Geniocracy

"First, my opponent said that "intelligence is not objective," meaning the definition differs among all people. However, I believe Vorilhon uses IQ to establish intelligence. Con later spoke about IQ, but I will get to that later. Con made a list of things that he feels defines intelligence, which are: 1. Physiological needs 2. Reward and punishment 3. Emotional connotation 4. Individual values 5. Personality 6. The value of objects 7. Culture, upbringing, and lifestyle I agree with some of what Con said, however not all. I agree with 3, 5, and 7. 1, 2, 4, and 6, however, are objectionable. Here is why: 1. The needs of the body have nothing to do with intelligence. Stephen Hawking cannot move, yet has an IQ of 160 and is one of the most respected scientists alive today. Bodily needs are irrelevant to this particular topic. 2. 'Reward and punishment' somewhat makes sense, but Con did not fully explain it enough for me to fully understand. I believe he is talking about one may be intelligent one day, which he finds great. However when something unfortunate occurs, it is no longer great, but bad. I do not fully understand this and wish for my opponent to elaborate on this in his next argument. 4. Individual values also do not have much to do with intelligence. I am an Atheist and my opponent is a Christian, but that does not mean I am more intelligent than he is. Furthermore, I, being a moderate psychopath, may not have the same amount of empathy as my opponent, but that does not make one of us more intelligent than the other. Individual values does not have to do with intelligence. 6. The personal value of objects has nil to do with intelligence. If I am interpreting his statement correctly, he means having objects with emotional or personal value creates intelligence. I do not concur. My opponent may have an object that means a lot to him, while I may not. I do not see how this could effect intelligence in any way."This is just a straw man argument. For those who do not know what that is, it is an argument in which you argue against a misinterpreted form of the opposition's argument, whether unintentionally, or intentionally as a means of tricking the crowd. I never stated a direct correlation between these and intelligence, or that these six are causes intelligence. I stated that these six are examples of things which affect the perceptual set of a person, and this is a uncontested psychological fact. The perceptual set of somebody affects their perception, so a change in one's perceptual set is a change in perception. And perception has the direct connotation with intelligence, clearly. Somebody who perceives knowledge as horrible, will not appreciate it. Somebody who loves logic, is more likely to be a logical person. The fact that the way people see things affect knowledge is obvious, and the point I'm trying to make. It is a slight difference, but important. Accepting that perception has a direct connotation with intelligence is accepting that these six can affect perception, along with other factors. It is accepting basic psychology. So yes, Stephen Hawking is disabled, but intelligent. Well then there are other factors in his perceptual set that affect his intelligence, such as his upbringing with his parents who both went to Oxford University. Or his love for science which his mind deems as a reward. Or his personality and values relating to knowledge. All your points are irrelevant and an attack on something I did not even state, thus it now has been nullified. "Next, my opponent wrote "Intelligence is not testable". Again, IQ is a great measure of intelligence, despite what many people say. It measures one's ability to comprehend and process information, as well as simply understand more. I consider myself to be a very intelligent person, but I do meet people who are smarter than me. When working with them, I can see that they are capable of processing information faster than I can. They can understand what they are reading and solve the problem before I do. These people have a higher IQ than I do. I would also trust these people more than other people. Everyone else I know feels the same way, for they trust the smarter person more than other people. My opponent also says that it would be a problem if everyone would have to take and IQ or mental competency test. He says, "Geniocracy can only be done via testing, which as I have explained, is not fair, but even it it could, it is irrelevant." I do not concur. Yes, it is done via testing, but I do not see how it is not fair or irrelevant. Intelligence is very relevant and is a very fair way to classify people.! IQ is a horrible system for so many reasons, especially if you make it a public test.1) IQ can change. How often are you going to do this test? Every four/five years? Every week? The intelligence of a person can change if the person wants it to. You yourself have not made a convincing argument for Geniocracy because the details are so blurry. People can become more stupid as well, or the situation the person is in when they take the test can cause them to fail, as I said before. Depending on the state of that person's perceptual set, he can either vote as we wishes or spend an unspecified amount of time without the ability to choose your own leader, a basic democratic right.2) A public IQ test is not practical Unless you are planning to have secret test for everyone, seeing as once again you have not actually made clear how your Geniocracy will work, the test will get out. It is impossible to control. So when things in the test get out, people will revise and succeed. IQ tests are done privately at a cost for a reason, to avoid them being in the pile of fake an unreliable IQ tests, where everyone has an IQ of 130+. The test will have to be so strung out relating to content that it is actually impractical to have. Idiots who revised and then do not proceed to care, or smart people who passed then gave up on everything will not work. And don't even mention having IQ tests sent to people, because it will become another black market fad and the likelihood of cheating is already high.3) IQ tests are unfair. They only measure teachable skills, according to psychologist James Flynn. This means those who are richer are more likely to vote, and those in certain areas in which education isn't as good are at a disadvantage. Everyone with the right amount of time and money can be intelligent, but it is a matter of effort and interest, which are traits. I do not see how you can justify a system which supports certain characters, class types and people who live in certain areas. And there is a correlation between IQ and wealth. And certain places, London in the U.K for example is more likely to increase IQ. IQ as a system is too reliant not upon the person but rather his birth, and I do not see how you can justify that.4) The purpose of a vote is that the majority are governed the way they want to. If you are saying that this is a better system, that implies that if only intelligent people vote, then the rest of the country will find that things are actually better off. All Geniocracy does is make life better for those who agree with the majority of intelligent voters. Intelligence may affect some decisions, but not basic values. The majority has to like their leader, and if intelligent people choose a leader it doesn't mean it is best for the country. After all, a leader is for the country, and needs to be elected by the country. It is bigoted to think that whatever is best for the most intelligent is best for the rest. Intelligent or not, at the end of the day with policies, they are for the contentedness of the people. This is why I stated it was anti-democratic. To have a vote in the first place is democratic and for the people. Geniocracy makes no sense, why vote if you are only catering for some? As I said above, good for the intelligent doesn't mean it is good for all, and if so you have BOP.5) Finally, IQ isn't even needed. http://www.smithsonianmag.com...Somebody's politics can be affected by family, to cultural upbringing and brain. You educate a trade unionist durin1 980s England, and his views will almost certainly stay left. Educate an upper class child of the same era, and he will stay ineffably stay right. Politics is too cultural and parental for intelligence to do much. And what it can do is too subjective for anything to matter. Right now, I am a right-wing liberal conservative. That is almost libertarian, in that I am liberal on social issues, but conservative on political and economic. I am only fourteen, and I know for sure this could change as I grow up and become more intelligent. But what difference does that make to the fact that right now, I have my ideal world. The same applies for the population, some aren't intelligent, but they vote for what they want because we have a right to. Article 21 of the 30 international human rights we have is about the right to democracy.We do not want to hinder this simply to make those who got lucky on a test happy. Geniocracy will not make the country better for all.Sources: http://www1.umn.edu...http://www.smithsonianmag.com...http://examples.yourdictionary.com...