CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think it is logic to have intelligent leaders, so overall, I guess I'm on this side of the argument.
However, I'm a little hesitant for a couple reasons:
a) IQ is not a completely reliable measurement of intellect and more importantly, leadership abilities. I am fairly certain a person with a low IQ may still have excellent leadership skills. I am uncertain how much a low IQ would influence once ability to run a government/nation.
b) Ideally, a government should be able to get input from the majority of it's people. Since 'high' IQ implies that it is a greater IQ than the majority, that means that no members of the majority will be running the nation.
So while it makes sense to me to have those of high intellect in charge, I wouldn't call it an absolute.
Right, dumber people will make dumber decisions, and that obviously will apply to who can run the nation better. Case closed. If anything, we should never have segregated based on race. We should have segregated based on IQ but we didn't. That would have been a much better case than race or gender. I'm not saying we should because segregation is evil, however it would make a lot more sense. It also would be more individualized to say that someone who has an IQ lower than 85 counts for three fifths of a vote. Its not a completely morally correct law but I could see the case for that as an argument.
While I get the basis of your premise, I think you ignored my point "a" in my original post. Who decides what goes on the IQ test? Who decides what merits an 'intelligent voter.' Who decides what makes a person a 'dumber person,' especially when you are judging their intellect on their decision making?
It depends on the type of intelligence. One probably has to define intelligence as something. What I mean by that is lets say you define it academically. This can include math, computers, US and World History, even art history. But that's different from being an intelligent artist because an intelligent artist would have creative intelligence.
So, an intelligent voter to me is intelligent in terms of knowledge, insight, argument, etc. in politics and political and overall US History, and also world history. They understand our government and our economy right? Now someone doesn't have to be a super expert on just that subject, but see how once we defined intelligence to fit the premise of voting, we got a lot closer to having a definitive definition and even listed a realistic number of subjects. IMO, that works a lot better than just saying "general intelligence."
I also think if one did an experiment, there probably is an overall correlation of average intelligence, but one simply cannot know everything. Also, someone who is intelligence in a well-rounded manner may know less in some places than others. Person A may be highly intelligent at math, but not at being shrewd and street smart.
But someone who is intelligent in one or two major areas, my guess, does not have to be a complete savant. The average person with a high IQ in one area, I think has a high probability of still being a little bit intelligent in other areas. So I think there may be a correlation of overall average intelligence.
But in the case of voting, I think that's about understanding modern day issues.
Any form of intelligence probably has some way it can be used to take advantage of people though, even artistic intelligence. I think even if someone is given a savant skill, then society should treat someone who is gifted in one area, so long as they have developed practical skill in the area to apply the intelligence, as more credible to make decisions for society in that area.
I think that goes too far in terms of answering your question, but I think that to decide if someone is an "intelligent voter" that one would need to be educated on modern day issues, history, etc, as mentioned above. They also need to have proven themselves by doing something great to define the standard. After that, the people who pass tests written by those people can then be defined as "intelligent voters."
Insight and argument probably needs to be included in these tests. Does someone just remember the material or are they able to provide a practical argument in the area. That's hard to measure but its a lot easier to define, and therefore practically measure, compared to just the word "intelligent" because that means very little until a circumstantial definition is given.
I think the people are too ignorant to do what's good for themselves(the idiot majority). I think we should make slaves out of the dumbest 20%. I've even contemplated killing the stupid - we could use population reduction.
>> brain flash- maybe voting is ok, but exclude the bottom IQ. Have an IQ qualification to vote😉👍
I was exaggerating because I think he's going too far but I agree with his general position and he makes a good point. I should not have said he didn't know how to read none the less.
NO I think you're proceeding egomanatically and then proceeds with physical harm, once again I can compare you to hitler, having labor camps for stupid people. People can learn on colleges, that if they have will power etc. The problem mostly in America is the media, the media nowadays focuses much on Popularity, Talents that has nothing to do with making a society better, but less on education. Therefore we must cut-off every illiterate celebrities and dumb music, then voila! problem solved.
Yes, because the MODERN media nowadays promote stupidity nicki minaj and other ridiculous hip-hop stars who promote retardedness. Its obvious, Hollywood.
Smart people are not any more selfish than normal or dumb people. Actually juvenile (dumber) mind set is often very selfish (like kids are not selfish?). A smart person may be less likely to let someone take advantage but not take advantage of others.
Children are actually more intelligent than adults. Their rate of learning is far above them. What they lack, in comparison to adults, is capability to use that information in a coherent manner.
IQ and age are not parallels as you have suggested.
Another essential question that was posed in the description was: Should we live in a democracy where the average American reading on a 7th grade level?
Erm, isn't "7th grade level" defined by what is the average for a 7th grader? You are saying there is no difference between an average adult's reading level and an average 7th graders level? No one improves?
I don't think it is defined as what a 7th grader can read, but what a 7th grader should be able to read.
Once you get out of school you can lose your skills. It is a combination of not improving much and going backwards. Harvard is not the one who determined it is a 7th grade reading level.
Supporting Evidence:
Possible source
(www.clearlanguagegroup.com)
I see. Perhaps they should change the standards if no child in 7th grade is achieving the standards that they label as a 7th grade reading level. I am not sure if it means much at all. We could just call it a 7/12. Most American don't read at a 7/12 level. Suppose it isn't as catchy.
True, but it is individuals, and since the average person is not a politician, I think it is inaccurate to say that the government is made up of the same kind of people as the average citizen.
1.) The people run the govt. so it is irrelevant with whom the govt. is comprised.
2.) The individuals in the govt. are mainly average people with formal education.
I am suggesting that the govt. should be comprised of high IQ individuals, and following that, the idea that people run the govt. should desist. You can be a politician with an average IQ, but my point is that high IQ individuals should switch from being nuclear-physicist, and become important governmental leaders.
In case you ignored my argument on the other side, intelligence is actually proportionally opposed with social ability and proneness to empathy.
You and I both agree that people below average intelligence should certainly not run the country for obvious reasons, where we beg to differ is the geniuses actually suck at politics, they do not comprehend irrational morality and do not know how to speak to people in a 'roundabout' way when delivering anything but good news.
Geniuses are good at whatever it is that they do, politicians are good at what they do too. A political mindset is not an intelligent one, it's a communication-driven one where you organise several fairly intelligent people into ranks and roles so that they can do the work for you. You would be wasting talent, if anything, by putting really intelligent people in such semi-menial roles.
Sorry but I am not in favor of a political facade. If high IQ individuals proffer a rational morality to society, and they choose not accept it, then they should be faulted.
Moreover, your argument is neglecting the fact that a genius can be/become well versed in politics.
Further, if I am not mistaken, your argument implied that intelligence and psychopathy have a positive correlation- which is absurd.
[...] geniuses actually suck at politics [...]
This is your presumption that has no objective warrant, whatsoever. Your stigmatized thinking on what a genius actually is causes you to construct your argument in a way that not only implicitly vilifies geniuses, but also limits their capabilities-, which that in it of itself would be an unmitigated absurdity as the very thing that makes a genius a genius is their ability to learn to do things expeditiously and execute their learned abilities with efficacy higher than that of the average person under the same conditions.
Comprehensive recapitulation: A genius majoring in political science, and an average person majoring in political science: What are the outcomes? The genius will advance further and faster than their average counterpart, resulting in political genius and a non-genius politician. The former being more of an efficient politician, the latter being the average ill-suited politician.
(NOTE: My argument was not entirely based around politicians. The crux if it mainly dealt with governance.)
Geniuses are good at whatever it is that they do [...]
Which does not exclude politics.
A political mindset is not an intelligent one [...]
It should be and can be if the mind is that of a genius.
You would be wasting talent, if anything, by putting really intelligent people in such semi-menial roles.
No, we would have a better governmental structure if we placed geniuses in highly essential roles.
Well, the reason you are losing this debate is because of your refusal to consider rational alternatives: You can have high IQ individuals be both scientists and politicians (both mutually distinct). There are plenty candidates to consider.
I will also like to note that the govt. controls most of the scientific advancements as most of them require govt. funding (e.g. NASA). So if you have govt. officials who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the importance of scientific advancement, then a highly intelligent scientist is rendered useless.
My point with govt. officials is that they should have a high IQ. Simple. This system only works, though, if we change our democratic system.
Also, you know what was meant by me writing that the average American reads on a 7th grade reading level. I'm not interested in petty debating about particulars.
Well, as I said in my original post on this debate:
a) IQ is not a completely reliable measurement of intellect and more importantly, leadership abilities. I am fairly certain a person with a low IQ may still have excellent leadership skills. I am uncertain how much a low IQ would influence once ability to run a government/nation.
b) Ideally, a government should be able to get input from the majority of it's people. Since 'high' IQ implies that it is a greater IQ than the majority, that means that no members of the majority will be running the nation.
Essentially you are neglecting how much this role requires critical thinking and problem solving skills- both of which take precedence over leadership skills and are essential to leadership skills.
You can hire a puppet to utter a speech written up by the intelligent person. What is more important is that government bodies need to make important decisions- this requires an intellectual community who can satisfy that role.
Essentially you are neglecting how much this role requires critical thinking and problem solving skills- both of which take precedence over leadership skills and are essential to leadership skills.
Are critical thinking and problem solving skills equivalent to intellect? It's certainly not what IQ measures.
What is more important is that government bodies need to make important decisions- this requires an intellectual community who can satisfy that role.
Agreed. But that is not the only purpose of a government. Hence my argument that we need both; we definitely need those with high intellect involved in major decisions and leadership, but there are tons of other requirements. And if you exclude average people from leadership positions, how can the leaders represent the people?
Are critical thinking and problem solving skills equivalent to intellect?
Yes...
It's certainly not what IQ measures.
Those two aspects are most certainly what IQ measures. IQ measures reasoning- which includes both problem solving and critical thinking.
Hence my argument that we need both; we definitely need those with high intellect involved in major decisions and leadership, but there are tons of other requirements. And if you exclude average people from leadership positions, how can the leaders represent the people?
You are presupposing that there can be no highly intelligent leader... The solution to leadership is: assess numerous potential leaders, and choose the one with the highest IQ. Simple.
I don't know. As I said already, I don't think the IQ test is a reliable measure of the skills required to run the nation. I do agree that those in charge should have high intellect.
An IQ test proves that an individual is highly intelligent, and therefore opens the opportunity to easily instill the skills necessary to run the nation.
These skills are easily acquired as any highly intelligent individual can learn new skills relatively easily and quickly.
(1) Hardly... democracy is largely an illusion of choice with the added of opportunity for exceptional individuals to operate beyond the constraints of more authoritarian regimes.
(2) Probably more accurate to say that they are above average but not necessarily exceptional. Given that average means above the 50th percentile and that most government employees would be in occupations which are above that percentile. Given that there are decently functioning nations which appear to have above average but not exceptional leaders (e.g. Sweden, Norway, etc.) it follows that exceptionally high IQ persons are not necessary for a functional government. Their abilities might arguably be better applied elsewhere, either where they are actually required or towards ends of greater value than governance.
(3) I suspect that we will also diverge on this subject with regards to the value of ends, given our other exchange on the merits of utilitarianism versus egoism (as of yet unresolved; I believe I posted but am unsure if you received notice of that post). You clearly seem to be giving the former preference in this context, which still strikes me as indefensible; I see no reason why the highly intelligent should sacrifice their interests or desires to run the nation as opposed to anything else they might like to do instead.
I concede that essential compartments of democracy have been (and is being) rendered figuratively obsolete, and it's proclamation was never intended to be followed to its full extent upon inception. However, even in this group-run society- those in powerful positions should be intellectually elite (on the newtonian scale).
(2)
The point is that those functional nations would probably be more optimal if they had supreme intellectual leaders making rational prognostications and decisions.
(3)
Are we to infuse the two philosophies in this debate?
My arguments in certain debates do not always reflect my personal beliefs (my position in this debate is utilitarian despite me being otherwise). The pretext of this debate is rationality. If most individuals want to optimize the economy, etc., then the rational action would be to assign critical positions to those, not just intellectually capable, rather intellectually optimal and superior (esp. those such as Langan who are utilizing their cognitive resources unproductively).
Sure, the guy who graduated second in his class from harvard business school would be a worthy candidate for a CEO in x company, but he who graduated 1st in his class would be the optimal choice (adjusting for extraneous variables).
---
Postscript: I did not receive a notice of your response but will gladly respond to both of your responses re: egoism, and intelligence causing creativity; I will also respond to your previous response re: animal experimentation.
(1) I think you misunderstood my point. Mine is not an argument of obsolescence at all. You argued that it is irrelevant who comprises the government because the people run the government. Unless you were referring to "people" in the sense that government is comprised of individuals, rather than to the democratic notion of "the people", then I do not think this statements holds true. I do not think democracy ever has or can live up to its conceptual ideals of being truly of the people, for numerous reasons that I could go into.
I would, again, dispute the notion that we are truly a group run society. The group(s) is/are rather effectively managed by the powers that be, and arguably always have been. At any rate, I fail to see why this variable would validate or invalidate the premise in question.
(2) I am not disputing that the government might be more effective if it were run by the intellectual elite, although I think that something of a tenuous claim. My point is that perhaps optimal governance is not actually to be preferred over optimized alternatives (e.g. science). You are assuming that governance should have priority over other potential applications. I think you are also assuming that the ends of government (whatever those be) would necessarily be the same as those of the intellectual elite (whomever they be).
(3) I should think not. I find them utterly incompatible as philosophies, as I have elaborated upon at greater length in the other debate. My impression was that your argument on this subject was utilitarian in origin, although you had not stated it quite so explicitly. I confess I find it difficult to move beyond that premise since I become rather hung up on its inadequacy. As an egoist, the argument that highly intelligent persons should do anything to satisfy another's ends is entirely dissatisfactory (e.g. so long as Langan is satisfied it cannot be legitimately said that he is unproductive, or his abilities wasted).
Postscript: Splendid. I anticipate your replies with pleasure, though certainly at your leisure.
Although I can't decide which side to be on, here are a few Greek points.
Plato had the idea that ancient Greece should be run by people called 'philosopher kings', who are people of high intelligence and ability to reason. He thought it would be best for a group of these people to run society as they would likely know what is best for the people.
Aristotle, Plato's student, had three classifications of government, which were monarchy, aristocracy and polity. Monarchy being a nation ruled by one, aristocracy by a few and polity by the many. However, Aristotle saw that the perversions of these governments would be possible. When perverted, monarchy becomes tyranny, aristocracy becomes oligarchy and polity becomes democracy.
I think that when deciding what would be best for government and society there will always be disagreements, so it can never be fully satisfying for the nation whether majority or minority.
That is basically what Plato was saying. He thought that people with an adept knowledge and ability to reason would be best to run society. I think it is a good idea to be honest, as long as these people do not pervert the government, as Aristotle said could happen. If the group of highly educated people were to run the nation they would have to take responsibility and not just use their power for personal benefit.
What does that even mean, "pervert the government"? And why should more highly educated/intelligent people not use their power for their own personal benefit? Especially if stupid people allow them to do so?
Perversion of the government is when the leaders of society, as you say, use their power for personal benefit. I don't think that intelligent people shouldn't be allowed to run society if they have the capability to do so effectively, yet I don't think they should use their power to fuel corrupt and unfair regimes for the greater good of themselves and rich companies on their side.
But why is that "perverse"? You are just reasserting your claim in support of itself, which is begging the question. The problem with egalitarian ethics is that it flies in the face of reality; it is an idealistic aspiration detached from what is. The powerful have always done as they will, and what is to say that is wrong beyond your unfounded sensibility?
I am just using the term that Aristotle is said to have coined. I agree that the powerful have used their power for themselves in the past, however I am not saying that it isn't possible for someone to lead with their people in mind before themselves.
"when perverted polity becomes democracy"... I'm pretty sure if democracy is perverted it becomes trapped in mediocrity/stagnancy (no progress) is what he meant.
I'm so glad to see my topic getting action! I am very passionate about this and also about requiring a license to have kids. U see, stupid people (ones who don't continually expand their minds) cause pain and suffering for the whole population and it's not fair
Stupid people are essential to the functioning of society as the latter evolved with a dependency upon an expendable population. More importantly, why should we care if their procreation does create more pain and suffering for the whole population? Why should we care about what is "fair"? What even is "fair"?
I believe that high IQ citizens should run our nation to make Democratic decisions that can affect other citizens in a good way. Look at our other republicans, they most likely have a lower IQ level than this guy. I think it is ridiculous to allow people with the IQ of a moldy rock to run our country!
None of those provide statiscal evidence that most intelligent people are psychopathic.
Also, they just discuss the subject of psychopaths, rather than discuss intelligence and how high intelligence contributes to causing psychopathic behavior.
The researchers say that while psychopaths are not more intelligent than non-psychopaths as Cleckley suggested, high intelligence appears to "enhance the destructive potential" of a psychopath. They speculate, "[P]erhaps an explanation lies in the experience of having high intellectual abilities together with characteristics such as impulsivity and irresponsibility that do not allow one to succeed in the ways that people with high intellectual abilities normally do."
Seems to go against your own point. Hmmm
3rd. Article only discusses how intelligent psychopaths are likely to better conceal their psychopathy.
4th. One only discusses the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths.
The more intelligent you are, the dumber and 'simpler' everyone else seems. This gives you bouts of manipulation capabilities over the average person and leads to you taking major advantage of any power given. The intelligent person takes the same rank and/or power as the normal or dumb person and makes far more use of it than they do including selfish use.
The intelligent person would sooner use their power to benefit themselves and trick people into believing they are not than to be dumb and genuinely give away their resources etc for others to benefit as this is irrational and hence goes against the intelligent man/woman's ethos.
Additionally, you will find that intelligent people tend to use their superior ability to convince others to get others to do work for them rather than to do an awful lot themselves. They'd sooner have those below them doing their jobs for them than be lifting a finger themselves.
Being smart is great for the smart person, not for others. The only way to keep smart people useful to others is to have people less intelligent, or perhaps of normal intelligence, to keep them under their thumb and ensure they are using their talents for the good of others.
The more intelligent you are, the dumber and 'simpler' everyone else seems. This gives you bouts of manipulation capabilities over the average person and leads to you taking major advantage of any power given.
Just because someone is capable doing something, doesn't mean they'll do it.
The intelligent person takes the same rank and/or power as the normal or dumb person and makes far more use of it than they do including selfish use.
Selfish use doesn't necessarily mean that it is no use to others.
Additionally, you will find that intelligent people tend to use their superior ability to convince others to get others to do work for them rather than to do an awful lot themselves. They'd sooner have those below them doing their jobs for them than be lifting a finger themselves.
A good leadership quality.
The only way to keep smart people useful to others is to have people less intelligent, or perhaps of normal intelligence, to keep them under their thumb and ensure they are using their talents for the good of others
But normal intelligence people will have issues with seeing what the intelligent persons talents are, as this takes good critical thinking skills to ascertain....something that normal intelligence people lack.
"A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught is the second best sign."
That's a quote from your first article and that is one unintelligent quality. The most intelligent people learn from their mistakes, since everyone makes them.
I believe that that may be one type of intelligent person, but it is not all.
"Psychopathy involves poor emotional intelligence, the lack of conscience, and an inability to feel attached to people except in terms of their value as a source of stimulation or new possessions. "
This also seems less intelligent. A psychopath is intelligent at manipulating others, but there are many kinds of intelligent. What this article seems to describe is someone who is intelligent in one specific, or even a few specific ways. It does not describe someone with general high intelligence.
In much the same way, being a computer hacker is intelligent in one way, but not another.
I feel that to be the person who takes advantage of the world, one must be sufficiently smarter than the average person in a lot of ways, and one way especially, but be dumb enough in another way to care enough to do such a thing. Overall it is high intelligence, but it sounds to me like the most intelligent person wouldn't need to do this. They MIGHT do it if there's a good reason.
Also, even among people who share similar views (believe me, I think most people are dumb too, that doesn't make me Einstein right?), not everyone is a society hater. To be fair, I'm a hypocrite because I'm completely anti-establishment and against the social norm, not to say that I am Einstein because I'm not.
Further, to support the person who just disputed you further, if intelligent people never did good things why then were George Washington, Einstein, and Martin Luther King good people? I'll be fair and say there are people who take advantage of the system like Hitler.
I'll conclude to say that it might be true that an intelligent person can be bad, and therefore take advantage of the system (Hitler). It is debatable that there are also some nice people that take advantage of systems set up by bad people (like anonymous arguably or someone similar taking advantage of computer systems to expose corruption). But a huge percentage of histories great people who were intelligent did wonderful things for society. If there are nice intelligent people, then nice intelligent people should run the nation. But the word intelligent still has to be included in that because unintelligent people will screw everything up.
Or maybe you'd say intelligence comes with responsibility.
Someone intelligent can't help being intelligent and someone dumb can't help being dumb. The intelligent person has the ability to make use of their ability for selfish reasons (look at black hat computer hackers and social engineers), but that's not always the highest level of intelligence because the most intelligent person wouldn't need to take advantage of everyone. Einstein and Steven Hawking don't need to right? They can solve their own problems without doing it. There might be a few intelligent people in an in between range where they are smart enough to take advantage of people but dumb enough to need to use other people as a stepping stone to make solving those problems in their own personal lives easier.
I feel like one fictional show that everyone here could use as an example of this is Mr Robot, where a lot of intelligent people take advantage of dumb people. The show doesn't supply any factually based argument because its a fiction based TV show (although it portrays a lot of things accurately), but do you think a smart person would be like the main character from that show or one of the business people? There's a comparative or metaphorical example somewhere in that show that relates to this argument, probably in favor of the opposing side to my opinion, but I can't quite nail what it is.
Intelligence is one component of overall personality. I am aware of no research which suggests that it has any common, unique causal relationship with sociopathy.
Even if this were true, why is it a bad thing? Why should more intelligent people with the capacity to use others to their ends not do so? Why should they need to bend their abilities to the ends of others? This seems a perversion of power. Under either, one is expected serve as an ends to another but only under one is that according to actual ability.
Character is a far more important quality for a leader than intelligence, especially so when the nation faces a crisis. Though intelligence is important to some degree, I would not choose individuals to run the government on the basis of intelligence alone. I've witnessed the behavior of highly intelligent individuals in academia--I'm not sure I'd trust them to run the nation...
It's not so much what they do as much as it is their attitude. Often times, highly intelligent people can become quite enamored with elegant and compelling ideas. In academia, my impression was that many such individuals pursued the development of their ideas at the expense of their teaching--I've heard many in academia express a disdain for teaching since it takes up valuable research time.
I would not want a leader with such a singular focus on the implementation of his/her ideas. I would rather have a leader that makes the well being of the nation and the people in it his/her only priority.
I feel like you might be mixing causation and correlation. In academia a teacher is really only judged on their research. If they aren't able to conduct research the school will get rid of them.
But, either way an academic would probably feel that they must stick to the promises they made to get elected instead of what might be best for the country, so your point is valid.
Yeah, I suppose there was some selection bias in my experience; unless you're at a teaching college, most of the untenured faculty will focus on research for that reason. Furthermore, tenured faculty might have kept that attitude from their time as untenured faculty.
You make an interesting point though: intellectuals tend to place a high value on being consistent in their views--my feeling is that it may stem from a fear of being wrong (though I'm not entirely sure I have a tangible basis for this).
It has been my empirical experience that highly educated people are often quite impractical and when placed in positions of authority they often make decisions that defy logic.
Having a high IQ, especially in the absence of emotional intelligence, does not automatically mean that rational thought presides
IQ and education level are not entirely related. You can practise and work hard enough to overcome lack of natural intelligence in the same way that a naturally intelligent person can be lazy and underachieve.
However, as far as I am aware the only way to raise one's IQ is through cognitive training which takes a very long time often with minimal effect. Being able to increase one's IQ by practice and hard work is incorrect.
He's not saying that someone can increase their IQ, he is saying that someone who is a hard worker and with a lower IQ than someone intelligent can still excel over the intelligent person, if the intelligent person is lazy. (Note that i say can not will)...Which is an argument for his point that intelligence and education level are not entirely associated.
This is true as when you have a large amount of people who come from a certain background, it falsely represents the country. As the high IQ people will only think alike and not correctly represent the low IQ people.
That is not necessarily true! Some people who have a low IQ might have a grudge against the news company or something like that.. or the other possibility is that the person who has low IQ only has low IQ in certain areas and may not believe everything that the news says.. And anyway, not all the news represent and support the same thing, so when you watch many types of news, you basically get the whole idea of how the news should be like
Both FOX News and CNN are usually in favor of the establishment. And, being pro establishment, at least for the most part, is universal propaganda because our government has flaws that cause major events all of the time that we don't hear about. Anons post legitimate events as tweets, reported by smaller news sources, all of the time. Its actually a quite large percentage of the time they are legit.
I think that intelligent people should definitely run the nation. However, seeing as their is no accurate way to measure how intelligent a person is (because of multiple intelligences) there is no way to know other than personal opinion.
IQ IS an accurate assessment of intelligence, it just doesn't go so far as to specify the other persons intelligences, but If you look at the multiple intelligences, you may see that they are mostly talents that someone with good analytical abilities can figure out. High IQ is directly associated with good analytical abilities, so someone with high IQ will have high scores in multiple intelligences and someone with low IQ will have lower scores in multiple intelligences.
I am against this topic.High IQ person is not always a good leader,its not logical to make newton or other scientist president or king of there country.Everyone is expertised in his own field,if sachin is a very good batsman it dosent mean that he can even play soccer in man utd.
i belive that they can face country's problems in more advance manner due to there IQ but expirence is also needed to deal with situation.
at last theortically it may seems possible but practically it's not.
(1) The intelligent quotients, and I deliberately use the plural, lack objective empirical value. There is no singular, absolute instrument for assessment but rather a plethora of different methods of assessment. Each of these methods not only employs different mechanisms for evaluating intelligence, but conceives of intelligence itself differently from the others. To classify any group by IQ prompts the question: which IQ? This is a question for which there is no objective answer, for the simple reason that intelligence itself is not an objective phenomenon but rather a subjective construct of value. There is nothing to suggest that any one understanding of intelligence is superior to another; defining it as the ability to perform complex maths is equally valid to defining it as the ability to be happiest. IQs are an attempt to quantitatively identify something which fundamentally does not exist in an objectively quantifiable way. They can be only as useful as the value assumptions they build upon, which presently renders them next to useless since they are so highly generalized as to be ineffectual at identifying specific intelligences suited to particular tasks.
(2) Nations are essentially a representation of consolidated power. There is nothing else inherent to them but this, neither in form nor in ends. The popular sentiment seems to be that nations do or ought to serve some greater good, and in the context of this debate that higher IQ persons would best apply it to that end. I will focus upon this view, and address any others as they are raised in response rather than attempting to anticipate them in advance. The prevailing attitude seems naive, particularly given with what regularity nations fail to benefit the common person (or even the uncommon person, case depending). Nations did not emerge from and persist through natural selection because they were benevolent, but because they were and are minimally more capable of keeping more people alive than other alternatives. They are not ideal and they need not bend to idealistic sentiment; indeed, they may even be incapable of doing so completely. Nor is there any objective basis for arguing that they should do so. Why, then, should the higher IQ run the nations? For this abstract idea of a nation that lacks fundamental meaning or value? For themselves, when power also invites risk? I can see no sound rationale for saying that the high IQ should run the nations, though plenty for why they might do so.
(3) High IQ does not necessarily make a person infallible, but it may very well delude them into thinking that they are nearly so. Case in point: Chris Langen's advocacy of an antidysgenics campaign. While natural selection is far from perfect it is also an extraordinarily complex process, the replication and then surpassing of which would be immensely difficult and almost certainly impossible under our current, limited understanding. He also seems somewhat fated to post hoc rationalizations of non-original and not particularly compelling philosophies (e.g. re God), although without reading his actual body of work I could not say so with reasonable certainty.
I have more thoughts, but this is already quite lengthy so I will leave it at that.
I think intelligence and education are overrated. Just look at what's in the WH, or the entire liberal establishment for that matter. They are suppose to be the best and the brightest. Case closed.
