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 that yes is the obvious answer. However, I have some reservations about the "lazy" part. If by lazy you mean intellectually stagnant then yes, naturally. The majority of the population has to be all those things so that the intelligent, resourceful, and wise stand out and can be called intelligent... Imagine the opposite, that is, if the majority of the population were intelligent and/or have a perfect sense of morality. We cannot call someone intelligent if most people are intelligent too. It is not polite to call the majority of the population unintelligent, but that doesn't mean it is not true.
Since they are relative as you stated, there is no "half" that can be clearly distinguished. Compared to a human, a smart chimpanzee is half retarded. Compared to a normal chimpanzee, a smart chimpanzee is half a genius.
Since they are relative as you stated, there is no "half" that can be clearly distinguished
When I say relative, I mean to other people. The least intelligent half of the population is relatively unintelligent compared to the rest of the population. It doesn’t matter that we cannot distinguishe it clearly.
However, if each is a separate criterion, and they do not coincide perfectly, then the population that has one or more of these traits will necessarily be more than half of the population.
Let’s assume the operative word is “and”. It doesn’t seem likely that half the population is below the 50% line for laziness, unintelligence, and lack of moral fiber. But there is necessarily half who qualify for each taken separately. On the other hand, there is likely more than half who qualify for at least one criteria, as you said.
I do not disagree with your statements based upon how you are defining the terms for measurement. That is, if you take these three qualities and average them out to a base 100 level (such as is done with IQ), defining 100 to be of 'average' ambition, intellect, moral fiber--then, yes, it would be logically impossible for the majority of the population to be less than 100 in all areas.
Now, where our disagreement appears to reside is whether 100 is a sufficient threshold mark (as of present) to indicate these characteristics or is the 'average' fall short of some objective criteria (which I think it does). For instance, with the example of IQ, Psychologists are utilizing euphemistic language (in my view) to describe the various levels--rather than more accurate, straight-forward language. For instance, it is not until one reaches roughly the upper 2% (or less) of the population that an individual is able to acquire a substantial amount of information that is already known/previously discovered--let alone have significant novel ideas that would lead to notable contributions of new knowledge. Furthermore, the people who tend to significantly contribute to the construction of new knowledge are in the top less than 1% of humanity--as this is an intelligence level consistent with learning already known facts and creating new connections between these areas as well as (potentially) discovering new terrains entirely.
That is, in short, my threshold points I am operating under are higher and based on differing objective criteria. I would not hesitate for a moment to state a full grown adult (in the West) who is unable to successfully answer the question "The Earth orbits the Sun and takes a year to do so" is unintelligent--regardless of whether that described 2% of the population, or 87%, ect. Now, I would define a 'grey' area where people are neither 'intelligent' nor 'unintelligent' based on criteria as well, with certain max & min points; likewise with other characteristics as well.
is the 'average' fall short of some objective criteria (which I think it does)
It falls short of your arbitrarily chosen criteria, which isn’t reasonable given that the various qualities mentioned are all relative. Qualities that are necessarily relative can be compared to the upper 2%, as you did with IQ, but comparing to the average is more reasonable when those who are short of the given criteria are said to have some kind of vice (as opposed to virtue). It is not the case that one must approach genius to avoid being unintelligent.
The issue is made more complex by the lack of objective measure for the qualities in question. There are different kinds of work, different kinds of intelligence, and varying degrees of moral weight.
If you truly believe that the majority of the population is unintelligent, lazy, and lacking in moral fiber, I would like to call your attention to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
It falls short of your arbitrarily chosen criteria, which isn’t reasonable given that the various qualities mentioned are all relative.
As already discussed, the criteria for "intelligent" is always relative--psychologists have used the measure of take the sample size, finding the average, assigning it a base 100 value, and then measure sigma deviations above and below that mark. The criteria I used is the ability to learn at least a large quantity of information already known as well as make some minimum level new connections/contributions above known facts within the scope previously mentioned. Then, this describes the upper 2 percent of the population--according to Psychologists figures.
but comparing to the average is more reasonable when those who are short of the given criteria are said to have some kind of vice (as opposed to virtue)
No--it is not necessarily more reasonable. All one can do with a 100 IQ is graduate High School and learn a trade. They would be unable to go to the book store, read a standard History or English Literature book and be able to keep up--as that is on par with College Education (or about 115). As for the upper 2%, they are (arbitrarily) labeled as "Gifted" or "Very Superior" or "Extremely Bright", while I am stating this is where "mild intelligence" begins--as this is what appears to be the requisite range needed to be able to pick up on most knowledge that is already known and begin to make new connections in such areas.
It is not the case that one must approach genius to avoid being unintelligent.
Again, "genius" is arbitrarily chosen, and it is much more that where "genius" level begins is simply "true intelligence" (on a human scale). Would you call a person unable to go to Barnes & Noble, pick up a standard History book (authored by a College Professor), read & understand most of it, intelligent?---as that is what you are stating.
We can discuss the other two further after this one is worked out more, though it may occur to you on its face--a person who lacks self-investment, quest for self-knowledge, and/or knowledge about the world to such a stunning degree is hardly "ambitious"
Edit: To be clear, your current stance is; "'x' is intelligent, even though they are unable to read a book authored by a College Professor (or equivalency) and understand it, nor go to college for any given subject. Studying Engineering, Philosophy, and/or Physics is beyond what they could dream of being able to do, intellectually."
Most of this is a repeat of what you previously said without addressing much of what I said. I don’t have enough respect for you to suffer the time loss another time.
-Intelligence is too dynamic o be properly measured by a score. The literary genious may suffer poor mechanical aptitude. The wrench monkey in the auto shop may be mechanically brilliant with only a GED. The genious may be autistic. The other criteria are even more difficult to quantify.
-The “average” on that score is anywhere within 1 standard deviation of the mean. Meaning the college 115 is the upper end of average.
-When a quality is relative to a population, the mean is the most reasonable measure of comparative quality.
-When a monkey sees a hole with ants in it and a stick next to the hole, the monkey takes the stick and puts it in the hole to collect the ants for food. This is taking known information and creating a new thing, a tool. People of all walks of life do this all the time. They may not write scientific journals, but they create new knowledge (within their sphere) regularly.
-You’re free to consider 98% of humanity to be lacking. Your free to arbitrarily label “true intelligence” and argue a no true Scotsman fallacy. Your free to maintain this low opinion, but it isn’t going to be useful to you or to anyone else. And it certainly isn’t more true than arbitrarily holding the average as a standard, which is more useful.
-When a monkey sees a hole with ants in it and a stick next to the hole, the monkey takes the stick and puts it in the hole to collect the ants for food. This is taking known information and creating a new thing, a tool. People of all walks of life do this all the time. They may not write scientific journals, but they create new knowledge (within their sphere) regularly.
The problem appears to be you do not comprehend what I am stating. First, what you have described is in line with the general 100 Monkey Effect--which is very much contrary to the claim you are attempting to make. Second, "within their sphere" is the salient phrase, as this is precisely what I stated from off. If your IQ is 100, your "sphere" includes very little at all--which is half the population. It is not until you reach the upper 2% that have a 'sphere' consistent with a significant portion of human 'spheres' as well as the most fundamental human knowledge we have
Most of this is a repeat of what you previously said without addressing much of what I said.
Yes--as you failed to provide an argument. The standard you have set is also completely arbitrary, I argued that simply taking an average and setting up a base comparison relative to such with correlating terminology (i.e. dull, average, bright, ect.) fails to give a proper picture--which it does.
For instance, if 100 student took a 20 question test on Algebra and the average was a 6/20, and then ranges for "not proficient", "proficient", "very proficient", ect. were assigned based around this mark--that fails to give an accurate representation of who is actually proficient in Algebra; while you are asserting that it is an effective measurement
I don’t have enough respect for you to suffer the time loss another time.
Using the average as a measure of intelligence is quite a bit different from using the average as a measure on an algebra test. A test has very limited parameters. The parameters for intelligence aren’t even known. There is no upper limit to be reached for intelligence. There is only an end of intelligent people compared to other people. You think that I fail to comprehend, while you compare intelligence as such to knowledge on a test. It’s Dunning Kruger in full effect.
Not only did I provide an argument, but I put it in simple short bullet points just for your benefit. I am happy to be done with this conversation.
If your intention is to keep a notion of 'intelligence' as very vague, which your argument hinges upon. Now, if you want to be more honest, then it should be trivially obvious a person unable to read a standard History book and follow along (i.e. is functionally illiterate) is not an intelligent human by modern standards.
Likewise, a person who fails to apply themselves in such a basic manner (in any area--that is, pick one) is in what sense "ambitious"?
When a monkey sees a hole with ants in it and a stick next to the hole, the monkey takes the stick and puts it in the hole to collect the ants for food. This is taking known information and creating a new thing, a tool. People of all walks of life do this all the time. They may not write scientific journals, but they create new knowledge (within their sphere) regularly.
Are you kidding? This is a great example. MathFan spends all day poking other people with sticks. Just like the monkey needs to feed its face, MathFan needs to feed his own narcissistic personality disorder.
I will consider this answer in terms of the population of the US.
All three at once? No.
At least one of the three? Maybe. I would not be surprised to find that more than 50% of Americans are one of these three.
What we do know is that almost 3% of Americans are in jail, in prison, or on probation or parole, so we know they make the list. (I would not be surprised to find that a larger percentage of criminals never get caught, but that is mere speculation.) The criminals lack moral fiber, almost by definition.
We also know is that 15-25% of Americans are on at least one non-Medicare, non-Social Security public assistance program, so we know they make the list.
Some of these folks may be too lazy to support themselves, and some of them may be gaming the system (lack moral fiber) but the likelihood is that they just are not able to care for themselves. Ultimately this is an intelligence problem.
Let's be charitable and assume 15% on public support and then add the criminal 3%.
That yields 18% of verified population who either cannot or will not take care of their own business.
Consider, polls have been done demonstrating that approximately half of the adult population (USA) does not know that "the Earth orbits the Sun & takes a year to do so". Now, I'm not sure what your thoughts on that may be, however in my estimation, that most certainly falls into the category of "Unintelligent". Furthermore, an adult who does not know this extremely basic fact of Science would seem to necessarily fall into the "Lazy" category as well--since this is not at all consistent a 'well read'/learned individual, nor a responsible parent/adult who should have some real wisdom acquired about the World to pass onto the next generation. Hence, we see a dereliction of duty to such extent it could reasonably be considered 'psychological/educational child abuse'. If so, this would appear to place quite a significant number of parents/adult community members into the "Lacking Moral Fiber" category also.
Again, this is only the implications of one basic poll result, which on its face would appear impossible, though it is the fact of the matter. Imagine when taking in many other factors (such as the ones you have outlined) also(?) Then, we quickly see very large sectors of the population trivially falling into not-so-flattering of categorization(s)
Consider, polls have been done demonstrating that approximately half of the adult population (USA) does not know that "the Earth orbits the Sun & takes a year to do so".
It is important to note that there may be a disconnect between biologically based, tested intelligence. Consider the following:
"I have an iq of 160, but normal iqs range from 90-110
Here is a scale 1 to 24 - your dog is smarter than you (dogs have iqs of around 30)
25 to 39 - your as smart as your dog
40 to 54 - your extremely retarded
55 to 69 - your retarded
70 to 84 - your well, you need help
85 to 114 - Average
115 to 129 - Above average; bright
130 to 144 - gifted
145 to 159 - your very smart and highly gifted
160 to 179 - your iq is genius like and your smarter "
Either this person lied about his/her IQ, or knowing that the contraction for you are is not "your" but "you're" and that IQ is capitalized, not "iq" is unrelated to intelligence. It may be that the lack of knowledge of what constitutes a year is not particularly indicative of intelligence.
However, the US scores are going down. An IQ of 100 is "average" and 90 to 110 is considered in the average range. As Intelligence testing was developing, primarily in the US, the score of 100 was selected to represent the midline of the curve.(Like designating 100 degrees as boiling and 0 degrees as freezing in the design of the Celcius system.) The fact that the US average is 98 indicates that the scores have shifted down over time.
I have lived in 3 of the 4 corners of the US, and in Texas.
There are some smart people everywhere, but there are stupid people everywhere, too. There seem to be a higher percentage of dumb people in South Carolina than even California. Texas was easily the smartest place I have lived, but there are a fair number of idiots there, too.
Moreover, the smartest people I know have the fewest kids, and the dumbest people I know reproduce like rabbits. It is like they cannot figure out that kids are expensive, and they don't make enough money to support them.
THIS IGNORANCE IS EVIDENCE DEMOCRACY Doesn’t WORK!!!
It’s rule of the he majority- and the majority is ignorant.
Geniocracy is the ticket dog
Yeah, but neither compassion nor intelligence are guarantees, and as often as not, they make things worse.
The financial disasters of government-run national pension and medical care systems are likely to impoverish the world. To keep them solvent in societies with rising lifespans, the populations must continually increase, as must the economies. Together these cause the problems of ever increasing population pressure on the environment, disastrous perpetual mining of every possible natural resource, and intermittent widespread suffering due to war and famine caused by population pressures.
More people would suffer less, and the other species on the planet would be doing much better, if the "compassionate" folks were to mind their own goddamned business, and force people to plan for themselves, stop trying to cure the diseases we need to trim the herd, and let famine cut human populations down to what the local environments can reliably support.
It is certain that scientists and engineers are not necessarily more sensible than retards. The "geniuses" that came up with nuclear fission never factored in where to put the waste, nor what to do when a tidal wave causes a reactor meltdown. (Fukashima Daichi is continuing unabated to dump tritium into the Pacific Ocean.)
You are totally correct about democracy. That is why there are no nations run as democracies, as far as I know. They are all variations on the republic.
THIS IGNORANCE IS EVIDENCE DEMOCRACY Doesn’t WORK!!!
It’s rule of the he majority- and the majority is ignorant.
Yes--this is why I am in favor of a quasi-Democratic Meritocracy with mobility built in as fundamental to the design
Democracy is successful when the people in the group are of similar abilities--otherwise it fails miserably (particularly as the range of abilities becomes extremely vast/far apart).
Geniocracy is the ticket dog
Honestly, I have never encountered the term "Geniocracy" until now--I will be sure to look it up
I read the wiki page about geniocracy. It sounds somewhat reasonable if not ill-refined. In other words it is a step in the right direction, but it will never get you over the bridge.
Legal Insurrection is a conservative blog. Legal Insurretion uses a good deal of loaded language in its headlines and within its articles. Their articles/commentaries are mainly from right wing sources and bloggers giving opinions on current news.
Legal Insurrection is a conservative blog. Legal Insurretion uses a good deal of loaded language in its headlines and within its articles. Their articles/commentaries are mainly from right wing sources and bloggers giving opinions on current news.
Yep. Basically, it is just a conservative blog version of unreliable and biased liberal sources, including CNN, MSNBC, and RT.
Exactly. It is neither politically neutral nor a reliable source of news.
unreliable and biased liberal sources, including CNN, MSNBC, and RT.
Slandering other news sources won't make your own source any less biased, dopey. I haven't linked CNN, MSNBC or RT so your attack isn't even fucking relevant.
And Russian state media is liberal in your world is it? Ahahaha!
Slandering other news sources won't make your own source any less biased, dopey. I haven't linked CNN, MSNBC or RT so your attack isn't even fucking relevant
So you don't link them(obviously because no one trusts them), yet call it slander to call them fake...
Do you brush your teeth with crack, or are you really just this stupid?
Is Lawrence Krauss a 'Extreme Right Propagandist' also?
I have no idea who Lawrence Krauss even is. What I do know is that you linked two fake news sites. I also know that "an" precedes words beginning with vowels.
Having watched the first thirty seconds of your video, I can see that it has precisely nothing to do with the claim that half of liberals don't know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun. It is a video about Biblical creationism. I have absolutely no idea what relevance you think a video about Biblical creationism has to the discussion.
I am perfectly prepared to listen to your explanation, if indeed you even have one, but I am very suspicious that it is going to be false and stupid, like most of the things you write.
Having watched the first thirty seconds of your video, I can see that it has precisely nothing to do with the claim that half of liberals don't know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun.
In the video, Krauss states that every year the National Science Foundation probes the public about basic matters of Science. The NSF has found that every year, nearly 50% of the population gets the T or F question wrong: "The Earth orbits the Sun and takes a year to do so"
In the video, Krauss states that every year the National Science Foundation probes the public about basic matters of Science. The NSF has found that every year, nearly 50% of the population gets the T or F question wrong: "The Earth orbits the Sun and takes a year to do so"
Hold on. This is a video about how Biblical creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old. Are you saying this man in the video repeats the claim you initially made (and then changed) that half of liberals don't know the Earth revolves around the Sun? Please post the precise time in the video that he makes this claim, because I would like to see it for myself.
Forgive me, but I think you are lying. From what you have written here it appears you are trying to create a false justification for posting a video with absolutely no relevance to the conversation. This man mentions the NSF in a conversation about a completely different topic and you are saying that makes the video relevant to this discussion?
I hope that is not what you are saying, because if so it is offensively weak and stupid.
Hold on. This is a video about how Biblical creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old. Are you saying this man in the video repeats the claim that you initially made that half of liberals don't know the Earth revolves around the Sun and that it takes a year to do so? Please post the precise time in the video that he makes this claim, because I would like to see it for myself.
Because I am not the one trying to use it to support a claim: you are. It is not my responsibility to go digging around for things which you claim evidence your past claims. Stop squirming like a toad and give me what I asked for.
No--he states the exact question I previously discussed with similar poll figures. Quite obviously, that has everything to do with the poll results of said question..
No--he states the exact question I previously discussed with similar poll figures.
I asked you to post the precise time in the video he repeats your initial claim so I can verify whether or not you are lying. Since you have ignored that request I am going to presume you are lying, which will force you to post a time, which I will then be able to use to confirm you are lying. Quit stalling and evidence your claim please.
That’s because you’re an idiot of spectacular proportions who pompously attempts to hold forth on subjects you know nothing about , amazingly you never heard of Krauss yet you heard of a third rate Danish “ engineer “ who has a cheap wig and a hair lip and claims to know the “ real beef “ on 9 / 11 😂😂
X is after giving you one hell of a whipping you really ought to find a new hobby you English twat because debating is not it , now run along and resurrect your 31 alt accounts and start your downvoting in a fit of rage
Says the person who denies the information in his own links when they kill his narrative and acts like he doesn't know what you're talking about. Isn't that right Nom?
Of course we both know you'll foam at the mouth towards my post, log out, log back in as AKA "Shit for brains", and slither back into the abyss of bullshit from whence you came.
Bwahahahahaha! Ahem. Wait. Bwahahahahahaha! Maybe you are on the wrong site Nom. Of course this would explain the ocean of stupid posts I have seen you vomit out...
How not? I thought you knew who Richard Dawkins was?
Lawrence Krauss is a Theoretical Physicist in the United States who also popularizes/communicates Science through popular books, director of the Origins Project, made a documentary in collaboration with Richard Dawkins, makes television appearances, ect. i.e. he is like a Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Brian Greene, Neil Tyson type figure
Krauss' most prominent public work includes "A Universe From Nothing", "The Physics of Star Trek", The Origins Project, The Unbelievers, ect.
How not? I thought you knew who Richard Dawkins was?
Errr... Because I was not aware that Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are the same person??
Lawrence Krauss is a Theoretical Physicist in the United States who also popularizes/communicates Science through popular books, director of the Origins Project, made a documentary in collaboration with Richard Dawkins, makes television appearances, ect. i.e. he is like a Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Brian Greene, Neil Tyson type figure
That's very interesting. Are you going to explain what he has to do with the discussion or are you going to continue your unwanted lecture on an irrelevant topic?
Krauss' most prominent public work includes "A Universe From Nothing", "The Physics of Star Trek", The Origins Project, The Unbelievers, ect.
Are you intentionally this dense, or does it come effortlessly to you?
I am not intellectually dense. For example, I understand that the reason you are attacking me is because I just pointed out that Dawkins and Strauss are not even in the same field of science. Since this makes your earlier taunts about how I should know Strauss because I know Dawkins ridiculously stupid, your only real option outside of admitting that you are retarded, is to go on the offensive.
Also, Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist who studied Zoology at Uni. Do you even know Dawkins beyond the surface-level?
Perhaps you should learn to read and then you might notice that what Dawkins studied at uni has precisely NOTHING to do with the point I made. Dawkins and Strauss are in completely different fields of science, so why would knowing about one of them mean I would have to know about the other?
Jesus Christ, you're just so obnoxiously stupid. You literally try to bluff your way through conversations by switching topics everytime somebody points out that you said something idiotic. What the FUCK does anything you wrote back to me have to do with the point I made, you retarded muppet?
Jesus Christ, you're just so obnoxiously stupid. You literally try to bluff your way through conversations by switching topics everytime somebody points out that you said something idiotic
Of course we both know that your "tactic" is to retreat to puppets and slither away from each embarrassing defeat. That's what mindless chicken shits do eh nom?
Well, Congress and the White House combined would be what - about a 1000 people or less? And yet the USA's total population is somewhere around 325 million. 1000 is clearly not a majority of 325 million.
