Published on April 12, 2025 5:43 PM GMT
Yesterday our president underwent a physical exam, during which he reportedly took a cognitive test. He related that he "got every answer right" on the test. President Trump's doctor had likely administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). This test helps doctors detect signs of cognitive impairment, such what might be associated with Alzheimer Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies. Of course the test allows for "cheating," as a person could simply receive coaching from advisors in advance of the test administration. Nevertheless, we know our president is—at the very least—capable of being coached, and then applying that coaching during an actual test administration.
As people realize, there has been much past public discussion about encouraging all presidential candidates to take a cognitive test—presumably something like the MoCA. I agree that the public should know about any possible signs of cognitive impairment before electing the leader of any nation with nuclear weapons.
With that said, if we truly want the most rational political leaders in the future, would it make sense to encourage pre-primary candidates to undergo testing for higher levels of cognitive ability? In other words, could we "set the bar" a bit higher than the current cognitive-impairment MoCA cutoff? For instance, we could cast our votes for candidates who choose to take a customized* Raven's Progressive Matrices test. The Raven's test is used by neuropsychologists and other individuals to test general intelligence in a nonverbal and culture-neutral way. It tests general intelligence up to a level that has previously been classified as being equivalent to an IQ of 145-150+.
Perhaps certain groups could even offer an endorsement to candidates who take such a test. Granted, individuals with a certain level of intelligence might be "too smart" to run for office given the nature of our current political landscape—but it seems we could also begin to change that landscape. Some people might argue that a president only needs highly-intelligent advisors, but this does not suffice—as a less-intelligent leader can be easily misled by such advisors.
The time to address this issue is most likely to be now, as we need our most intelligent humans to confront artificial superintelligence—not to mention all the other issues we face—for obvious reasons.
What do others think about this?
**
Editorial note: Feel free to let the jokes begin. Yet keep in mind that, even though this is about politics, it does not need to be a partisan issue. I think most people would agree that there are plenty of intellectually-challenged folks on both sides. And as far as such folks are concerned, you can pick on me, since I’ll be incapable of understanding your jokes anyway. (I’ll just nod with a vacant eyes and a smiling question mark on my face.) Yet after the jokes, why not try to come up with some productive ideas as well: coalition groups? campaign funding? incentivizing intelligence? nonpartisan partners?
The customization would prevent candidates from simply memorizing the correct answers in advance. A new version of the test would need to be created with each election cycle by someone who can already complete the Raven's Progressive Matrices test without error. This would equate to about ~.5 percent of the adult American population, so there would be many potential candidates to fill this role.
Discuss
