mr. pixel Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Sorry but thats the biggest load of rubbish i have heard in a long time yes your right on the basis that it would take forever to mark IQ tests. Now personally i dont vote but ive no doubt I could pass an IQ test as im actually bright yes i dont earn £20,000 or more a year but thats simply because I haven't been able to find a different job and its not asif im a waster because i work at the moment. Its absolutely diobolical to say that because you earn £20,000 or more that makes you a clever person and how can the area you live in possibly determine your level of intelligience. i honestly thought the orignal mention of this way of finding the clever people was sarcasm, or at least i'm hoping it was... :S i have an IQ of 148, but i don't earn £20k or live in a good area..but yes, i do work...and now i might get shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 My next idea was to force everyone in the country to take an IQ test (maybe even 3 and use the average to make it fair) then the bottom 30% are round up and shot. Just imagine a country without all the stupid people. I think we already live in a great country but all the things that do annoy can be put down to the idiots. For the sake of stupid people lets all hope I never take charge! All this post does is illustrate your ignorance of how the IQ measurement system works. On that basis, please take yourself outside (onto a plastic sheet for cleaning purposes) and do away with yourself in your preferred manner. For your enlightenment before your impending demise. The average ability of a group taking the IQ test is defined as a result of 100. If you remove the lowest 30% you will simply raise the average which means that you will still have a lowest 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynic Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 i honestly thought the orignal mention of this way of finding the clever people was sarcasm, or at least i'm hoping it was... :S I took it as sarcasm too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynic Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 For your enlightenment before your impending demise. The average ability of a group taking the IQ test is defined as a result of 100. If you remove the lowest 30% you will simply raise the average which means that you will still have a lowest 30%. So eventually we would end up with just one person left and then he would take a test and have to chop of his arms and a leg or something. I see no problem with that! I won't argue that the mechanism wasn't flawed but it doesn't detract from the overall idea. I should have added that it isn't an annual event the "stupid cull" would probably not happen more than once every 100 years. Probably even less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 ... to ask them as they approach the polling station "Do you intend to vote Labour"? If they say anything have them shot. The correct answer is "what's it got to do with you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Don't worry about it. SF will keep most of the stupid in Sheffield occupied on polling day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 So eventually we would end up with just one person left and then he would take a test and have to chop of his arms and a leg or something. I see no problem with that! I won't argue that the mechanism wasn't flawed but it doesn't detract from the overall idea. I should have added that it isn't an annual event the "stupid cull" would probably not happen more than once every 100 years. Probably even less. In that case it would miss out 4 in 5 generations and not actually help to stop stupid people voting in elections??? Wasn't that the point. As a technique for just raising the general intelligence of the nation, sterilisation might be slightly more humane than execution. Or at least the removal of a benefits system which can be exploited by having many children. It's an unfortunate fact that the more financially successful people in life have less children on average than the less. Financial success is only one proxy for intelligence, there are definitely others, but I suspect that however you measured it, stupid people have more children on average than intelligent ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Location114 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 If there wasnt a pass and fail rate for the IQ test to be able to vote then please enlighten me on the point of taking an IQ test if there wasnt a pass or fail rate because then we would be in the same situation as we are now because everyone would get through. As there is technically no pass or fail for an IQ test (just a score) you've failed already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 It makes a lot of sense but would be incredibly complicated. Imagine the vote counters having to mark every test papers before deciding whether to count the person's vote! A simpler way to determine intelligence is to measure it against income and where you live, as the cleverer you are the more you earn. You should only be allowed to vote if you live in a nice area and earn more than £20,000 a year. So you wouldn't be voting then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 If there wasnt a pass and fail rate for the IQ test to be able to vote then please enlighten me on the point of taking an IQ test if there wasnt a pass or fail rate because then we would be in the same situation as we are now because everyone would get through. The result of the IQ test would be a numerical score. If the IQ test were used as a proxy for "are you eligible to vote," then some given score would have to be defined as a pass rating, and on that basis, yes, you could "pass" the test. You cannot "pass" an IQ test itself. It's still an inordinately bad idea. Many people with exceptional IQs are, in everyday terms, pretty stupid. The one chap I ever met with an IQ over 180 could give a passable imitation of two short planks on anything outside his own academic fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.