The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 09:25:55 PM

Title: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 09:25:55 PM
Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 10, 2010, 09:27:14 PM
Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.
Inequality, heavier governmental regulation of voting rights, 15th amendment.  It would lead to an even more elitist government then we already have.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 09:48:56 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 10, 2010, 09:50:27 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?


I'm not too worried.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 10:12:41 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?



Metaphor much lolz?

Inequality, heavier governmental regulation of voting rights, 15th amendment.  It would lead to an even more elitist government then we already have.

This hypothetical isn't necessarily in the US. You would prefer pure democracy over those with higher intelligence on the issues they are voting for? Why is that?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Ellipsis on May 10, 2010, 10:20:01 PM
A pure democracy would outright suck unless the majority of people were highly educated; and they aren't.  The people making major decisions need to be well-informed about their choices, so having people elect representatives (democratic republic) leans towards better decision-making.  The problem with that model, however, is that people can still vote in dumb representatives.

I agree with the original post.  I admittedly don't know how (or if) it could be implemented, but a minimum intelligence standard would, in theory at least, cause more intelligent people to vote, meaning more intelligent representatives are elected, meaning more intelligent decisions would be made.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 10, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?



Metaphor much lolz?

Inequality, heavier governmental regulation of voting rights, 15th amendment.  It would lead to an even more elitist government then we already have.

This hypothetical isn't necessarily in the US. You would prefer pure democracy over those with higher intelligence on the issues they are voting for? Why is that?
Because I would rather the majority, including the idiots, make decisions rather than the elite few.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 10:35:09 PM
Because I would rather the majority, including the idiots, make decisions rather than the elite few.

I don't know how your using the word elite, but it seems that its different from how it is commonly used. An intelligence standard would only test for intelligence, wealthy or powerful people (what I would commonly see as the "elite") wouldn't get an exception, and those with little or no wealth/power would still get to vote so long as they had a higher level of intelligence.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 10, 2010, 10:41:37 PM
Because I would rather the majority, including the idiots, make decisions rather than the elite few.

I don't know how your using the word elite, but it seems that its different from how it is commonly used. An intelligence standard would only test for intelligence, wealthy or powerful people (what I would commonly see as the "elite") wouldn't get an exception, and those with little or no wealth/power would still get to vote so long as they had a higher level of intelligence.
Should uneducated workers (for example, first generation immigrants) not be allowed to vote on politicians who determine how their taxes are used?  I hate to quote the bigots of the Revolutionary War but taxation without representation.  Also, the standards would be set by the government which is inherently a bad idea.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 11, 2010, 04:08:47 AM
Guys, this is why we have public education.

We just need to suck it up and stop letting whiny parents get their way when students fail. The standards are so bad it's laughable. What's worse is that many schools try to pass kids just for numbers/happy parents/make room.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 11, 2010, 04:15:32 AM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?



Metaphor much lolz?


Really?  And just what was the metaphor referring to?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 11, 2010, 04:49:35 AM
I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 11, 2010, 04:37:56 PM
I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.

Seems like the best form of democracy to ensure political equality.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Canadark on May 11, 2010, 04:56:03 PM
We talked about this in one of my courses this last semester in relation to China and Singapore. Apparently it has been considered, even by men such as Lee Kuan Yew. The problem rested in administering it, which many considered to be impossible (and rightly so). For now I am content with making voting just difficult enough that those who should not be contributing to the decision making process get frightened away.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 11, 2010, 05:22:28 PM
As depressed as I feel whenever I see YouTube clips of people making stupid votes (by which I mean voting for a stupid reason, not voting for someone that I disagree with), it isn't democracy if we exclude people like that.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Johannes on May 11, 2010, 05:34:12 PM
I am in favor of an aristocracy.

"Intelligence tests" were abused in the American south, so it will never happen here though.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 11, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.



Without wanting to sound critical, I believe that something similar existed in Mussonlini's Italy.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 11, 2010, 05:54:18 PM
I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.


The problem comes when you have to make policies that span multiple areas, like budget cuts.  Each of those people would say that their "group" is the most important.  You'd probably end up with deadlock on most issues, especially since the common ground between each group would be very slim at best.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 11, 2010, 05:54:41 PM
I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.



Without wanting to sound critical, I believe that something similar existed in Mussonlini's Italy.
But this would only make up one half of a legislative body.  The other half would be a simple election for whatever candidate.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 11, 2010, 06:16:07 PM
The same was true in Italy, minus actual democracy. Like I said, I wasn't trying to be critical, just stating that similar systems have existed. If I remember correctly, under Mussolini the upper chamber only represented economic and industrial groups (e.g. coal industry, steel industry, agriculture, etc etc) rather than bodies like the police and military. Indeed, something I would add is that such a system would severely compromise any democracy - there is a reason that the police, judiciary and armed forces are supposed to be 'above politics'. Inolving them would be a recipe for instability during any crisis.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 11, 2010, 06:45:15 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?



Metaphor much lolz?

Im still waiting for the metaphor explanation.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 11, 2010, 07:56:39 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?



Metaphor much lolz?

Im still waiting for the metaphor explanation.

You are one impatient son of a bitch. Have I been posting at all since you first asked for an explanation of the metaphor? No.

I read that he made a statement about it being a metaphor, but not what the metaphor was, but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you honestly want to believe that someone is so completely out of touch with reality that they could actually think people might make an island tip over, and all because they don't agree with your own political policy, you should really consider questioning your objectivity.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 11, 2010, 08:01:36 PM
Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?



Metaphor much lolz?

Im still waiting for the metaphor explanation.

You are one impatient son of a bitch. Have I been posting at all since you first asked for an explanation of the metaphor? No.

I read that he made a statement about it being a metaphor, but not what the metaphor was, but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you honestly want to believe that someone is so completely out of touch with reality that they could actually think people might make an island tip over, and all because they don't agree with your own political policy, you should really consider questioning your objectivity.

I actually lol'd and then facepalm'd.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 11, 2010, 08:55:52 PM
Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.
How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 11, 2010, 10:19:42 PM
Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.
How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic to implement this. I don't think it would be realistic at this time either, and yes, would probably end in failure. If it was somehow fairly implemented though, would you consider it beneficial?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 11, 2010, 10:35:02 PM
Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.
How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic to implement this. I don't think it would be realistic at this time either, and yes, would probably end in failure. If it was somehow fairly implemented though, would you consider it beneficial?
No, government would only serve the minority of the voters.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 12, 2010, 12:53:51 AM
I agree that the current political systems that exist around the world need major improvement (read: replacement), but this isn't it, for reasons that Wakka Wakka has already stated. What is needed is to abolish the concept of national boundaries, and have two levels of government; one local (a pure democracy governing a region no larger than about 50 kilometres across) and one global (either a representative democracy or a panarchy which has no local authority within any regional government).

The local governments set their own laws and have their own small police force to enforce them within their own jurisdiction. Being pure democracies, there is no oppression by a single dictator or elite group. The only criterion for voting is demonstrating an understanding of voting principles; this replaces the age restriction of today's pseudo-democracy. The primary function of this government is simply to keep order.

The global tier of government primarily funds systems which are too large scale for local governments to provide (for instance, public education, medical, transport and welfare) and facilitates free trade between local governments. No military forces exist whatsoever.

Of course, this is more like scaffolding than an actual workable idea, but I think this should be the basic form of future systems of government.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 12, 2010, 02:40:54 AM
Quote
The problem comes when you have to make policies that span multiple areas, like budget cuts.  Each of those people would say that their "group" is the most important.  You'd probably end up with deadlock on most issues, especially since the common ground between each group would be very slim at best.

In the UK, a bill can only be rejected by the Lords three times, I wouldn't intend on changing this. The whole point of the CoP would be to add one more layer of specialist knowledge on the relevant subject matter.

Even if there was total disagreement on an issue, say stem-cell research between the Science peers and the religious peers then they could only hold back the law for 3 readings, discussions and votes. after that the Commons would either change it to reflect the opinions of the peers or leave it as it is, knowing full well that the Peers couldn't block it again.

Yes, there would be arguments and disputes but it would be better than the current house of Lords which is made up of unelected old boys and reverands
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 13, 2010, 11:01:29 AM
Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.
How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic to implement this. I don't think it would be realistic at this time either, and yes, would probably end in failure. If it was somehow fairly implemented though, would you consider it beneficial?

I really don't think it would be beneficial. Perhaps some sort of intelligence test and psychological evaluation for elected officials. I'm not talking harvard graduate here, I'm talking about the ability to take in information and fairly evaluate it without simply siding with their political party.

Political views give idiots a crutch, all they have to do is side with one group on a controversial issue and they get a support base. I know a guy running for mayor in my town who mentioned his stance on abortion. Considering mayors have no say whatsoever on abortion this was a meaningless divisive stance.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: theonlydann on May 13, 2010, 11:02:21 AM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 13, 2010, 11:05:56 AM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: theonlydann on May 13, 2010, 11:19:56 AM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
READ THE BOLD
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 13, 2010, 11:45:56 PM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
READ THE BOLD
Ah, I think he was more into it for racial cleansing purposes. (shudders)
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 13, 2010, 11:49:19 PM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
READ THE BOLD
Ah, I think he was more into it for racial cleansing purposes. (shudders)

We can't let those fucking angus quarter pounders multiply, they will rape our crops and burn our daughters.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: toothyp1cks on May 14, 2010, 06:26:55 AM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
READ THE BOLD
Ah, I think he was more into it for racial cleansing purposes. (shudders)

We can't let those fucking angus quarter pounders multiply, they will rape our crops and burn our daughters.
Australia here.
Enjoy my angus.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 14, 2010, 10:29:36 AM
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
READ THE BOLD
Ah, I think he was more into it for racial cleansing purposes. (shudders)

We can't let those fucking angus quarter pounders multiply, they will rape our crops and burn our daughters.
Australia here.
Enjoy my angus.

???
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wendy on May 14, 2010, 04:38:08 PM
Reading this thread, I somehow think that intelligence standards for utilising the Internet perhaps wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 14, 2010, 09:05:35 PM
Reading this thread, I somehow think that intelligence standards for utilising the Internet perhaps wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

I've said before that people who can't work out how to set up their own internet connection shouldn't be permitted to have one (or at the very least, should have read-only access).
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 14, 2010, 09:54:12 PM
Reading this thread, I somehow think that intelligence standards for utilising the Internet perhaps wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

I've said before that people who can't work out how to set up their own internet connection shouldn't be permitted to have one (or at the very least, should have read-only access).

So...because someone isn't very tech-savvy, they shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet?  That makes a lot of sense.  Also, people who don't have a full understanding of how radio transmissions work shouldn't be permitted to watch TV.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 14, 2010, 09:59:31 PM
So...because someone isn't very tech-savvy, they shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet?  That makes a lot of sense.  Also, people who don't have a full understanding of how radio transmissions work shouldn't be permitted to watch TV.

Setting up an internet connection doesn't involve anything more than plugging in a few cables and making sure some numbers are entered correctly. If you can't do that, you're probably not going to be posting anything useful on the internet anyway.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 15, 2010, 09:19:33 AM
So...because someone isn't very tech-savvy, they shouldn't be allowed to use the Internet?  That makes a lot of sense.  Also, people who don't have a full understanding of how radio transmissions work shouldn't be permitted to watch TV.

Setting up an internet connection doesn't involve anything more than plugging in a few cables and making sure some numbers are entered correctly. If you can't do that, you're probably not going to be posting anything useful on the internet anyway.

But that's just it.  You're assuming that not being able to set up an Internet connection shows a lack of intelligence.  People who can't do it aren't necessarily stupid, they might just not have a lot of experience with technology.  To say, an English major, terms like "analogy", "ellipsis", and "prosody" might be very simple, but there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't be able to define even one of them.  Does that make them stupid?  No, it just shows that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses,
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 15, 2010, 09:55:36 AM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 15, 2010, 10:36:23 AM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
I don't think stupidity is hereditary.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 10:47:56 AM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
I don't think stupidity is hereditary.

Yes it is.  It's also spread via social groups.

Anyway I have to agree with Parsifal.  Today it's mostly "plug in cable A to box B.  Plug cable C into Computer."  Windows will pop on, say it found an internet connection, and you're surfing the web.  The intelligence required is the same as put this square plug into the square hole and the round plug into the round hole.

However, the physical ability must be there.  If you can't move your hands, for example, then your intelligence can't be measured by this simple test.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 15, 2010, 01:28:11 PM
However, the physical ability must be there.  If you can't move your hands, for example, then your intelligence can't be measured by this simple test.

You would have quite a lot of trouble using the internet without the use of your hands anyways.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 15, 2010, 02:11:07 PM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
I don't think stupidity is hereditary.

Yes it is.  It's also spread via social groups.

Err, if it spreads via social groups it isn't hereditary.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 15, 2010, 02:51:58 PM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
I don't think stupidity is hereditary.

Yes it is.  It's also spread via social groups.

Err, if it spreads via social groups it isn't hereditary.

He just said it was both hereditary AND spread via social groups. Which it is.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 15, 2010, 02:59:53 PM
The problem isn't stupidity but ignorance. There was a girl at my school who was a dopey idiot but scored really well in exams because she put her heart andf soul into learning things which came second nature to me so I was complacent and scored lower than her.

either that or (at the risk of becoming a sig) I'm an idiot.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 15, 2010, 07:48:19 PM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
I don't think stupidity is hereditary.

Yes it is.  It's also spread via social groups.

Anyway I have to agree with Parsifal.  Today it's mostly "plug in cable A to box B.  Plug cable C into Computer."  Windows will pop on, say it found an internet connection, and you're surfing the web.  The intelligence required is the same as put this square plug into the square hole and the round plug into the round hole.

However, the physical ability must be there.  If you can't move your hands, for example, then your intelligence can't be measured by this simple test.

Sorry, but hooking up cables is far from intuitive or logical however it may seem to us. We grew up figuring out which cable goes in where and why so it is a very intuitive process. Someone much older that grew up simply with "cable wire goes into cable hole power chord goes into electric socket" has never had the experience of multiple intermediate steps.

If it really is a matter of "round peg goes in round hole" then may I ask you what happens if you put the cables in appropriately shaped holes out of order? Or simply in the wrong hole that is still of the appropriate shape?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 08:01:49 PM
So since parsifal can't set up a basic social situation should he not be allowed to reproduce?

I see no reason the same rules shouldn't apply to him that he wants to apply to others.
I don't think stupidity is hereditary.

Yes it is.  It's also spread via social groups.

Anyway I have to agree with Parsifal.  Today it's mostly "plug in cable A to box B.  Plug cable C into Computer."  Windows will pop on, say it found an internet connection, and you're surfing the web.  The intelligence required is the same as put this square plug into the square hole and the round plug into the round hole.

However, the physical ability must be there.  If you can't move your hands, for example, then your intelligence can't be measured by this simple test.

Sorry, but hooking up cables is far from intuitive or logical however it may seem to us. We grew up figuring out which cable goes in where and why so it is a very intuitive process. Someone much older that grew up simply with "cable wire goes into cable hole power chord goes into electric socket" has never had the experience of multiple intermediate steps.

If it really is a matter of "round peg goes in round hole" then may I ask you what happens if you put the cables in appropriately shaped holes out of order? Or simply in the wrong hole that is still of the appropriate shape?

There is no order.  Allow me to explain how it works.

There is a cable called an RJ-45.  We also call it a Cat-5, but those names are meaningless.  All you need to know is that it looks like a telephone cable, only slightly bigger.

There is only one hole on your entire computer that it fits into and it only fits one way in the same way that a telephone cable only fits one way into your wall or phone.

On the modem side you have two holes.  One is for the coaxil cable coming from the outside world, which is a circular, screw peg.  The other is a square hole identical to the one on your computer.

There is no order in which these cables need to be plugged in.  Once you plug all the cables in, you're done.  If you have the mental capacity to plug in your TV to the wall outlet or hook a phone up, you can hook a computer to the internet using modern services providers.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 15, 2010, 08:05:34 PM
Since when do computers only have one hole capable of fitting an RJ-45? What ghetto ass rigup do you have?

There should be an input and an output.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 08:12:24 PM
Since when do computers only have one hole capable of fitting an RJ-45? What ghetto ass rigup do you have?

There should be an input and an output.

Ummm...

since the LAN cable was invented.  Hell, since Telephones were invented.  When was the last time you saw TWO slots on the back of a phone that only accepted one line?

The input and output are in the same cable.  There are 8 copper wires inside each cable.  Those wires transmit and receive data.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
However, the physical ability must be there.  If you can't move your hands, for example, then your intelligence can't be measured by this simple test.

You would have quite a lot of trouble using the internet without the use of your hands anyways.

Yeah, but voice recognition software has come a long way.  I could use my computer without my hands if I wanted to.  It would be a pain in the butt and very time consuming as well as keep me from playing any flash games but... I could at least type on this forum.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 15, 2010, 08:40:05 PM
Since when do computers only have one hole capable of fitting an RJ-45? What ghetto ass rigup do you have?

There should be an input and an output.

Ummm...

since the LAN cable was invented.  Hell, since Telephones were invented.  When was the last time you saw TWO slots on the back of a phone that only accepted one line?

The input and output are in the same cable.  There are 8 copper wires inside each cable.  Those wires transmit and receive data.

Yes they do. I take it you haven't looked at the back of your computer recently? Most computers are setup to allow them to bridge connections to other devices, this requires two separate ports, one for connecting to a router (the input) and one for connecting to another computer (the output).

I find it funny that at the same moment you are announcing the intuitiveness of a system, you are misunderstanding the subject because the way things are labeled is misleading. Does that perhaps mean that the system is not in fact intuitive?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 09:26:01 PM
Since when do computers only have one hole capable of fitting an RJ-45? What ghetto ass rigup do you have?

There should be an input and an output.

Ummm...

since the LAN cable was invented.  Hell, since Telephones were invented.  When was the last time you saw TWO slots on the back of a phone that only accepted one line?

The input and output are in the same cable.  There are 8 copper wires inside each cable.  Those wires transmit and receive data.

Yes they do. I take it you haven't looked at the back of your computer recently? Most computers are setup to allow them to bridge connections to other devices, this requires two separate ports, one for connecting to a router (the input) and one for connecting to another computer (the output).

I find it funny that at the same moment you are announcing the intuitiveness of a system, you are misunderstanding the subject because the way things are labeled is misleading. Does that perhaps mean that the system is not in fact intuitive?

I'm an expert at computers.  I look at the back of computers on a daily basis, built many of them, and setup roughly 300 separate desktop machines personally.  And I hate to tell YOU but most computers are NOT setup to bridge between two devices.  The only ones that you might see are dial-up modems, which allow you to have a phone line pass-through to a phone. 

When a computer wants to connect to another computer it will most likely use the LAN jack (or Ethernet port if you wish).  It goes from the computer to a router and from the router to another computer.  Why on Earth would you make a computer a pass through when you don't need to?  Can it be done?  Sure.  I've got 2 LAN ports on my motherboard.  Doesn't mean I one of them is strictly output and one is input.


There are other ways, such as the serial port, but that's not widely used outside of direct PC to PC connections (rare) and PC to switch/router interface connections for business networks.

Perhaps YOU are misunderstanding eh?

Let's look at what we've got on the back of a standard computer shall we?

LPT port. (Not usually as they've been replaced by USB)
Serial Port.
VGA or DVI port. (ie. video)
Sound - Line IN
Sound - Line Out
Sound - Mic
USB Ports (various but is at least 2 on modern setups)
(on older computers...)
2 PS2 ports for Keyboard and Mouse. 
LAN/Ethernet port.

Some of the computers have more sound ports for surround sound, an extra Video port, maybe even 2 LAN/Ethernet ports.

Here's a nice picture of a motherboard ports (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ImageGallery.aspx?CurImage=13-138-111-TS&ISList=13-138-111-S01%2c13-138-111-S02%2c13-138-111-S03%2c13-138-111-S04%2c13-138-111-S05&S7ImageFlag=1&Item=N82E16813138111&Depa=0&WaterMark=1&Description=BIOSTAR%20MCP6P%20M2%2b%206.X%20AM3%2fAM2%2b%2fAM2%20NVIDIA%20GeForce%206150%20%2f%20nForce%20430%20Micro%20ATX%20AMD%20Motherboard)


As I said, the ONLY time you're right is if you're talking about a 56k Modem, which has an input and output port but does NOT take an RJ-45/LAN/Ethernet cable but an RJ-8 telephone cable.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 15, 2010, 09:29:07 PM
My point still stands. Several identical holes, each doing a different function.

I would also like to point out that an expert is the least qualified person to call his own profession intuitive, he is the most biased test subject on Earth. Not only were you attracted to the field (meaning you had some sort of intellectual gift at it) but you also do it on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 09:37:16 PM
My point still stands. Several identical holes, each doing a different function.

I would also like to point out that an expert is the least qualified person to call his own profession intuitive, he is the most biased test subject on Earth. Not only were you attracted to the field (meaning you had some sort of intellectual gift at it) but you also do it on a daily basis.

....

We're talking about connecting to the internet, not setting up the whole computer.  But even then, the only issue would be your speakers.  Best part is that it's usually all color coded now.  Green for speaker out, blue for line in, red for mic.  The plugs are usually color coded too.

And since no one uses 56k modems anymore and those are labeled (they'd have to be)... kinda easy.

And I say easy because aside from the stereo jacks everything either goes into ONLY one port OR the other ports it could go in do the exact same thing.  4 USB ports all do the SAME EXACT THING. 

Now if you wanna talk Operating System or installing software, sure it can be an issue.  But even a blind man could put those cables in.  That's why I say it's easy: One Port, one plug.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 02:34:28 AM
Quite down about plugging in the internentz for a bit please, the internet is not a big truck, its a series of tubes.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 16, 2010, 01:08:03 PM
My point still stands. Several identical holes, each doing a different function.

I would also like to point out that an expert is the least qualified person to call his own profession intuitive, he is the most biased test subject on Earth. Not only were you attracted to the field (meaning you had some sort of intellectual gift at it) but you also do it on a daily basis.

....

We're talking about connecting to the internet, not setting up the whole computer.  But even then, the only issue would be your speakers.  Best part is that it's usually all color coded now.  Green for speaker out, blue for line in, red for mic.  The plugs are usually color coded too.

And since no one uses 56k modems anymore and those are labeled (they'd have to be)... kinda easy.

And I say easy because aside from the stereo jacks everything either goes into ONLY one port OR the other ports it could go in do the exact same thing.  4 USB ports all do the SAME EXACT THING. 

Now if you wanna talk Operating System or installing software, sure it can be an issue.  But even a blind man could put those cables in.  That's why I say it's easy: One Port, one plug.

I should have been more specific earlier, I was thinking about hooking up the internet through wifi which does have some non redundant cable ports, one being an input from the router, and others being solely outputs for other computers.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
My point still stands. Several identical holes, each doing a different function.

I would also like to point out that an expert is the least qualified person to call his own profession intuitive, he is the most biased test subject on Earth. Not only were you attracted to the field (meaning you had some sort of intellectual gift at it) but you also do it on a daily basis.

....

We're talking about connecting to the internet, not setting up the whole computer.  But even then, the only issue would be your speakers.  Best part is that it's usually all color coded now.  Green for speaker out, blue for line in, red for mic.  The plugs are usually color coded too.

And since no one uses 56k modems anymore and those are labeled (they'd have to be)... kinda easy.

And I say easy because aside from the stereo jacks everything either goes into ONLY one port OR the other ports it could go in do the exact same thing.  4 USB ports all do the SAME EXACT THING. 

Now if you wanna talk Operating System or installing software, sure it can be an issue.  But even a blind man could put those cables in.  That's why I say it's easy: One Port, one plug.

I should have been more specific earlier, I was thinking about hooking up the internet through wifi which does have some non redundant cable ports, one being an input from the router, and others being solely outputs for other computers.

Oh, well hooking up a wireless router or Access point is much more complex and not something I'd expect anyone to be able to do.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 16, 2010, 02:49:59 PM
My point still stands. Several identical holes, each doing a different function.

I would also like to point out that an expert is the least qualified person to call his own profession intuitive, he is the most biased test subject on Earth. Not only were you attracted to the field (meaning you had some sort of intellectual gift at it) but you also do it on a daily basis.

....

We're talking about connecting to the internet, not setting up the whole computer.  But even then, the only issue would be your speakers.  Best part is that it's usually all color coded now.  Green for speaker out, blue for line in, red for mic.  The plugs are usually color coded too.

And since no one uses 56k modems anymore and those are labeled (they'd have to be)... kinda easy.

And I say easy because aside from the stereo jacks everything either goes into ONLY one port OR the other ports it could go in do the exact same thing.  4 USB ports all do the SAME EXACT THING. 

Now if you wanna talk Operating System or installing software, sure it can be an issue.  But even a blind man could put those cables in.  That's why I say it's easy: One Port, one plug.

I should have been more specific earlier, I was thinking about hooking up the internet through wifi which does have some non redundant cable ports, one being an input from the router, and others being solely outputs for other computers.

Oh, well hooking up a wireless router or Access point is much more complex and not something I'd expect anyone to be able to do.

Well, I guess I agree with you on all points here. Sorry for being an ass.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 02:53:39 PM
My point still stands. Several identical holes, each doing a different function.

I would also like to point out that an expert is the least qualified person to call his own profession intuitive, he is the most biased test subject on Earth. Not only were you attracted to the field (meaning you had some sort of intellectual gift at it) but you also do it on a daily basis.

....

We're talking about connecting to the internet, not setting up the whole computer.  But even then, the only issue would be your speakers.  Best part is that it's usually all color coded now.  Green for speaker out, blue for line in, red for mic.  The plugs are usually color coded too.

And since no one uses 56k modems anymore and those are labeled (they'd have to be)... kinda easy.

And I say easy because aside from the stereo jacks everything either goes into ONLY one port OR the other ports it could go in do the exact same thing.  4 USB ports all do the SAME EXACT THING. 

Now if you wanna talk Operating System or installing software, sure it can be an issue.  But even a blind man could put those cables in.  That's why I say it's easy: One Port, one plug.

I should have been more specific earlier, I was thinking about hooking up the internet through wifi which does have some non redundant cable ports, one being an input from the router, and others being solely outputs for other computers.

Oh, well hooking up a wireless router or Access point is much more complex and not something I'd expect anyone to be able to do.

Well, I guess I agree with you on all points here. Sorry for being an ass.

S'ok, I understand. 


Anyway, back to the matter at hand:

I feel that if our school system worked like it should, with people having real consequences for screwing around and a real feeling of why it's important to get an education, we would have more educated people on the internet, better educated opinions being spoken, and no need to limit any voice.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 05:42:38 PM
I feel that if our school system worked like it should, with people having real consequences for screwing around and a real feeling of why it's important to get an education, we would have more educated people on the internet, better educated opinions being spoken, and no need to limit any voice.

Blaming the school system is futile. By the time kids start school, they've already gone a long way to developing their personality.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 06:04:25 PM
I wonder how those Chinese and Japanese kids do it...

What about having to watch a mandatory number of hours of CSPAN before you were allowed to vote? Or having to write a one page essay at the polls on why your voting for each thing you vote for.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 16, 2010, 06:31:56 PM
What about having to watch a mandatory number of hours of CSPAN before you were allowed to vote? Or having to write a one page essay at the polls on why your voting for each thing you vote for.

...

Do you really not see the horrific consequences of that idea?  Many people have reported that they don't vote because they don't like waiting in line for hours to vote.  Now you want people to start writing fucking essays at the polls?  That would probably drop voter turnout to less than 1%.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 06:39:02 PM
I feel that if our school system worked like it should, with people having real consequences for screwing around and a real feeling of why it's important to get an education, we would have more educated people on the internet, better educated opinions being spoken, and no need to limit any voice.

Blaming the school system is futile. By the time kids start school, they've already gone a long way to developing their personality.
Not really.  I've worked in a high school for 6 years.  I've seen bad kids become great students and great students become bad students.  And the only punishments we have are:

Detention - Ie. no fun after school for an hour
Inschool Suspension - ie. sit in a room all day.
Out of School Suspension - ie. Stay home and think about what you've done.
Expulsion - Ban from the school.

Not exactly punishment for the student who doesn't want to be in class anyway.

The issue I see in kids isn't that they don't want to learn it's that they don't feel the need to.  The biggest question is "why do we need to know this stuff" and it's a valid question.  Unfortunately the truthful answer is, "you probably don't but we want you to have a basic amount of knowledge so you aren't ignorant of how the world works.  "
This isn't something a teenager can understand and thus they hate it. 

You also have kids shut down when they feel there is no hope. 
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 07:15:13 PM
Not really.  I've worked in a high school for 6 years.  I've seen bad kids become great students and great students become bad students.  And the only punishments we have are:

Detention - Ie. no fun after school for an hour
Inschool Suspension - ie. sit in a room all day.
Out of School Suspension - ie. Stay home and think about what you've done.
Expulsion - Ban from the school.

Not exactly punishment for the student who doesn't want to be in class anyway.

The issue I see in kids isn't that they don't want to learn it's that they don't feel the need to.  The biggest question is "why do we need to know this stuff" and it's a valid question.  Unfortunately the truthful answer is, "you probably don't but we want you to have a basic amount of knowledge so you aren't ignorant of how the world works.  "
This isn't something a teenager can understand and thus they hate it. 

You also have kids shut down when they feel there is no hope. 

I'm not saying that improvement in the school system wouldn't help, I'm saying that it's not a complete solution.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 07:40:23 PM
Not really.  I've worked in a high school for 6 years.  I've seen bad kids become great students and great students become bad students.  And the only punishments we have are:

Detention - Ie. no fun after school for an hour
Inschool Suspension - ie. sit in a room all day.
Out of School Suspension - ie. Stay home and think about what you've done.
Expulsion - Ban from the school.

Not exactly punishment for the student who doesn't want to be in class anyway.

The issue I see in kids isn't that they don't want to learn it's that they don't feel the need to.  The biggest question is "why do we need to know this stuff" and it's a valid question.  Unfortunately the truthful answer is, "you probably don't but we want you to have a basic amount of knowledge so you aren't ignorant of how the world works.  "
This isn't something a teenager can understand and thus they hate it. 

You also have kids shut down when they feel there is no hope. 

I'm not saying that improvement in the school system wouldn't help, I'm saying that it's not a complete solution.

Oh I agree.
Unfortunately I don't know if there IS a complete solution. 
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 PM
What about having to watch a mandatory number of hours of CSPAN before you were allowed to vote? Or having to write a one page essay at the polls on why your voting for each thing you vote for.

...

Do you really not see the horrific consequences of that idea?  Many people have reported that they don't vote because they don't like waiting in line for hours to vote.  Now you want people to start writing fucking essays at the polls?  That would probably drop voter turnout to less than 1%.

Precisely! I'm pretty sure having to watch CSPAN would do that, cause if you've ever watched CSPAN you know how insanely boring it is.

The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote. But the two suggestions I gave were more just jokes than actual suggestions.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:16:14 PM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Also, voting is mandatory here, but they don't give a shit if you just scribble all over the ballot paper as long as you turn up to vote. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 12:46:49 AM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

If only those who were in the top 5% of peoples with knowledge on [commerce, economics, business etc.] were allowed to vote on subjects that involved a large amount of economic development, we would potentially have much better decisions made.

Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 04:40:14 AM
Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

And who also had enough interest in politics to care about writing an essay just to vote.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 17, 2010, 01:33:59 PM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.


Oh, and those of us without an understanding of those issues could transfer our votes to those that do have an understanding of the issues. In order to make this fair though we should give those people some compensation so that they are well enough off not to take bribes. We'd have to find a name for them, something along the lines of... senators?

Your idea is 3 steps behind the current system. As you further your idea you will realize you are following the same logical process that lead to a representative democracy.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Canadark on May 17, 2010, 02:35:57 PM
Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.

We could call it a sofa, or maybe a cabinet... Which one do you guys like more?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 17, 2010, 03:29:31 PM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

If only those who were in the top 5% of peoples with knowledge on [commerce, economics, business etc.] were allowed to vote on subjects that involved a large amount of economic development, we would potentially have much better decisions made.

Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.
Should uneducated workers not be able to vote and decide how their tax dollars are spent?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 03:47:49 PM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

If only those who were in the top 5% of peoples with knowledge on [commerce, economics, business etc.] were allowed to vote on subjects that involved a large amount of economic development, we would potentially have much better decisions made.

Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.
Should uneducated workers not be able to vote and decide how their tax dollars are spent?

In all honesty, when has anyone's vote decided how tax dollars are spent?  Once someone is in office they more or less do whatever they have to to stay in office and enjoy the perks.  Most of this means spending money on things that are needed or things that are wanted by others who will vote/contribute money to said politician's campaign next voting season.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 17, 2010, 03:52:32 PM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

If only those who were in the top 5% of peoples with knowledge on [commerce, economics, business etc.] were allowed to vote on subjects that involved a large amount of economic development, we would potentially have much better decisions made.

Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.
Should uneducated workers not be able to vote and decide how their tax dollars are spent?

In all honesty, when has anyone's vote decided how tax dollars are spent?  Once someone is in office they more or less do whatever they have to to stay in office and enjoy the perks.  Most of this means spending money on things that are needed or things that are wanted by others who will vote/contribute money to said politician's campaign next voting season.
Voting for candidates based on spending habits they have shown or in local elections and in state referendums.  I vote locally all the time on bond issue.  Should uneducated be denied this right?
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 03:55:39 PM
The entire point would be to drop voter turnout though, so that only those who were really motivated would vote.

So only people who are interested in politics end up voting?

Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

If only those who were in the top 5% of peoples with knowledge on [commerce, economics, business etc.] were allowed to vote on subjects that involved a large amount of economic development, we would potentially have much better decisions made.

Or as Chris suggested as a possibility, if we had specialized departments where those who understood the most about particular issues were the ones who had the most political sway on those subjects, far better decisions could be made than those made by professional politicians.
Should uneducated workers not be able to vote and decide how their tax dollars are spent?

In all honesty, when has anyone's vote decided how tax dollars are spent?  Once someone is in office they more or less do whatever they have to to stay in office and enjoy the perks.  Most of this means spending money on things that are needed or things that are wanted by others who will vote/contribute money to said politician's campaign next voting season.
Voting for candidates based on spending habits they have shown or in local elections and in state referendums.  I vote locally all the time on bond issue.  Should uneducated be denied this right?

YOU do, but the question you really should ask is who else does?
From my observations, the uneducated people are the ones who don't look up information such as spending habits.  Instead they vote on who sounds better, who has something in common with them, or whatever party is their chosen one. 

I hate to draw such a shaky conclusion but...
Those who are uneducated never learned how to do proper research (or never wanted to) thus they are the ones who are less likely to be informed about their candidate and even if they ARE informed, less likely to understand what it means.  Thus, their votes would not consider the past spending habits of the candidate.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 06:58:34 PM
Oh, and those of us without an understanding of those issues could transfer our votes to those that do have an understanding of the issues. In order to make this fair though we should give those people some compensation so that they are well enough off not to take bribes. We'd have to find a name for them, something along the lines of... senators?

Your idea is 3 steps behind the current system. As you further your idea you will realize you are following the same logical process that lead to a representative democracy.

No transferring votes, no compensation, and how could you possibly bribe 5% of the population?

Friendly Kid---"Hey! I want to start a limeade stand!"

Raist---"Oh, and you should rally the nation around a nationalist leader as well. You could probably gather up some jewish people too, maybe even have a holocaust!...Your idea is 3 steps behind Nazism you know"

Should uneducated workers not be able to vote and decide how their tax dollars are spent?

Not unless those uneducated workers have a thorough understanding of what they're voting on. The economic ideas that help society the most are the ones that should be voted on, and I honestly think that those who understand those ideas the most are the most likely to vote for them.


Potentially it would be those who actually had a relatively high understanding of the subject they're voting on that would be able to vote.

And who also had enough interest in politics to care about writing an essay just to vote.

But the two suggestions I gave were more just jokes than actual suggestions.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 17, 2010, 07:08:01 PM
We already elect intelligent people that know about the issues to vote on the issues. You now want to do the same thing with the general vote.

Let me point out a serious problem with this issue for you. Whatever system you use to gauge intelligence will skew votes out of poor areas. This means the poor now have less votes than the rich.

The poor will then demand that their votes be counted in some way to make things fair. (the concept in the U.S. right now is everyone gets 1 vote, you can't change this basic concept to exclude stupid people without declaring them second class citizens. It would never pass for fear of the repercussions. Imagine jobs advertised for voting citizens only etc.) So to maintain this one person one vote idea you will have to somehow compensate these people for their votes. The easiest way to do this would be to give each section of the population a certain amount of votes and then let the people capable of voting within this area determine how the votes are split.

I am simply giving your idea real world application. I'm not calling the kid hitler, I am simply telling him he can't charge 8 bucks a cup or else no one will buy his limeade. (though your ideas are reminiscent of a little kids capitalistic venture, not too well thought out for real world application and doomed for failure)
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 09:42:53 PM
We already elect intelligent people that know about the issues to vote on the issues. You now want to do the same thing with the general vote.

Except that-
1) The people we vote for are supposed to know about all the issues(which they clearly don't), and make good decisions on all of them (and haven't been). I'm pretty sure that you will agree on this with me, based on the sentiments I've seen you express in the past.
2) Politicians have so many conflicts of interest in voting that they (as you said) are susceptible to making voting decisions for the sake of themselves rather than society.

Let me point out a serious problem with this issue for you. Whatever system you use to gauge intelligence will skew votes out of poor areas. This means the poor now have less votes than the rich.

The poor will then demand that their votes be counted in some way to make things fair. (the concept in the U.S. right now is everyone gets 1 vote, you can't change this basic concept to exclude stupid people without declaring them second class citizens. It would never pass for fear of the repercussions. Imagine jobs advertised for voting citizens only etc.) So to maintain this one person one vote idea you will have to somehow compensate these people for their votes. The easiest way to do this would be to give each section of the population a certain amount of votes and then let the people capable of voting within this area determine how the votes are split.

I am simply giving your idea real world application. I'm not calling the kid hitler, I am simply telling him he can't charge 8 bucks a cup or else no one will buy his limeade. (though your ideas are reminiscent of a little kids capitalistic venture, not too well thought out for real world application and doomed for failure)

Again mate, I admit that this is not realistic at this time in the least. You are absolutely right to suggest that nearly any plan implemented would probably end up turning into a rich persons vs. poor persons vote. That isn't to say we can't at least offer up possible suggestions.

Oh, and I'm also trying to debate in this thread that its ethical to take away the rights of some people to vote, especially if their poor decision making passes things that aren't optimal for society.
Title: Re: Intelligence Standards
Post by: Raist on May 17, 2010, 09:57:02 PM
We already elect intelligent people that know about the issues to vote on the issues. You now want to do the same thing with the general vote.

Except that-
1) The people we vote for are supposed to know about all the issues(which they clearly don't), and make good decisions on all of them (and haven't been). I'm pretty sure that you will agree on this with me, based on the sentiments I've seen you express in the past.
2) Politicians have so many conflicts of interest in voting that they (as you said) are susceptible to making voting decisions for the sake of themselves rather than society.
then these are the two issues that need fixed. You're looking at the wrong issues.
Let me point out a serious problem with this issue for you. Whatever system you use to gauge intelligence will skew votes out of poor areas. This means the poor now have less votes than the rich.

The poor will then demand that their votes be counted in some way to make things fair. (the concept in the U.S. right now is everyone gets 1 vote, you can't change this basic concept to exclude stupid people without declaring them second class citizens. It would never pass for fear of the repercussions. Imagine jobs advertised for voting citizens only etc.) So to maintain this one person one vote idea you will have to somehow compensate these people for their votes. The easiest way to do this would be to give each section of the population a certain amount of votes and then let the people capable of voting within this area determine how the votes are split.

I am simply giving your idea real world application. I'm not calling the kid hitler, I am simply telling him he can't charge 8 bucks a cup or else no one will buy his limeade. (though your ideas are reminiscent of a little kids capitalistic venture, not too well thought out for real world application and doomed for failure)

Again mate, I admit that this is not realistic at this time in the least. You are absolutely right to suggest that nearly any plan implemented would probably end up turning into a rich persons vs. poor persons vote. That isn't to say we can't at least offer up possible suggestions.

Oh, and I'm also trying to debate in this thread that its ethical to take away the rights of some people to vote, especially if their poor decision making passes things that aren't optimal for society.

Voting isn't just about making a decision. It is about the government working for everyone. While I do agree they may not be great decision makers, their interests are no less important than the interests of an intelligent person.