Stupid people

[LightHorseman]

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...

 

[Kris10leigh]

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.

 

[LightHorseman]

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.

There are exceptions to every rule, of course. However, GENERALLY speaking... people with lower IQs are less "wise" than people with higher ones.

 

[BlackSabb]

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.

 

[Kris10leigh]

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.

 

[sidhe]

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.

 

[b&wpac4]

<staff edit>

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.

 

[LightHorseman]

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.

 

[BlackSabb]

<staff edit>

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>

 

[LightHorseman]

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?

 

[Kris10leigh]

I don't think anyone who is "exceptionally" wise can have THAT low an IQ.

Depends on your definition of "wise".

 

[LightHorseman]

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.

Do you think the ability to use a computer translates appropriately to one's ability to make society effecting decisions?

I'm sure there are quite a few "absent minded professor" types out there who have humorous little flaws... but my point is, when it comes to significant and important things, like how to run nations, and who should be in charge of economies... would you rather your professor types guide the decisions, or the people who can't locate their own country on a map?

 

[LightHorseman]

Depends on your definition of "wise".

Yes, it IS a bit of a subjective term... which is why I prefer to discuss IQ, something that can be more or less quantified.

 

[quatona]

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...

I´m not sure that your premise that a high IQ correlates with high social competence is accurate.
Then again, I am pretty stupid, and my opinion doesn´t count anyway.

 

[sidhe]

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?

It still remains that IQ doesn't say anything about a person's fitness to be in power over others, or make major decisions that affect others. Someone who is perfectly intelligent could still harbor prejudices, etc., that guide how they view other people.

 

[LightHorseman]

I´m not sure that your premise that a high IQ correlates with high social competence is accurate.
Then again, I am pretty stupid, and my opinion doesn´t count anyway.

social competence isn't whats at issue here. You can be the most socially competent person in the world, but that doesn't mean you are necesariuly well placed to make decisions effecting the lives of others.

 

[b&wpac4]

Do you think the ability to use a computer translates appropriately to one's ability to make society effecting decisions?

I'm sure there are quite a few "absent minded professor" types out there who have humorous little flaws... but my point is, when it comes to significant and important things, like how to run nations, and who should be in charge of economies... would you rather your professor types guide the decisions, or the people who can't locate their own country on a map?

It could. I don't think this person has the "bigger picture" view of society and is more focused on his immediate surroundings. Having lots of intelligence has little to do with being informed enough to make good decisions on issues you are not involved with.

 

[LightHorseman]

It still remains that IQ doesn't say anything about a person's fitness to be in power over others, or make major decisions that affect others. Someone who is perfectly intelligent could still harbor prejudices, etc., that guide how they view other people.

I';m not saying higher inteligence denotes perfection... but I have (anecdotal evidence, I know) personally observed that people of higher inteligence are GENERALLY better at making BETTER decisions for the general greater good than people of less inteligence.

IQ may not be a flawless predictor of one's ability to be in power... but can you actually think of a better one? Once, universal suffrage gave the best available indication of who would be best placed in power... however, IQ gives us a tool that may give us an even better tool for determining this. Particularly in the age of highly biased mass media and punditry, I contend that one man one vote creates to much risk when the lowest common denominator can be so easily led to vote against the best interests of society over hot button, yet largely irrelevant issues.

 

[LightHorseman]

It could. I don't think this person has the "bigger picture" view of society and is more focused on his immediate surroundings. Having lots of intelligence has little to do with being informed enough to make good decisions on issues you are not involved with.

Once again, I'm not saying IQ is a perfect predictor... it is my observation however, that more inteligent people TEND to be more informed than people of lesser inteligence, and TEND to make decisions based on more information and taking more factors into consideration than people of lesser inteligence.

 

[b&wpac4]

Once again, I'm not saying IQ is a perfect predictor... it is my observation however, that more inteligent people TEND to be more informed than people of lesser inteligence, and TEND to make decisions based on more information and taking more factors into consideration than people of lesser inteligence.

This is, perhaps, true to some degree, but I would never set up a scale where there is an intelligence test required to make important votes or decisions. It creates a situation where intelligence then becomes a view for people being "better" and, perhaps, a situation where those deemed less intelligent start being denied rights, such as having children, so that the purity of our highest intelligence is not tainted.