order to meet her basic needs as enumerated in the physiological component of Maslow’s needs (food, water, sex, sleep, survival).
Artists know that success is often found in pushing boundaries. Art is usually only cutting edge once, and genres tend to have a shelf life. There is only one O’Keefe, only one Eastwood, only one Bach. Those genres, recomposed for today, would not have the impact because they already did. The easiest way to create a niche is to push a boundary (for example, Ke$ha, Katie Perry, Madonna). Preserving tradition often results in preserving the status quo, and taking that to a level of marketable creativity is only for the artistic genius (It’s a Wonderful Life; The Passion; The Blind Side; Amazing Grace). The reality is that not all artists are geniuses. Therefore, they will be tempted to crutch on breaking norms to accomplish notoriety, rather than rely on genius they don’t have, or hope to have.
Erich Fromm said, “If I am what I have, and I lose what I have, who am I?” His ominous warning told a tale of the reality of someone who does not properly and systematically actualize.
Creativity is usually born of deep emotional angst. In order to tap into the deepest of creative ability, it is often necessary to dwell on emotions others have the convenience of glossing over. We are all sad when we experience the death of a pet. The creator of King Kong had to not only experience the death of an animal, he had to think of every complexity, and focus in depth on the emotional trauma in order to invite his audience to experience it on film. While we all at some point are witness to the death of an animal, the writers and producers of King Kong had to delve into every painful portion of those experiences, contemplate it, ruminate on it, and experiment with it in order to assure that his audience would live the most compelling parts of that loss in the movie. The result of all this is that the artist dwells in the realm of emotion. While all of us experience emotion, the rest of us have the luxury of moving on. Not the artist. He has to dissect it, magnify it, and live it for months on end. Then, like some cruel joke, the artist is often rewarded for his attention to detail in describing for all of us the precise most painful components of pain, loss, grief, insecurity, and other emotional parts. Thus, the artist is conditioned in a Pavlovian way to act based on emotion. It would seem natural that he would then transpose that action on other elements of his life, including his marriage, his friendships, and his politics.
Artists are not paid for tapping into the power of rationale, but rather, the power of emotion. Therefore, they have no real reason to exercise or even acknowledge the rational argument of a situation. Much of art is fantasy to begin with, for example, one would not appreciate the movie King Kong if the artist explained how a giant gorilla couldn’t really do what his movie depicted. The Harry Potter films would flop, Poe would be a side note, Monet would have sunk right into his pond, and the Twilight would be bankrupt. When an artist takes a look at how to “fix” a social or economic problem, it shouldn’t surprise us that they are looking for heroes and villains, for victims and perpetrators, and for bigger than life fantasies that aren’t based in reality (and therefore won’t work).
Artists are not trained to delve into the gray. They are trained to define the absolutes such as living, dying, good, bad, heaven, and hell in ways that most of us never really have to face. Therefore, when it comes time for an artist to consider possibilities, and rational conclusion in areas like politics that they don’t know, their mind immediately goes to the dramatic—the victim, the hero; the winner, the loser; the angel, the demon.
To further complicate matters, man has an innate need for God, or religion. Conservatives argue that such needs are God breathed, but liberals have to try to push those needs aside. Artists, who tend to be deeply emotional, sociologically less adept, and psychologically needier than the basic population, arguably have a deeper need for God than any other professional population. Liberalism, in it’s cult-like compulsion toward legalistically defined behavior as dictated by leaders (bankers, producers, dealers, funders) in Hollywood, and one that provides a sort of moral promise of victory, can be very alluring. This allure meets the higher level Maslovian esteem needs that the artist may not be prepared for if he has not met the lower level needs, as he has not in many cases. Thus, liberalism becomes a pseudo religion whereby answers to other unmet Maslovian needs promise to be met somehow; some way. As the expectation continues to exceed the outcome, the artist may grow weary of their religion of “Liberalism,” and make the switch! This may explain why many artists become conservatives
This predisposition toward emotionality and validation would make the most sound minded, conservative-leaning artist somewhat reactionary. The combination of gratification for emotional response to stimulus, and the fact that most artists deal in a fictional depiction of absolutes would naturally lead to a skewed perception of how people really work. Artists are not rewarded for reality. They are rewarded most often for their dramatic, condensed representation of what reality could be.
So the question becomes then—why do artists feel compelled or qualified to delve into the political when they have no training for it at all, and even their life experience lacks credentials necessary to relate to real Americans who don’t live in Hollywood? Should they not simply exclude themselves, much like a judge does when she knows she has conflicting experience that might impede her rational judgment in a case? Well, no, because we believe in freedom under the US Constitution—even under the knowledge that freedom could result in loss of liberties for having them.
In Frontpagemag.com, John J. Ray has a theory about fame and ego that is too good to paraphrase:
My basic proposal, then, is that most (but not all) Leftists/liberals are motivated by strong ego needs — needs for power, attention, praise and fame. And in the USA and other developed countries they satisfy this need by advocating large changes in the society around them — thus drawing attention to themselves and hopefully causing themselves to be seen as wise, innovative, caring etc. Rightists by contrast have no need either for change or its opposite and may oppose change if they see it as destructive or favour change if they see it as constructive.
We will see below why one of the most consistent themes to emerge from the Leftist’s love of change is the claimed need for “equality”. And the belief in “equality” also tends to lead to support for such things as redistribution of wealth generally, heavily “progressive” income taxes, inheritance taxes, foreign aid, feminism, gay rights and socialized medicine. Again for reasons explored below, Leftists also tend to oppose religion and the churches and this in turn tends to mean that they favour abortion and oppose or obstruct religious schooling in various ways. So let us now briefly look at some of these characteristic Leftist/liberal themes to see how they relate to basic Leftist motives.
And he concludes:
But in all cases, bitter experience has shown that Leftists in power are very dangerous and destructive people. Where their power is effectively unchecked, they generally seem to resort sooner or later to mass murder (as in the case of the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and many Communist regimes and movements worldwide) and where they are partially thwarted by strong democratic traditions and institutions, they at least bring about large-scale impoverishment (as in post-independence India and pre-Thatcher Britain).
All people including artists want to believe that their work is meaningful and significant. For artists, this propels their belief that human nature is changeable with proper “education” which thereby gives credence to their work. Thus, to believe in their own meaningful output of work product, they must fancy themselves “educators” capable of changing people in important ways.
If you believe, as I do, and as John J. Ray does, that liberalism is inherently destructive and conservatism, while imperfect, is the far better alternative, then you need to know that my psychological training perceives hope on the horizon, because of the current liberal artists’ dilemma: the liberal artist is marketing today to a glowingly conservative consumer. Conservatives are crying out for family oriented, morally compelling, traditional values that once graced the silver screen and our television sets. The heart of America is sentimental for a turn back to the roots of Hollywood. If the market is demanding enough, it just might result in the artists resorting to Maslow’s Hierarchy to make a living to meet their basic needs, and that might look a lot like the recent mid term elections when we just threw the bastards out and changed the course of history.
Bravo, Hollywood. The best is yet to come.
Will Republicans Waiver on Debt Ceiling?
see the original article here with audio
For the last seven years I have been the Technical Director for the Dr. Laura Program. This has been an educational and maturing experience and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with her.
Whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Laura she has a right to her opinion and you have a right to yours. I find it interesting how some people talk about being open minded and tolerant yet they attack with venomous anger those who disagree with them. I am also sick of people accusing her of being a racist because of the incident with a caller in August.
It was frustrating to watch pundits and Al Sharpton ignorantly distort what Dr. Laura said. I know this woman and I can tell you this for certain, she is not a racist. Even though I will not be joining her as she moves to Sirius XM, I love watching her detractors froth with rage because they can no longer threaten her affiliates and sponsors.
Dr. Laura has been a friend and mentor and I want to publically wish her the best as she begins a new chapter in her life. Change is difficult and I must now change as well. I am excited and open to any and all opportunities that will come my way in the coming months.
Thank you for supporting the show and following my career. Radio is my first love and I will continue to host Uncommon Ground and The Sharp Report. Have a blessed and Happy New Year!
Stay Sharp!
Dr. Gina Renders Ellen Ratner Speechless - Part I
Dr. Gina Renders Ellen Ratner Speechless - Part II
Tea Party Influence 2012
Bill Federer - The Real Nick Story - Part II
Bill Federer Shares the Real St. Nick Story - Part I
Government Pushing Banks to Pay Homeowners $21K to Leave Homes
Obama and Political Leaders Holding Closed Door Meetings
Risk of Recession: Obama's Policies are Affecting Small Business
Departing Lawmakers Hand Out Millions in Extra Pay to Aides
GOP Should Call Democrats Bluff!
Lawmakers Should Live Within Their Means
September 22, 2011 GOP Debate