Location114 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Thats the exact point i was trying to make to alchresearch in particular there would have to be a pass or fail rate for the IQ test otherwise it would be a pointless test. 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...
Cynic Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 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. I strayed off topic with my post about execution, and I wish I thought of sterilisation first. That is a much better idea, and you have mentioned a lot of this issues I though of. It is kind of what prompted a thread I just started about cleaning up the gene pool. Which if anyone bothers to read and understand may prompt a torrent of abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I was thinking about this the other day because if lying politician A says I will give you £100 a year if you vote for me and truthful politician B says I am going to take £100 off you every year because we need to pay back what we owe stupid people are bound to go for the cash. Its not an iq thing though so an iq test would never work. It would have to be an empathy/future thinking ie if we do this in 5 years this would happen test. ...if only.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingershers Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 everyone should be able to vote!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gault Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Stupid people have a right to representation. People voting for idealogical instead of factual reasons have every right to do so. Works for me, a real parliament and a stupid parliament then, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 everyone should be able to vote!! Even criminals, the insane? (No MP jokes. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I was thinking about this the other day because if lying politician A says I will give you £100 a year if you vote for me and truthful politician B says I am going to take £100 off you every year because we need to pay back what we owe stupid people are bound to go for the cash. Its not an iq thing though so an iq test would never work. It would have to be an empathy/future thinking ie if we do this in 5 years this would happen test. ...if only.... I think that a better solution would be to make it a legal requirement that manifesto promises have to be kept. No politician would then lie blatantly about giving everyone £100 as they'd be penalised for failing to deliver it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I strayed off topic with my post about execution, and I wish I thought of sterilisation first. That is a much better idea, and you have mentioned a lot of this issues I though of. It is kind of what prompted a thread I just started about cleaning up the gene pool. Which if anyone bothers to read and understand may prompt a torrent of abuse. Directed evolution is an interesting idea, but you only have a moral right to direct your own evolution (ie choosing an appropriate partner, maybe even having a designer baby), to interfere with other people is rather fascist and likely to illicit a violent response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gault Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 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%. My my, stupidity at its highth. If one removes the bottom 30% the fact that 'averages' change has nothing to do with the fact that you did get shut of the 'idiots'. So just to make it simple so those who fall into the catagory might understand your plight Cyclone, taking out the bottom 30% would end up meaning those with an IQ of 93 and lower would be dissenfranchised. That should be about 98% of the loony left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RasmusBart Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 They let us Buffoons vote ! :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.