Intelligence Standards

Quote from: Raist on May 16, 2010, 01:08:03 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: 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.

....

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.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 02:25:52 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 16, 2010, 01:08:03 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 15, 2010, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: 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.

....

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.

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.

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.

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%.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 02:53:39 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. 

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.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 16, 2010, 06:39:02 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. 

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 06:04:25 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.

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.

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 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.

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.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 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.

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?

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 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?

Quote from: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 12:46:49 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 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.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on May 17, 2010, 03:29:31 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 12:46:49 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 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?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 03:47:49 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on May 17, 2010, 03:29:31 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 12:46:49 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 16, 2010, 09:12:18 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.

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.

Quote from: Sadistic on May 17, 2010, 12:46:49 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.

But the two suggestions I gave were more just jokes than actual suggestions.

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)

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Raist on May 17, 2010, 07:08:01 PM

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.