Geniocracy

Thank you for your points.I. Geniocracy is ImpracticalA) Intelligence is not objective.Intelligence is not objective, but rather relative. Intelligence itself can only rely upon someone to perceive first of all, and the way in which things are perceived are through a perceptual set. Everyone perceives things differently and there can be no object perception. Factors that affect one's perceptual set are[1]: (i) bodily needs (e.g. physiological needs) (ii) reward and punishment (iii) emotional connotation (iv) individual values (v) personality (vi) the value of objects. And also culture, bringing up and lifestyle. Now we have already fallen into issue number one, intelligence is dependant firstly on this, so it can vary. Somebody fatigued, suffering from a state of emotional decline and depression, may be normally intelligent, but could not be intelligent during this. And if it lasts for years, that is the connotation of intelligence stripped from him. But any chemical or physical aspect towards intelligence such as zinc/copper in your hair could remain. Aspects in your perceptual set such as personality, culture and emotional connotations can change thus ways you perceive things change. An example would be somebody who is deemed intelligent, which is a tricky ground I will get to later, might be a mathematical genius. He enjoys maths, practices it everyday and uses more of his brain than others. He is intelligent, but now add a hypothetical mentally-scarring incident to do with maths, which would decrease the value and amity he had for maths, as well as his view that it was a reward. Now it is a punishment. He would now not do as well and wouldn't be viewed as a genius in maths if this was the case. If he enjoyed it his brain would have put more into maths. But because of the changing of his perceptual set, his "intelligence" fades. So why is this relevant, because it leads me to a later point I have about the testability, but before then, I have another argument.B) Intelligence is not definite.What is intelligence anyway? Is it the dictionary definition of the ability to acquire, utilise or retain information? Because acquiring information is something everyone can do, it is simply a matter of interest. Retaining information is simply also a matter of practice and effort. Anyone can do it unless mentally impaired. The utilisation of information is reliant upon context and comes with practice and interest, again anyone can do it. What actually counts as intelligent, there is no definite. Somebody may be adept in remembering information, but not so much at utilising it. There are an abundance of thinking styles, and people are good at some and not good at others.Then I can come back to saying how intelligence is relative. Somebody who can name all monarchs in England may be smart if he/she is working at an archaeological dig, but put him in a law firm and he is an "idiot". Idiocy in itself does not make any sense. A baby it theoretically an idiot, but they do not have that connotation attached to them because they aren't expected to know. But the expectation of knowledge doesn't make any sense. It is completely skirting the fact that people are individual. People perceive things differently and think things through differently. If someone can not use a basic syllogism to deduce something, then he is not necessarily mentally deranged. Rather, he may use a completely different paradigm, but the only reason he would be called stupid is because it does not fit with the societal norm. But the societal norm is only a collection of subjectivity, made objective via teaching and indoctrination. It isn't intrinsically objective. Being able to use algebraic equations is expected, but it relies on a very specific method of logic that one may not be used to or like. Does it mean he is stupid? Yes. Is it fair? No, because we create these values of stupid and not stupid. There is no specific intelligence. It does not make sense because it is relativistic, subjective and relies on context, and any objective form of intelligence is only so because society has attached these values towards them and taught everyone that they are intrinsically this, or that, but in the end intelligence in society is simply adhering to certain paradigms which fit with what the country wants. This is why there are studies which show that left wing people are more intelligent. This is why religious people and young earth creationists receive backlash. There is nothing wrong about having beliefs, bet when the beliefs counter the logical societal norm, then they are deemed stupid. Intelligence in itself can not be put countrywide, that is nonsensical because there is no obvious definitive intelligence quotient, which leads me onto the next point.C) Intelligence is not testable. You simply cannot test intelligence. IQ is an awry system because it relies on the societal norm as well as trying to boil it down into one test and one area of focus. You cannot have "tests", because as I said firstly, depending on the person's state he may fail or not. You cannot look at school data because they rely on tests, and people may not just be good at retaining information but have brilliant reasoning skills. A child may not be able to reason, induce or deduce, but have a knack for electronics and parts. Somebody could be a pure natural linguist, and not skilled at everything else, but not only are they all stupid or not depending on where they are. You place them in a test at the right time, right place and on the right topics they could all succeed. If there is no set definition and it is relative and contextual, you really cannot test it. The impracticality does not stop there. Even if there was a perfect test scenario, it would need to firstly so regularly updated as intelligence fluctuates. It would also need to not focus on any sort of knowledge, as that will lead to people just revising for it and people only trying for that test. It would however need to focus solely on people's reasoning and deducting, similar to the LNAT test for law, but then that does not help those who just haven't been taught that. Unless you observe people all the time, Geniocracy can only be done via testing, which as I have explained, is not fair, but even it it could, it is irrelevant.II. Geniocracy is irrelevant and anti-democratic.It simply is not needed. Considering there is no actual basis for intelligence, all that is needed in electing is knowledge of policies and the people who are running. A Geniocracy implies that there is a problem now with a lack of intelligence with voters, but that can only be viewed by seeing what is voted for, which once again is subjective. The country is the sum of its people under a united state, the focus is on the people, not on the state. Everyone has a right to vote, and those who aren't mentally impaired has the ability to find out all the information it needs. You do not need a genius to understand the tax system, but rather research should be expected by those who want their own leader. It is expected for people who want a leader to put some effort into it.Geniocracy will not cause a change politically, because views will remain. As long as there is political influence and indoctrination, as long as people are brought up in a certain style, no amount of intelligence will beat bias, especially confirmation bias. Intelligence may equate to leadership, but policies as well as character is just as important, and Geniocracy will only end up placing a value on intelligence that will ruin the lives of many who are slightly challenged. It will deter people from manual labour and place such a high importance on intelligence that is bordering social-Darwinism, only leading to the lack of freedom of many as well as the upset of many. Thank you.Sources:http://www.simplypsychology.org...