40,000 men and women everyday, re-define happiness
Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 4,596
Blessings: 24,598
Reps: 49,190,901,784,082 (power: 0)
Stupid people
So, I was in a thread about gun ownership, and I was putting forward my POV that people of sufficient inteligence should generally be permitted access to firearms, while people with lesser inteligence should have such access restricted. I've also thought for a long time that peoples' right to vote should be tied to their inteligence, e.g. you get one vote for being alive, and an extra vote for every 10 IQ points over 80 or so, and an extra vote for every 1 IQ point over 130. I sincerely believe that people of above average inteligence are generally more likely to make decisions based on evidence rather than selfish emotion, and more likely to act in a just and socially minded fashion than those of lesser inteligence.
So, if I'm correct, it stands to reason that we should ensure that more inteligent people play a greater role in shaping and directing our society, while less inteligent people should have their influence curtailed as much as possible. So what do you think? Would the world be a better place if we kept less inteligent people generally placated with bread and circuses while stripping them of power, and lett the more inteligent members of society control things for the greater good?
Interested to hear your thought. Of course, arguments of inteligent people will carry more weight than those of stupid people.
Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they have a lick of common sense.
Low IQ does NOT equate "stupid". A lot of people with low IQ's are much wiser than I.
Exactly. I've seen doctors, professsors, psychatrists, lecturers etc that have been total morons. Good at their job but that's all. Dumb as when it came to everything else.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But if your criteria is based only on IQ, you lose out on the vote of the exceptionally wise.
Every person who votes brings with them baggage that will affect how they vote. I will vote in any and all school levies, for instance, because I work in the schools (with mentally retarded students ), I know that schools can not operate without money and they don't just ask for it on a whim. That influences my vote. When I vote for putting someone in office, the people I love affect me. If I have a loved one with Parkinson's, it's more likely I'm going to vote in someone who believes in stem-cell research. It doesn't matter what IQ I have, I can still have a relative with Parkinson's.
So, I was in a thread about gun ownership, and I was putting forward my POV that people of sufficient inteligence should generally be permitted access to firearms, while people with lesser inteligence should have such access restricted. I've also thought for a long time that peoples' right to vote should be tied to their inteligence, e.g. you get one vote for being alive, and an extra vote for every 10 IQ points over 80 or so, and an extra vote for every 1 IQ point over 130. I sincerely believe that people of above average inteligence are generally more likely to make decisions based on evidence rather than selfish emotion, and more likely to act in a just and socially minded fashion than those of lesser inteligence.
So, if I'm correct, it stands to reason that we should ensure that more inteligent people play a greater role in shaping and directing our society, while less inteligent people should have their influence curtailed as much as possible. So what do you think? Would the world be a better place if we kept less inteligent people generally placated with bread and circuses while stripping them of power, and lett the more inteligent members of society control things for the greater good?
Interested to hear your thought. Of course, arguments of inteligent people will carry more weight than those of stupid people.
Discuss...
Ah, the issue is that IQ tests favor those who are good at tests, as is the issue with any such testing. Also, one would have to factor in EQ...someone with a 150IQ, and an EQ that put them on par with a sociopathic killer probably shouldn't get much say in people's lives, since that combination gives us charming folks like Dr. Mengele.
Put another way, if I applied to grad school having taken the standard GRE exam for entrance, I'd have stood a lesser chance of getting in than if I took the Miller Analogies Test, because I'm more abstract than concrete in thought. Does it mean that I'm smarter than someone with a higher GRE score, but who can't nail analogies with ease? Nope, we just test differently. Someone who can successfully score well on a standard IQ test, IMHO, has demonstrated little other than that they're good at taking a standard IQ test.
__________________
I am the microcosmic reflection of God Herself. I get to make up my own religion. I got my permission slip signed.
You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because...well, you're not laughing now, are you?
"Religion must remain an outlet for people who say to themselves, 'I am not the kind of person I want to be.' It must never sink into an assemblage of the self-satisfied." - Dune
There's a guy I work with who is the "absentminded professor" types. Knows more about engineering than I could ever hope to learn if I studied from now until the end of my life, but has trouble with basic things like "The computer is telling me to hit "Ok" to continue, what do I do to keep going?"
I would NOT say that he is stupid, however. He is highly, highly intelligent. But in some really basic tasks, he struggles.
Last edited by suzybeezy; 3rd June 2009 at 01:41 PM.
40,000 men and women everyday, re-define happiness
Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 4,596
Blessings: 24,598
Reps: 49,190,901,784,082 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by Kris10leigh
But if your criteria is based only on IQ, you lose out on the vote of the exceptionally wise.
I don't think anyone who is "exceptionally" wise can have THAT low an IQ.
Every person who votes brings with them baggage that will affect how they vote. I will vote in any and all school levies, for instance, because I work in the schools (with mentally retarded students ), I know that schools can not operate without money and they don't just ask for it on a whim. That influences my vote. When I vote for putting someone in office, the people I love affect me. If I have a loved one with Parkinson's, it's more likely I'm going to vote in someone who believes in stem-cell research. It doesn't matter what IQ I have, I can still have a relative with Parkinson's.
Of course personal experience flavours the way one votes... however, people who are more likely to look at the bigger picture and make an effort to obtain objective data in regards to their decisions, will make a less subjective decision, or a decision better for everyone, than the less inteligent, who seem to think only of their own small picture self interest.
I mean, there is nothing wrong with only being interested in your own small picture interest, of course. The issue I have is when people only interested in their own personal welfare are allowed to make decisions that effect others as well.
What about a surgeon I know that has had bouts of domestic abuse, whilst living a double live having another wife, complete with children, in another country? How does that grab you for intelligence?
Or what about my university professor where I attended university (just to prove a point buddy). He was a complete dopehead. You could literally smell the pot on him. And the poor guy was so confused, I don't know how he kept his job. But he would lecture and constantly forget where he was up to. It was hilarious sitting in on his lectures though.
<staff edit>
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Prissanna; 5th June 2009 at 02:13 PM.
40,000 men and women everyday, re-define happiness
Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 4,596
Blessings: 24,598
Reps: 49,190,901,784,082 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by sidhe
Ah, the issue is that IQ tests favor those who are good at tests, as is the issue with any such testing. Also, one would have to factor in EQ...someone with a 150IQ, and an EQ that put them on par with a sociopathic killer probably shouldn't get much say in people's lives, since that combination gives us charming folks like Dr. Mengele.
Put another way, if I applied to grad school having taken the standard GRE exam for entrance, I'd have stood a lesser chance of getting in than if I took the Miller Analogies Test, because I'm more abstract than concrete in thought. Does it mean that I'm smarter than someone with a higher GRE score, but who can't nail analogies with ease? Nope, we just test differently. Someone who can successfully score well on a standard IQ test, IMHO, has demonstrated little other than that they're good at taking a standard IQ test.
Hey, I fully acknowledge that the current IQ model is not perfect, and that it doesn't give an accurate result for EVERYONE, there are always exceptions to the rule. But rather than just maintaining the flawed status quo because of the exceptional statistical outliers in current IQ evaluation... maybe we'd do well to improve IQ analysis to eliminate the exceptions to the rule?
), I know that schools can not operate without money and they don't just ask for it on a whim. That influences my vote. When I vote for putting someone in office, the people I love affect me. If I have a loved one with Parkinson's, it's more likely I'm going to vote in someone who believes in stem-cell research. It doesn't matter what IQ I have, I can still have a relative with Parkinson's. 
Linear Mode
