Poll: Idiocracy

[SillyBear]

OK, I love the way your doing exactly what I pointed out, by citing Wikipedia and using Intelligent quotient ratings, which have long been stated to be an unrealistic and improper method of gauging intellect.

No, they are actually the best way to gauge a general intelligence level in human beings right now. It's the best we've got. Someone who is amazing at algebra, or literature, or sociology will invariably score high with IQ tests.

There is no way in which an IQ test could reward stupidity. Someone who scores an 80 in an IQ test shows a lack of problem solving skills, of comprehension skills, of abstract reasoning and of intuition. Whilst they certainly aren't the be-all-and-end-all of intelligence, they do count for quite a lot.

What do you think is a measure of intelligence? Whatever that measure is, I can assure you an IQ test recognises it. Earlier you implied that algebra was a good indication of intelligence. Well, someone who aces algebra tests would also do incredibly well at IQ tests. Why? The same part of the brain is doing similar actions when doing an IQ test compared to an mathematical exam.

The problem here is you are deliberately discounting an incredibly thorough and measured IQ test as being unreliable, yet earlier you were spouting some bullshit about your Grandmother passing an algebra test in year 7. For some reason I don't think you have the greatest priorities of reliability.

Read up about intelligence quotients. They are incredibly reliable as there is never an inconsistency. They even fall into a perfect normal distribution. Pretty amazing for something that is apparently less reliable than some nonsense anecdote, isn't it? It's also quite funny how IQ tests directly correlate between levels of ability, isn't it? Take a look:

Type of work that can be accomplished:
Adults can harvest vegetables, repair furniture IQ; 60
Adults can do domestic work, simple carpentry IQ: 50
Adults can mow lawns, do simple laundry IQ: 40

So even if you are arguing the IQ tests are strictly academic and don't indicate actual ability, you're dead wrong. People who don't pass high school have an average IQ of 75. People who end up with a doctorate have an average IQ of 125.

It's pretty strange how telling these IQ tests are. But that's all just coincidence, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, we will stick to your anecdotes about ya nan.

Its not that I am just believing what I choose to.. actually I think I asked for Data to support the claim, and I am given a wikipedia link to a theory, and metrics with refuted validity.

That particular wikipedia link is crawling with sources and citations from 42 highly ranked sources. That is more than enough evidence.

If you want to think your superior than the
previous generation, far be it from me to stop you from doing so.

Now you are making straw man argument. I never claimed to be superior to the previous generation, I think the previous generation was superior to us in many ways. One way would be work ethic. They make us look like a bunch of lazy sloths. But we are talking about intelligence here. It's a fact, people today are smarter than the people from previous generations.

Not only do we know more, but we demonstrate a higher ability to reason and calculate than previous generations.

 

[mikev7.0]

I didn't mean to focus so much on Idiocrasy, but more so on a proven trend of people of higher intelligence not having as many children versus those of lower intelligence.

Mike Judges Comedy was a satirical look on the extreme limit of that trend not a literal interpretation of the possibility.

Just to point out something about IQ, it is supposed to be a number equating your ability to figure shit out, not necessarily your ability to retain and recall information, though there is some correlation between the two depending on the IQ test taken, but they are independent variables.

And a point about the world, just 100 years the Chinese didn't have to worry about eating every animal in their country to extinction to feed themselves. Given the limit of available resources is already being pushed in many parts of the planet would not a world limit children be beneficial to everyone. That is if you think globally and not just about what is good for your country and political leanings.

What do you mean in your third paragraph? the Intelligence Quotient is nothing more (according to Psychology texts anyway) than the ratio of someone's mental age to their temporal age expressed as a fraction and multiplied by 100. A concept still hotly debated (as to it's validity and use) in psychology. One of the debates is caused by the way the results of tested subjects changes over multiple tests, reflecting that yes it is supportable to say that the tests mostly center on your ability to retain and recall information, such as what was on the last test a subject had taken for one. Also, what do you mean by "they are independent variables?"

 

[The_Healer]

Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

The way I see it (and this may offend some people who all about equality), men (and women if they donate eggs) who have good genes should get paid more to donate into sperm banks than guys who have terrible genes.

Of course I may have vested interests in this.

 

[Blue_vision]

Half Sibling for one second my argument is on potential. Looking back on inheritance in traits. BB + BB = BB, BB + Bb = BB %50 Bb %50, Bb + Bb = BB %25, Bb %50, bb %25 Any number of my traits could be dominant while she inherited those as recessive genes.

Yes. And if you're assuming that intelligence is wholly genetic (clue: it provably isn't,) there is no reason to say that genes leading to a lower intelligence are recessive. Some of them may well be dominant, so your half sister may be carrying a ton of "smart" genes, while she just gets stuck with an unlucky manifested majority.

Again, assuming that there's any overpowering genetic inclination in intelligence. Which, again, is totally unfounded.

Even farmers 2000years ago knew to breed their cattle based on the desirable traits and to me, intelligence, more than large breasts is a desirable trait. Sadly society seems to cast the likes of Jersey Shore as those with desirable traits. Maybe I'm conceited and bitter because I've been labeled as undesirable for not being a ripped jack ass but I see this as a harmful behavior.

I don't usually like taking personality into an argument, but I feel so inclined in this case. Perhaps you've been labelled as undesirable because you're a jack ass supremacist that likes to think themselves better than people? If this is representative of your normal conversation starter, perhaps your undesirability comes from your self-imposed alienation of the rest of the unworthy masses, no?

Good for you if you like smart girls. I'm sure a bunch of your "ripped jack ass" sworn enemies do too. I know a bunch of people that are admittedly not so smart. But they value intelligence in their partners as much as I do, if not more. All that I'm getting from you is that you're a bigoted individual who's pissed off because all the other guys get girls when you don't; so you need a scapegoat that you can both blame and feel superior too in both pushing them down for being idiotic masses, and elevating yourself to a higher moral standing. Good job there.

 

[loodmoney]

I can only assume that your mis-spelling of "Idiocracy" as "Idiocrasy" in the poll is some kind of higher-level, satirical joke that only makes sense to super-genius types such as yourself.

On-topic: I think XKCD got it right on this one. I'd prefer a society of stupid people to one of eugenics-promoting douchebags, anyday. If it really bothers you, once those stupids take over, everything will fall apart and humans can return to a state of nature in which Darwinist rules of selection apply in the way you want them to, so really, if you want to help humanity in the long term, it would be better if you spent your time trying to destroy intelligence, not create it.

 

[newwiseman]

I didn't mean to focus so much on Idiocrasy, but more so on a proven trend of people of higher intelligence not having as many children versus those of lower intelligence.

Mike Judges Comedy was a satirical look on the extreme limit of that trend not a literal interpretation of the possibility.

Just to point out something about IQ, it is supposed to be a number equating your ability to figure shit out, not necessarily your ability to retain and recall information, though there is some correlation between the two depending on the IQ test taken, but they are independent variables.

And a point about the world, just 100 years the Chinese didn't have to worry about eating every animal in their country to extinction to feed themselves. Given the limit of available resources is already being pushed in many parts of the planet would not a world limit children be beneficial to everyone. That is if you think globally and not just about what is good for your country and political leanings.

What do you mean in your third paragraph? the Intelligence Quotient is nothing more (according to Psychology texts anyway) than the ratio of someone's mental age to their temporal age expressed as a fraction and multiplied by 100. A concept still hotly debated (as to it's validity and use) in psychology. One of the debates is caused by the way the results of tested subjects changes over multiple tests, reflecting that yes it is supportable to say that the tests mostly center on your ability to retain and recall information, such as what was on the last test a subject had taken for one. Also, what do you mean by "they are independent variables?"

The third paragraph was targeted to previous comments about how we're all getting smarter as the ages go on. My aim was an attempt towards a discussion about the social ramifications of actually having children without even considering intelligence. Mainly is the desire to not have children a subconscious effort by the intelligent to "limit the numbers in the heard", or some here to completely unknown cause or to random combination of factors that intelligence is actually just coincidence. Hypothetically, if all people are having less children then since the intelligent are a much smaller percentage of the whole of the populace then they would show a greater drop in reproduction.

By independent variables I mean to state that while the ability to recall information may help in some IQ test it is not directly equivalent. There is a IQ 65 kid at one of the schools I work at that can tell your the color of every kid in their classes shirts for everyday over the last month. While this shows extreme retention ability the kid can't solve any sort of logic puzzle and and is completely incapable of variable algebra as it requires abstract thought, a letter representing a number.

 

[crudus]

Actually the average IQ has been going up. Rather the average IQ is staying the same (100) and it is getting harder to get. If we took someone from 1900 with an IQ of 100 their IQ now would be much lower. Same if we traveled to 2111.

Idiocracy is a load of shit. A stupid, pathetic attempt at scaremongering, done by somebody who clearly doesn't fully understand natural selection. The human race hasn't had a Malthusian limit since the Green Revolution, and when we do hit it, it's going to be the people who can best provide food for their children and not those who reproduce for the sake of it who have the highest fitness.

Is it full of shit the same way Happy Gilmore and Dude, Where's My Car? are?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Looking at this thread, apparently all it takes for people to go "Fuck yeah, eugenics!" is the assumption that there'll be in the portion of the population that is allowed to pass on their genes.

 

[newwiseman]

Half Sibling for one second my argument is on potential. Looking back on inheritance in traits. BB + BB = BB, BB + Bb = BB %50 Bb %50, Bb + Bb = BB %25, Bb %50, bb %25 Any number of my traits could be dominant while she inherited those as recessive genes.

Yes. And if you're assuming that intelligence is wholly genetic (clue: it provably isn't,) there is no reason to say that genes leading to a lower intelligence are recessive. Some of them may well be dominant, so your half sister may be carrying a ton of "smart" genes, while she just gets stuck with an unlucky manifested majority.

Again, assuming that there's any overpowering genetic inclination in intelligence. Which, again, is totally unfounded.

Even farmers 2000years ago knew to breed their cattle based on the desirable traits and to me, intelligence, more than large breasts is a desirable trait. Sadly society seems to cast the likes of Jersey Shore as those with desirable traits. Maybe I'm conceited and bitter because I've been labeled as undesirable for not being a ripped jack ass but I see this as a harmful behavior.

I don't usually like taking personality into an argument, but I feel so inclined in this case. Perhaps you've been labelled as undesirable because you're a jack ass supremacist that likes to think themselves better than people? If this is representative of your normal conversation starter, perhaps your undesirability comes from your self-imposed alienation of the rest of the unworthy masses, no?

Good for you if you like smart girls. I'm sure a bunch of your "ripped jack ass" sworn enemies do too. I know a bunch of people that are admittedly not so smart. But they value intelligence in their partners as much as I do, if not more. All that I'm getting from you is that you're a bigoted individual who's pissed off because all the other guys get girls when you don't; so you need a scapegoat that you can both blame and feel superior too in both pushing them down for being idiotic masses, and elevating yourself to a higher moral standing. Good job there.

As an unrelated side note I did Track and Field for 3 years in college and at my peak weighed 185lb 2% body fat and ran a 200m in 22.3seconds. I was one of those ripped jack asses and still get more women hitting on me than I care for, I'm more of an troll than a bigot. Furthermore my political, religious, and social views support freedom for all people, all creeds, all walks of life. Good job calling me a bigot because I pose the question is it not better in the light of over population for those of higher intelligence to get the few seats available. How about this, if aliens show up tomorrow and ask for representatives of humanity to come learn from them who would you want to go? Random lottery or the most qualified?

By my intelligence is undesirable point when was the last time a celebrity was praised for their intelligence? Ashton Kutcher studied Biological Engineering, even though he never got his degree he is very intelligent but society rewards punked. Larry the cable guy has made billions of dollars by coming up with his dumb ass character. Natalie Portman makes headlines for making out with Mila Kunis but where is the praise for her being a Harvard Graduate. How many will congratulate Emma Watson during her next panty flash for attending Brown?

I don't get hit on for my ability to multi-task, program computers, or solve puzzles and equations, I get hit on for having big biceps and pecs, it's insulting.

Looking at this thread, apparently all it takes for people to go "Fuck yeah, eugenics!" is the assumption that there'll be in the portion of the population that is allowed to pass on their genes.

Seriously who knew my attempt to troll the rest of my work day away would be so successful.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Looking at this thread, apparently all it takes for people to go "Fuck yeah, eugenics!" is the assumption that there'll be in the portion of the population that is allowed to pass on their genes.

Seriously who knew my attempt to troll the rest of my work day away would be so successful.

D'oh, I so mad at you! Damn you newwiseman! Damn you to helllllll!

Nah, I just find it funny that any thread on the subject of 'dumbing down' or some thing like it is always full of people who assume they're automatically part of the untouched, sane few or some bullshit.

 

[BRex21]

I thought the funnyest thing about the movie was how much of it could be seen in our society. Take for example the "tap water and toilet water come from the same source" argument. If you stop to thing about it, if I dump a bottle of perrier in the toilet the same could be said about drinking that.
I have an ionizing filter at home, my tap water is processed pretty much like most bottled waters are and the fact that some of it is sent to the toilet taints this how?
But i digress, the governator got elected, AFV is half way to idiocracys OMB and I worked for 2 years proofreading and correcting documents for university educated north american attourneys who could barely grasp the written word. But then again thats what the movie was all about, emphasizing the reality we already live in to rediculous proportions. The ol' Reductio ad absurdum if you will.

 

[newwiseman]

Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

The way I see it (and this may offend some people who all about equality), men (and women if they donate eggs) who have good genes should get paid more to donate into sperm banks than guys who have terrible genes.

Of course I may have vested interests in this.

Most clinics do offer more to donors that are "more desirable". That is why they ask what your high level of education is when you fill out a donor form, not that I have first hand experience donating. My knowledge comes from a lady who was trying to get me to donate, she started bugging me after I earned an award for getting a 4.1 gpa while being an athlete. I wasn't alone in being pestered by her.

Looking at this thread, apparently all it takes for people to go "Fuck yeah, eugenics!" is the assumption that there'll be in the portion of the population that is allowed to pass on their genes.

Seriously who knew my attempt to troll the rest of my work day away would be so successful.

D'oh, I so mad at you! Damn you newwiseman! Damn you to helllllll!

Nah, I just find it funny that any thread on the subject of 'dumbing down' or some thing like it is always full of people who assume they're automatically part of the untouched, sane few or some bullshit.

Nah. My family history of mental illness should rule me out of the survivors category when we all get culled. If my uncles are any indication I'll have schizophrenia in 3-5 years. My mothers brother, my mothers-mothers brother, my mothers-father 2 of his brothers. A lot more described as wired guys in the family history.

 

[Ickorus]

Slightly off-topic but I find it really sad that so many people don't want kids, I personally would love to have kids, at least that way I would know that even once I am dead and buried something I created will live on and hopefully make it a better place to live.

 

[newwiseman]

I thought the funnyest thing about the movie was how much of it could be seen in our society. Take for example the "tap water and toilet water come from the same source" argument. If you stop to thing about it, if I dump a bottle of perrier in the toilet the same could be said about drinking that.
I have an ionizing filter at home, my tap water is processed pretty much like most bottled waters are and the fact that some of it is sent to the toilet taints this how?
But i digress, the governator got elected, AFV is half way to idiocracys OMB and I worked for 2 years proofreading and correcting documents for university educated north american attourneys who could barely grasp the written word. But then again thats what the movie was all about, emphasizing the reality we already live in to rediculous proportions. The ol' Reductio ad absurdum if you will.

That is the point of satire, also why Candide by Voltair will probably always be my favorite book.

 

[Blue_vision]

By my intelligence is undesirable point when was the last time a celebrity was praised for their intelligence? Ashton Kutcher studied Biological Engineering, even though he never got his degree he is very intelligent but society rewards punked. Larry the cable guy has made billions of dollars by coming up with his dumb ass character. Natalie Portman makes headlines for making out with Mila Kunis but where is the praise for her being a Harvard Graduate. How many will congratulate Emma Watson during her next panty flash for attending Brown?

I don't get hit on for my ability to multi-task, program computers, or solve puzzles and equations, I get hit on for having big biceps and pecs, it's insulting.

Well, have you heard of Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, or Barrack Obama? They're all world-renowned people with celebrity status that are overwhelmingly based on their cognitive abilities. Even dumb people like them.

And if you'd like a reason that people don't hit on your for your ability to multi-task, program computers, or solve puzzles and equations, is it possible because someone has to actually see you do that? It's a common fallacy "people only like x because they're good looking!" No, it's because one of the only gauges of attraction that people have upon first seeing someone is how they look.

Again, good job.

 

[mikev7.0]

I didn't mean to focus so much on Idiocrasy, but more so on a proven trend of people of higher intelligence not having as many children versus those of lower intelligence.

Mike Judges Comedy was a satirical look on the extreme limit of that trend not a literal interpretation of the possibility.

Just to point out something about IQ, it is supposed to be a number equating your ability to figure shit out, not necessarily your ability to retain and recall information, though there is some correlation between the two depending on the IQ test taken, but they are independent variables.

And a point about the world, just 100 years the Chinese didn't have to worry about eating every animal in their country to extinction to feed themselves. Given the limit of available resources is already being pushed in many parts of the planet would not a world limit children be beneficial to everyone. That is if you think globally and not just about what is good for your country and political leanings.

What do you mean in your third paragraph? the Intelligence Quotient is nothing more (according to Psychology texts anyway) than the ratio of someone's mental age to their temporal age expressed as a fraction and multiplied by 100. A concept still hotly debated (as to it's validity and use) in psychology. One of the debates is caused by the way the results of tested subjects changes over multiple tests, reflecting that yes it is supportable to say that the tests mostly center on your ability to retain and recall information, such as what was on the last test a subject had taken for one. Also, what do you mean by "they are independent variables?"

The third paragraph was targeted to previous comments about how we're all getting smarter as the ages go on. My aim was an attempt towards a discussion about the social ramifications of actually having children without even considering intelligence. Mainly is the desire to not have children a subconscious effort by the intelligent to "limit the numbers in the heard", or some here to completely unknown cause or to random combination of factors that intelligence is actually just coincidence. Hypothetically, if all people are having less children then since the intelligent are a much smaller percentage of the whole of the populace then they would show a greater drop in reproduction.

By independent variables I mean to state that while the ability to recall information may help in some IQ test it is not directly equivalent. There is a IQ 65 kid at one of the schools I work at that can tell your the color of every kid in their classes shirts for everyday over the last month. While this shows extreme retention ability the kid can't solve any sort of logic puzzle and and is completely incapable of variable algebra as it requires abstract thought, a letter representing a number.

Oh I see. Yup. I got the intent of your third paragraph completely wrong. I myself hold the highly controversial view that everyone is equally smart, but in different ways. Such as your example of the child at your school. He is just as smart as anyone else but it presents itself in a different form, as it does for many people. I would be willing to bet a way could be found to aim his (as well as others) specific gifts. Even making him what other people would call a "genius" at algebra. This is why I object to what standard I.Q. tests leave out, which is admitted by Psychology. There is so much more to intelligence than just what is being tested, and I feel, it is of equal importance. So I guess I am more in the "nurture" than "nature" camp simply because you can do more to nurture intelligence, while if all you're left with is nature your tools (beyond genetic engineering) are somewhat more limited.

 

[newwiseman]

Slightly off-topic but I find it really sad that so many people don't want kids, I personally would love to have kids, at least that way I would know that even once I am dead and buried something I created will live on and hopefully make it a better place to live.

If only that was the reason for all child births, instead of that whole go forth and be fruitful destructive behavior, or broken condoms, or lack of available condoms. Or my personal favorite thing to hate, the young women who want a doll so they have a kid.

 

[Reallink]

Honestly, I don't think we are become less intelligent, but its just easier to hear the stupid things through television, Youtube etc. But breeding so that as a race we can be better? Thats pretty much a horrible idea. Its basically what happened in World War II (killing the 'imperfect' or not allowing them to reproduce is effectively the same).

Also, 97 is stupid? Its three points below the mean. Honestly.

And where is the option to vote against it?

 

[newwiseman]

By my intelligence is undesirable point when was the last time a celebrity was praised for their intelligence? Ashton Kutcher studied Biological Engineering, even though he never got his degree he is very intelligent but society rewards punked. Larry the cable guy has made billions of dollars by coming up with his dumb ass character. Natalie Portman makes headlines for making out with Mila Kunis but where is the praise for her being a Harvard Graduate. How many will congratulate Emma Watson during her next panty flash for attending Brown?

I don't get hit on for my ability to multi-task, program computers, or solve puzzles and equations, I get hit on for having big biceps and pecs, it's insulting.

Well, have you heard of Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, or Barrack Obama? They're all world-renowned people with celebrity status that are overwhelmingly based on their cognitive abilities. Even dumb people like them.

And if you'd like a reason that people don't hit on your for your ability to multi-task, program computers, or solve puzzles and equations, is it possible because someone has to actually see you do that? It's a common fallacy "people only like x because they're good looking!" No, it's because one of the only gauges of attraction that people have upon first seeing someone is how they look.

Again, good job.

Bill Gates is renowned for his money and Microsoft not his intelligence, not even his charity. Mr. President was relatively unknown in US before his running, being a 1 term senator and his win is largely attributed toward his public speaking, and looks. Still even in the states I hear nothing of his intelligence and for some reason the polls are consistently showing that appearing less intelligent helps gain votes, weird huh. Of the three Einstein is the only one actually known for his brilliance and his intelligence is actually why he's well known and talked about. Not because he had a successful business or won an election. Specifically the E=mc^2, not even his best work, and his work on THE BOMB with Oppenheimer. I'll also give you Hawking for intelligence, but he originally became well known for some claims most didn't agree with.

As long as we're naming off "famous scientist" who the hell knows the name Jonas Salk off hand, I'll give you a clue HE CURED POLIO, and he gave it away for free, "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" Perhaps one of the greatest examples of humanity from the last century.

As a boon to the looks over intelligence argument go back and look at the shuffle of top artist when music videos started being aired. The ugly talented guys who we're in the top 10 disappeared from the charts. In the US many people don't care what you can do if you not good looking enough.

-Trolololo