Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ed boy]

I can tell you right now that IQ is absolute bullshit, and it should in no way be used for any basis. I recently has a phychologist tell me that, depending on how the test is administered, I could score anywhere from the 30th percentile to the 99.9th percentile.

[Phmcw]

Yes, it's only useful in the process of a diagnosis. And even then i's very unreliable.

[ed boy]

Yes, it's only useful in the process of a diagnosis. And even then i's very unreliable.

It was in the protest of a diagnosis that I was told that.

And before you start going "that boy's crazy", It was dysgraphia I was diagnosed with.

[Aqizzar]

I really hope madk isn't serious, and is just trying to start a flame-war.

Alternative explanation - he's about 15 years old and believes he's a genius.  It's amazing how few people have ever taken anything that could be called an IQ test.  I certainly haven't.


If there's one aspect of American government I truly dislike, it's single-district representation.  Poll the American people on absolutely any issue, and you'll come back with whopping majorities for lots of "controversial" positions, and often whopping majorities for one political party or the other (which changes all the time, obviously).  But you get shit entrenched for decades at a time because of fucking redistricting.  And yes, I am upset about this because it'll be Texas's main political issue next year.

[Nilocy]

I don't think the UK is as anti-Europe as you were mentioning Phmcw. I can see where it comes from though. There are several very small and very vocal groups within our government acting as representatives for us in the EU parliament. Unfortunately these groups tend to be totally against the EU in every shape and form, mostly UKIP (UK independence party) and the BNP. Both of which are heavily right wing, so much so that the BNP is in open racist territory.

Although the major powers in the UK: Cons, Labs and Libs tend to be on the fence about it. They pretty much welcome European jurisdiction as it fits nicely in with our political stances. There are of course going to be a few issues with conforming to new laws in some places but the UK seriously benefits from open borders and trading with the rest of the EU. Conversely the EU benefits greatly from the UK being a member, they earn a lot of money from us.

As for my own views on the EU I think it could be better, a lot more streamlined for one. Its the red tape of red tapes. That coupled with the UKs aging bureaucracy gives us no end of troubles. But it kinda gives a stronger voice to stand up and do cooler shit than if the EU countries went alone. Its also a nice safegaurd against Germany doing anything rash also inb4 League of Nations.

[MaximumZero]

...I really shouldn't have wandered in here. I'm so far left leaning that I look conservative on some issues.

Political parties should be outlawed. The infighting in American politics is getting us nowhere. Candidates should be forced to have lists of exactly where they stand, on each issue prior to any election.

Corporate lobbying must be ended.

Month long government vacations should not exist. Senators and Congressmen should be given one bill per session, and be locked in their respective buildings until there is a resolution of some sort.

Red tape needs to be burned away. Bureaucracy is out of control, and has been for decades.

Foreign aid needs to be clamped down on until we no longer have homeless and hungry citizens in our own country. Our military needs to be pulled from all other countries in the world, unless we are actively attacking, defending or occupying them.

[Phmcw]

Maxim, you know, "foreign aid" is mostly a pretty name for "building infrastructure in poor countries to be able to do business there".
There is exception, but that is the aim of the government none the less, so it's really not crippling the budget. Also, we're exploiting them for resources and cheap labor, for instance trough their crushing debt toward us.

Not really a mindless good deed crippling your economy (not something they are going to do anyway)

[RedKing]

Raise the voting IQ limit to 120 and lower the age limit to 14. I can honestly say that I've met more grown idiots than young idiots and that general education would be a lot stronger with these adjustments.

So you're basing ability to vote on a nebulous statistic rather than real world experience?  Awesome.  I'm sure 14 year olds are going to vote for the best candidate and not whoever their parents think is the best candidate.

Also, according to the bell curve, 120+ is like 13% of the population.  Oh hey Oligarchy, didn't see you come in.  How's it goin'?

You say that like it's a bad thing. If thinking that maybe the best & brightest should have a bigger say in running things (instead of a semi-random sampling of the population) makes me an elitist bastard, then I'm guilty as charged. So is John Adams, who suggested to Jefferson that either a fourth branch of government or third chamber of Congress be allocated to the intelligentsia, to provide the voice of reason and wisdom and act as a pivotal counterbalance to the Populism/Establishment tensions inherent in Congress.

Basically (at least in the American system), the House is designed to be the "voice of the people", however crazy or short-sighted. The Senate is designed to be the "voice of the establishment", the long-sighted and more circumspect elder statesmen who would keep America from doing stupid things that seemed like a good idea in the heat of the moment. The problem that Adams saw is that since Senators would be elected just as Representatives are, they'd wind up electing demagogues and charismatic idiots to the Senate as well. Jefferson disagreed, saying that the people were basically smart and would see through rhetoric and demagoguery.

Jefferson could be a real dumbass sometimes. That said, I agree that the IQ test is a poor indicator of intelligence. And I say that as someone who has scored 150+.

[Cthulhu]

Madk didn't say the best and brightest should have a bigger say, he said they should have all the say.

[RedKing]

Maybe a proportional vote? Multiply your vote by your IQ as a percentage. So, a normal IQ of 100 = 1 x 1.00 = 1 vote.

A person with an 80 IQ = 1 x 0.80 = eight-tenths of a vote.

Masses of idiots still have political power, but are counterbalanced by smaller numbers of bright people. And Stephen Hawking basically contitutes his own electoral district.

But yeah, you still have the problem that IQ sucks as a true indicator of intelligence.

[Duke 2.0]

Stephen Hawking basically contitutes his own electoral district.

He would have between 1.5 and 2 votes under your system.
 Eh.

[Nilocy]

I like this system. It means the entire country will be run by people who conduct IQ tests.

[Phmcw]

Oh yeah, that would work!!! So bright!!! one can see that only a superior mind could have such a marvelous idea.

Now really, why does poeple have no shame when it come to politics?
The most retarded the idea, the louder it is shout!
Not against you Redking, but really, did you think about it? Did you tried to see if it was attempted before?
Nonproportional vote, based on "merits" and on "usefulness" was pretty much the rule in Europe before it has been overrun .
Yes, of course that produced while it was in place, as expected, an ultra conservative state of mind, advantaging the elite, crushing the masses. 

[RedKing]

Stephen Hawking basically contitutes his own electoral district.

He would have between 1.5 and 2 votes under your system.
 Eh.

Which sort of points out the failings of the IQ system. To say Hawking is as smart as 2 average people basically fails because it's attempting to quantify an essentially intangible characteristic.

It's like saying "that chick is as hot as 3.5 regular chicks" or "Mother Teresa was as kind as seven little old ladies".


Phmcw: Yes, I did think about it. I'm not sending a proposal to Congress for enactment, I'm making idle conversation on an Internet forum. All suggestions should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

And yes, proportional voting has been done before, typically based on wealth and/or land. That's going to produce a fundamentally different electorate than one based on education/intelligence. It might not be any better, but it would be different. Part of what you are seeing is my frustration with an electorate that is easily duped by transparent rhetoric and fallacy and rumor, that half the time doesn't even understand what they're voting on, and the other half doesn't give a shit--they just vote for the guy with the best hair and/or the snappiest one-liner.

[scriver]

Oh yeah, that would work!!! So bright!!! one can see that only a superior mind could have such a marvelous idea.

Now really, why does poeple have no shame when it come to politics?
The most retarded the idea, the louder it is shout!
Not against you Redking, but really, did you think about it? Did you tried to see if it was attempted before?
Nonproportional vote, based on "merits" and on "usefulness" was pretty much the rule in Europe before it has been overrun .
Yes, of course that produced while i was in place, as expected, an ultra conservative state of mind, advantaging the elite, crushing the masses. 

Now now, we we're perfectly happy with simply ignoring the masses until you began trying to take our power away from us.