Stupid people

I will have to repeat what I have said before: I am totally against LHMs model, but...

...it must be possible to entertain ideas without immediately being put into a corner where you don´t belong.

Junaid0 said:

Each person's vote is considered equal. It's how the system works,

Click to expand...

Yes, we know how the system works, but that doesn´t mean it´s the best possible way.
Besides, it´s not exactly how the system works - there are already exceptions, at least in the country where I live. E.g. persons with severe mental disabilities or disorders are not allowed to vote. If you are determined to argue from slippery slopes you could start right there.

if you want someone's vote to count more than others, where will it stop?

Click to expand...

I think LHM has given his ideas including where he wants it to stop.
I think it´s not a good idea, but your slippery slope is merely a means to address the actual model he suggested.

Will you allow women and blacks to vote?

Click to expand...

As far as I have understood LHM, he will. All he contemplated on were distinctions made on the basis of mental capacities, which is an entirely different thing than distinctions made on skin colour or gender.

Anything short of 1 man, 1 vote is going to be prejudiced,

Click to expand...

I´m not sure which word you were looking for, but "prejudiced" is certainly not the accurate term in this context.

and everyone knows what that leads to.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, I don´t know this.
I know that certain models have lead to horrible results, but since LHMs model is completely different from them, I have no idea how you arrive at your conclusion.

What I do know is also: the current system does not lead to optimal results, thus I think entertaining alternative ideas is completely in order.

What I also know is that in contexts other than political voting there are different models than "1 man 1 vote", and they seem to work reasonably well.

I must say I'm a little surprised that this question is even a post on a Christian forum, let alone worth entertaining, who are we to judge who God has made and for what purposes He has made them?

satriani7 said:

I must say I'm a little surprised that this question is even a post on a Christian forum, let alone worth entertaining, who are we to judge who God has made and for what purposes He has made them?

Click to expand...

Since god has left us alone with this question and especially with the practical implications, I don´t see how the attempt to find societal models can even be avoided.
I also fail to see how your argument supports the current societal model, of all.

A big factor in this whole thing is not intelligence. It's ignorance. And ignorance happens at any IQ level. Giving people with higher IQ's extra votes would really do little to improve the world unless those people with higher IQ's spent most of their time studying social movements, politics, geography, and history. The other issue is that the system suggested in the OP seems to leave out a lot of people who have average IQ's but above-average skill in dealing with real-world issues. A mid-level HR manager with a 105 IQ may "only" have a 105 IQ, but they'll also be keeping up on the latest hiring trends, which means they also have to keep up-to-date on current issues.

chingchang said:

Look...I score VERY high on IQ tests. Last time (1 year ago) I scored a 142. Big whoop! The problem with our society is NOT that "dumb" people can vote. Our national elections here in the USA are an illusion of choice anyhow. I am fundamentally opposed to the underlying premise of your post. What you are advocating involves creating classes of people based on intelligence. A better approach may be to engage in outreach to educate these "stupid" people on the issues that are motivating you to post these ideas.

Besides...an elite class of high IQ people ALREADY control the entire world. Wake-up!

CC

Click to expand...

True. And sometimes it isn't even the highest of the IQ elite, it's those with IQ's of around 115-140 who also have very good skills at manipulation, EQ, and so on. A high IQ doesn't guarantee knowledge of the current events. It doesn't guarantee an ability to plan ahead. An average IQ doesn't equal ignorance.

Taure said:

Level of education might seem to be another way to differentiate between people. However, you have a problem of appropriateness: is a Film Studies degree really appropriate for allowing person greater say in determining policy? It doesn't have any direct relevance, even if there may be an argument that whatever the subject of your degree, it requires you to have at least a basic level of intelligence (and to those of you who say that you can get a degree and still be stupid, you underestimate the depths of human stupidity. At least requiring a degree to vote would get rid of those who can't even pass high school).

Click to expand...

One of my biggest pet peeves is the hierarchical system that peoplepeople rate degrees on. A BFA in Film Studies can actually be very useful, because it's a survey of the last century and a half of art, history, politics, social movements. An chemistry** student, on the other hand, may be very intelligent, but may spend a lot of time studying the micro world and be left with not much time to expore the macro world. A lot of BFA and BA degrees provide amazing oversight, hindsight, and foresight that some science degrees may miss, and can prepare a person for the real world quite well.


**of course, most chemistery students do take courses and read things that help build their overall understanding of the world, and aren't so focused on the micro that they ignore the world. It was just an example. I respect chemistry students, really I do.

tanzanos said:

PS: I scored 10 on my IQ test. Curious to know why?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm curious - I didn't think that was possible.

satriani7 said:

I must say I'm a little surprised that this question is even a post on a Christian forum, let alone worth entertaining, who are we to judge who God has made and for what purposes He has made them?

Click to expand...

People (individually or collectively) decide who´ll get which job or position ("judge for what purposes God has made them", as you call it) all the time, anyway.

aisy_Day said:

Yes, I'm curious - I didn't think that was possible.

Click to expand...

He cheated?

LightHorseman said:

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...

Click to expand...

Weapons of mass destruction are invented, designed perfected, and put into application by people with very high IQ's.

Polycarp_fan said:

Weapons of mass destruction are invented, designed perfected, and put into application by people with very high IQ's.

Click to expand...

Remember that the original intent of creating nuclear weapons in the US was to counter the possibility of Nazi Germany from attaining an advantage. Its use on Japan was considered necessary at the time in comparison to the predicted million casualties/deaths predicted from invading Japan conventionally. Thus, one may argue that Little Boy and Fat Man actually saved lives in the long term.

Additionally, the advent of nuclear weapons could be considered to have reduced international conflict. The threat of MAD has reduced the amount of large, destructive, and total wars such as WWII or WWI due to the prospect of global annihilation from side-effects such as fallout and EMP.