Politics seem to be dominating the airwaves, but we all know that in our personal conversations we talk about almost anything but. In fact, what’s interesting about not talking about politics is that a lot of times your friends tend to agree with you, so talking politics is like talking with yourself. And as my Republican friends can attest to, arguing about politics is not the best bar conversation.

Last week my friends and I had a conversation about different measures of intelligence. We were discussing someone we knew as completely lacking in street smarts. This is the kind of guy who would end up naked and broke in about 10 minutes in most foreign countries, if not most American metropolitan areas. On the other hand, he was smart as a whip in calculus.

So we started categorizing our friends in three areas of intelligence. Street smart, book smart and fun smart. It’s an interesting game, one even more interesting when you find out your friends don’t think you’re any of the three.

Different theories of measuring intelligence have been around for a long time. Twenty years ago, Steven Jay Gould wrote “The Mismeasure of Man,” in which he argued race and heredity were factored in too highly by intelligence tests. This led us to the present-day conundrum of “The Bell Curve.” If you don’t remember “The Bell Curve” controversy, it was a book written that argued minorities were just inherently less intelligent than whites.

What has been pointed out, and now taken as fact, is that standard intelligence tests are skewed with cultural bias. This sort of argument frequently upsets conservatives who think it’s impossible to skew something as basic as intelligence, but intelligence is what you look for, not an inherently discoverable fact. Many psychologists and big thinkers on thinking agree that there are many different kinds of intelligence, and IQ tests don’t get to the root of many people’s true skills.

Which is why our bar game works on so many levels. We’re not culturally biased, unless your culture doesn’t read at all. Our standards are completely subjective; there is no rigid scale to adhere to. There are a few rules and definitions, but they’re simple enough.

Book smart doesn’t mean well rounded; it simply means that in at least some area of study, you are very well read. Of course, being more well rounded makes you more book smart, but you don’t have to have read the 'Great Books’ to qualify.

Street smart is pretty straightforward. Can you kick it on the streets of America and A) not get lost, B) drive out of there with all your hubcaps and C) look like you know what you’re doing while you’re at it? Then you’re street smart. Same thing applies to adapting to other cultures and environments, generally having an awareness of the social milieu. In other words, can you leave the honky-tonk bar in west Texas without catching a whuppin’ as easily as you can catch a cab from the worst neighborhood in the Bronx?

Last is fun smart. Fun smart has two components. Originally my friends and I thought it meant you were a master of the trivial and frivolous. This was pointed out to us though as limiting in our definition of fun, because some people actually find that annoying. So the definition has been expanded to include social smarts and being fun no matter whom you’re with or where you are. You know who I’m talking about. The guy who makes everyone laugh or the girl who puts everyone she talks to at ease.

So now, the game. Basically, most people you know are two of the three. Some people are strong in one category. Then there are people on the polar extremes, neither of whom I’d want to hang out with. Some people have no quantifiable characteristics of any category of smarts. They’re boring and uninteresting. Only the select few have all three categories. They’re scary and tend to be overachievers.

So, I said there’d be no politics in this column, but it’s notable that we have two candidates who are ripe for analysis.

Bush strikes me as fun smart, and that’s about it. He clearly relates well to people as many press members attest to. I’m sure he relates better to people of his background and privilege, however. Obviously I’m not giving him book smart (his grades don’t give him that), and as for street smart, well, I don’t think anyone who has lived in a bubble as long as he has qualifies as such.

So Kerry, clearly he’s book smart, and not fun or street smart. Same thing goes for the bubble with Kerry, and as for fun, well, I’d like to go kite surfing, and I saw pictures of him in a bar, but he just doesn’t hit me as really fun. It’s been his absolute dissection of Bush on the issues in this campaign that wins him this category.

Our game is easy, anyone can play, and anyone can be analyzed. New categories are easy to create and a welcome addition to this admittedly juvenile activity.

Rob Deters ([email protected]) is book smart and fun smart, but that’s according to him.