# Does IQ hint at political affiliation? Are you up for a basic test where a pattern may be evident?

1. Which of the following figures differs most from the others?

a. 5.21

b. 5.27

c. 9.33

2. Which of the following appears more distinct and unrelated to the others?

a. 9.175

b. 9.162

c. 16.33

3. Which is the least related and lowest numerical value overall?

a. 63.3

b. 62.8

c. 58.7

4. Can you spot a figure nearly double the other two?

a. 15.5

b. 17.7

c. 32.4

5. Select the most dissimilar positive integer from the other two

a. 1795

b. 1883

c. 3417

If you answered C. for each of the above, you’re approved to safely sit in front of a computer without supervision and may do so without restrictions on sharp objects nearby. Not exactly a hard test, was it?

Now the political implications. In every question, the values represent employment data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports. As some may have recognized, each figure next to (a.) lists employment data for William Jefferson Clinton. Each (b.) answer provides employment data under George W. Bush. And lastly, (c.) answers show data for Barack Hussein Obama’s 37 months in office, thus far.

In explanation of what the figures represent, question 1 lists U3 unemployment data recorded for 96 months of Clinton’s and Bush’s two terms as President, and 37 months for the incredible 80% increase Obama's shown over his predecessors. While it’s accurate to note that Obama’s 9.33% U3 average is the highest on record since U3 was introduced in 1994, it’s occasionally compared to Presidents ahead of Clinton whose unemployment figures would now appear closer to U5 counts. For anyone interested in complete U3 figures, they’re available from the BLS on Series Reports LNS14000000 and LNU04000000.

Question 2 offered the alternative U6 REAL Unemployment value first figured in 1994, which sought to keep a separate record while at least partially obscuring certain unemployed worker categories intentionally excluded from media released U3 data beginning with Clinton’s second year. Without considering statistics which offer more real, inclusive counts, it’s simply not possible to make credible comparisons of the current media released figures to Presidents preceding Clinton. Note here that Obama’s 16.33% figure again shot up 79% above U6 figures turned in by his predecessors. And with this REAL unemployment calculation, Bush’s 9.162% was lower over eight years than Clinton’s. U6 data was. Monthly figures are available on Series Report LNU03327709.

Question 3 might represent the most important statistic for anyone trying to understand the overall employment picture, because current workforce numbers are compared with rolling census data. It presents a participation rate with who’s employed calculated as the “Employment Population Ratio” on BLS SR LNU02300000. This critical ratio shows an historic drop under Obama, whose workforce figures shrank further in January to 57.8%. The 58.7% figure in the question was his average, which seems to have disappeared in the rearview mirror after coming in below that for 13 of the past 15 months. Bush’s final 2008 data showed a 62.2% annual rate, and the 3-4% drop Obama has overseen is simply unprecedented since the participation rate’s been kept by the BLS post WWII.

Question 4 offers a weekly average figure for the lengths of time BLS counted individuals have remained unemployed. Once again, Obama’s average of 32.4 weeks is far higher than any prior President since this data’s been kept, and that’s kind compared to January’s figure. Over six of the past seven months, the average has remained above 40 weeks in duration, with the latest figure at 40.1. This data’s available on SR LNS13008275.

Question 5 lists data media typically ignores, while not being exactly a challenge to answer. It offers a combined figure for Not In Labor Force workers from two distinct BLS counts. The larger of the two categories represents individuals who “Searched for work”, “Want a job”, and are Available to work now”, from SR LNU05026642. The second includes a group who were separated from other counts to be categorized under “Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available)” but they’ll appear for a time on SR LNU05026645. The posted figures represent thousands, so Obama is averaging almost three-and-a-half million American’s dropped from deceptive media released U3 counts, and significant portions of that group have been rolled off of U6, as well. Each and every month, nearly a quarter of a million disenfranchised, discouraged workers are removed from even the NiLF counts.

So, during 37 months in Office, this President has managed just seven months where growth has exceeded individuals purged from the counts. He’s managed positive growth numbers for fewer than half of his months in Office, and during eight modest months of growth, the numbers failed to reach the 160,000 to 200,000 new jobs economists recognize must be added to accommodate new workers entering the workforce.

Update:

If one considers the 3.3 million legal immigrants who’ve been issued H1B visas with an employers’ promise of work to gain such a visa, the 3 million jobs added since the depths of O’s job losses in mid-2010 don’t excite many. More than 13 million young adults have completed college degrees and various credentials over the past 3 years expecting employment opportunities and an independent adult life, but there’s nowhere near the kind of job growth taking place to include them. The inescapable reality is Americans aren’t finding work in any appreciable numbers. Our workforce is still nearly two million workers down since the day Obama took Office and more than three million since the day he was elected.

Perhaps the final political IQ question should be; “Are you willing to ignore historic failure and futility with a miserable economy to reelect Obama for a second term?”

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm

&feature=player_embedded

Relevance
• 8 years ago

Thanks for the great question!

The lesson embedded in the five questions and answers is unmistakable and gives a powerful message. Liberals often pretend they're more educated, high-level thinkers than mere conservatives, and left-leaning progressives as well as fawning National media like to pretend high IQ people are sure to be liberal. They love to pat one another on the back and gush over one another's brilliance.

Apparently not here. That was an outstanding reality check. And the way the Community skewered the feckless, juvenile attempt to offer up an answer that wanted to focus on Bush is impressive, indeed.

Best test I've taken in years, even if its only application to IQ would be to point out the obvious mental vacuum we're exposed to daily with deniers’ delusions about a liberal leader they still support.

Enjoyed the entertainment! Where are the rest of the brave liberals? Reality’s Biased isn’t the only one who thinks B was the right answer across the board, is he?

• 8 years ago

Thanks for the explanation about Obama's historic unemployment numbers. The economy's been in trouble and gone to a dark place for more than three years now. Media efforts and extreme liberal propaganda won't convince many it's anything other than what it is.

The links and specific BLS Series Report information offer invaluable support. Normal people find it hard to argue with such evidence, but that was part of the point of the question, wasn't it. Liberals love to tell everyone how bright they are, while they refuse to look at mounds of evidence in front of their faces. It would take someone with the IQ of a slug, a street-post or a rock, to fail to recognize the depth of harm to the American economy this President has forced on a citizenry who deserve better.

The "Unemployment Game Show" video did an outstanding job of showing how data you referred to is adjusted before it's released to keep the number published and visible to the public manageable and less shocking. Apparently, more people are becoming aware of the bureaucratic sleight-of-hand.

Nicely done. A few of your posts mentioned a background as an educator and coach, so a lesson format probably seems natural to you. For a change, that's a test worth taking!

• ?
Lv 4
8 years ago

Now all we need is proof that Presidents have any impact on employment.

Obama sucks. The Clintons suck. Reid and Pelosi suck. (glad we got that out of the way)

Employment is DIRECTLY linked to CONSUMPTION. If no one Consumes the goods, then no one will be hired/retained to make the Goods.

Presidents do not control Consumption.

The Democrats SUCK. ALL Democrats suck.

NOTE: The GOP also sucks.

Partisanship is a Mental Disorder. BOTH Parties are instrumental, across the board, in screwing this Country up.

The Economy (Consumption/Production) is based upon an infinite number of variables. Most of these variables have to do with the emotions of people. This current Economic decline might just as well be related to a decline in the Consumerism/Materialism that spread like wildfire in the last two decades. Everything has its cycle.

Presidents do not dictate unemployment trends; it is far more complicated than that.

Again, Obama sucks (for numerous reasons, NDAA among them). Unemployment is not Obama's fault, even though Obama sucks.

• 8 years ago

I think Reality is Biased answered B for every question. Liberal progressives sure have a lot of latent anger, which sometime manifests as open hate, don't they? At least some of us can be amused over childish posts that could leave anyone questioning an actual IQ for contributors trying so desperately to deceive.

Apparently the left's only representative to have responded so far shouldn't be sitting at a computer unsupervised. Nor should there be anything sharp or weapon-like nearby. Otherwise, anyone with too different of an opinion might find themselves at risk.

Well done on the test! Why would it not surprise me if there are more B answer fans waiting in the wings?

• 8 years ago

Okay, that was easy and FUN! Does 5 for 5 qualify me for MENSA?

While the answers were obvious, I actually knew what several of the figures were for. Great explanation, by the way.

Shouldn't this be given to every self avowed liberal on Y!A? You know too many of them are still willing to vote for the fraud and failure in the Oval Office. Reality gave the standard answer, didn't he? The left's idea of honesty or maybe a deficient IQ, if that's the issue, gives pause for concern when anyone suggests 6-7 million jobs added to the economy somehow comes in behind Obama's 2 million jobs lost. Of course, we all know it was closer to 6 million jobs lost by around June-July of 2010.

The comment about H1B visa numbers and immigrants being the only group having experienced significant gains since the economy supposedly turned was eye opening. It's imperative that we recognize and honor national sovereignty for American citizens to become true beneficiaries of a more substantial recovery. We already bore the brunt of job losses for several years, so our citizens must be favored and restored first to return to a healthy, thriving economy once again.

Thanks for a test the whole Community should be taking!

Edit: At two days on the Y!A board, the responses here are impressive. The Community has voiced consensus agreement over the miserable economic data and clearly unacceptable performance of the Obama Administration. Let's hope a broad spectrum of voters is paying attention as well.

• Anonymous
8 years ago

“Are you willing to ignore historic failure and futility with a miserable economy to reelect Obama for a second term?”

Because the rest of it, while useful information, is just a rrant, really. My answer is NO.

• 8 years ago

I am confident that all of our leftists here failed the fantastic test. I will work hard to insure we defeat 0bama in 012

Source(s): Paul Grass, PhD Level 7 YA user/if in doubt check the level out May God bless you ,the USA and may God keep us safe from the progressive axis of evil;0bama,Pelosi & Reid
Lv 6
8 years ago

Fantastic Question!

I love it!

Source(s): Life-long Political Conservative with an IQ of 141....
• 8 years ago

I won't be a party to giving O a second term, no.

Nice test.