The mistakes of relatively intelligent people........
......are generally more catastrophic than those of the relatively unintelligent.
true
Side Score: 16
|
 |
false
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
Relatively unintelligent people are often more content with the way things are and therefore less likely to do anything on a grand scale that would be of a catastrophic nature. On the other hand more intelligent people are often more discontent with leaving things as they are and work toward fixings things that may or may not need to be fixed. Side: true
2
points
With the coming age of nano-based biotech and the rising degree to which humans are tracked by governmental authorities, the most debilitating of future threats such as the implementation of a truly totalitarian society and spontaneous alteration of mental pathways due to the flawed and invasive use of nanobots, have been made possible by extremely intelligent people. On one hand they are extremely innovative and helpful technologies, but on the other, their creators have failed to recognize the perpetual consequences that will inevitably accompany their implementation into modern society. Without the intelligent our governments would not have the capability to control the masses that they currently possess, and widespread bio-terrorism would not be a valid concern. I am not saying that intelligent people are bad for society, but generally, they hold more control over the technological future than their less intelligent counterparts, making the consequences of their mistakes far more relevant than those of their intellectually inferior peers. Side: true
1
point
I must say, that is true but have you heard of the power of the majority? Unless you are talking of Concurrent majority, what the nation eats and what it relies on to function are THE MAJORITY. But you do have a point, however, how would you determine/ define relatively intelligent and vice- versa? Side: false
|
It would be impossible for me to vote other than false until such time as you provide more details. I'm sure you could, but, as yet, you haven't. You should give it a go, cuz I think it could very well be interesting. I think, too, that the word, "intelligence" is far too nebulous. For instance, there are many who are in some sense intelligent in their own field of endeavours but are not necessarily well informed. There are others who are well informed but lack the ability to examine their findings and extrapolate. Perhaps I'm muddying the waters here, so best move on. I'm always open to criticism, so if you're so inclined, have at her. :) Side: false
3
points
Wow I couldn't find something to disagree with in that, but I wanted to even the debate score some and just ramble off hopefully relevent thoughts to bounce off you. I was contemplating the statement "It is our best thinking that got us here", and all the fantastic discoveries of science, and then the statement from Einstein "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity". I was thinking where are the brilliant social scientists solving problems of social science (morality) today? The state of the art in these sciences is in the churches around the world. They may not be packed with mensa members, but they ought to be. They may not be filled with people committed to the rigorous application of the scientific method, but they ought to be. I think the braniacs of the world are really letting us down here. They need to be smart like Einstein and take a better view of religion. Concerning religion...the SMART option is working to improve how it's practiced. It's not a fundamental incompatibility between science and religion it's an incompatibility with science and only the worst religionS One of my favorite teachers was a mormon. I find thier mythology quite silly, BUT SO WHAT? This doesn't make me appreciate his intelligence any less. He was an excellent teacher. Inspired (like hopefully more and more of us) by his own somewhat unique, more or less realistic, fantasy....mythos.....You know, those religious things that are really important to have. If you want to avoid the perils of nihilism akrasia and chronic depression? Truth is, I think "Sometimes the mistakes of smarter people are worse, and sometimes less smart people make worse mistakes." but presenting it that way isn't very controversial :) BTW nice to meet you NeverUTOG Side: true
1
point
I don't think this would 'cloud' the matter, unless you peel the orange, how would you know what is inside it? Soz if that's a bit of a lame analogy, well whatever. 'Intelligence, IQ and EQ are nebulous but I don't think you would get anywhere if you can't assume a premises. Side: true
2
points
While intelligent individuals can be more dangerous, this isn't due to their mistakes. The nuclear bomb was not a mistake, it did what it was supposed to do. But unintelligent people, acting on a more limited understanding on cause and effect can more easily make mistakes that arrive from their being unprepared for the reality of the situation. Side: false
Assuming that any time we carry out an action meant to improve conditions that effectively makes them worse, that this constitutes a mistake. Who makes mistakes of the greatest consequence, the relatively intelligent, or the relatively unintelligent? Don't the generally more intelligent people direct those less intelligent? Side: true
1
point
Spot on!! I really have nothing to add; however, it looks like I need to keep typing if I'm going to get "Spot on" published for you to see. Of course, had I read all the comments before responding to your first comment, I could have added "SO" to it. There. That surely must be 50 characters--it's bed time--no time to count. Side: false
1
point
Me and all my trying to sound smart by creating stupid debates with fancy sentences with obvious messages. At least I don't pop in to be the first poster in other people's debates just to try to be insulting towards them. I can't wait to see the smart debates you create. I'll go check em out. Oh look you haven't created any. So lets see what your first post is... Advising someone not to think too much..... ok my feelings aren't quite so hurt now :) BTW welcome to CreateDebate rude person Side: true
1
point
1
point
It would depend on what one defines as 'relatively intelligent.' If we assume that intelligence has a normal distribution, and that 'relatively intelligent' represents at least one standard deviation above average, ~84.1% of all people would be below that level of intelligence. If we assume some semblance of democracy is in place, it would seem to me that the mistakes of people who are not relatively intelligent would win out purely by weight of numbers. Side: false
|
