I am pretty sure Hitler had an IQ above 120. But from what you wrote, you sound like you would support fascism.

facism isn't bad, it could work if the leader and his/her party had really good ideals

Just a btw im sick of replying to this post, so many notifications.

I love how you think IQ means a damn thing to anyone. Looks like you aren't one of the smart ones either

i have already explained IQ twice now i should not need to explain it to you too.
Simple version.
When have you ever met a person with a high IQ that was dumb?
When was the last time you met a person with a low IQ that was dumb?

The system has flaws but it works well enough.

No it doesn't. I've known people that have much lower IQs than me that have way more sense about government and life. It isn't just flawed, it's borderline worthless. Especially when it comes to politics. You think they have politics related questions on the tests? Yeah, didn't think so. I don't really care what you think because every with common sense knows your idea is retarded.

Well the problem is that IQ is an awful indicator of true intelligence, and that most stupid people tend not to vote anyway. An age limit like that sounds like it asks for trouble. Why should 40 year olds determine how life is for everyone under that age? Especially considering that older people tend to be more authoritarian and conservative. I oppose anything but equal rights, and I believe it is important that freedom be extended as broadly as possible.

The notion that someone who has lived twice as long as another would be incapable of comprehending what that other person needs in life is quite silly to be honest.
And IQ is a flawed system, but can you honestly say you have met anyone with a high IQ that was unintelligent?

Yes there are plenty of people with low IQ that do apply themselves and are intelligent individuals but on the average ten times as many are complete imbeciles.
those imbeciles worry me.

People who are older have different motives, as well as different moral codes in many cases. If you only allowed the elderly of today to vote for example, you would see an increase in Medicaid/Medicare spending and a downturn in financial aid for college students because 'Fuck that socialist shit, pull yourself up by the bootstraps'. You would see More drug war laws, as well as an increase in wars because they were raised in the red scare and have international hostility practically ingrained in them. These same types of problems would persist with forty year olds onto the younger generation. That is part of why I believe strongly that voting rights ought to be extended as broadly as possible. Sure, lets not actively encourage stupid people to vote, but there are intelligent people of all ages that deserve a voice.

TL;DR: You want Obama to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants and behold them the rights to vote.

Your example of elderly people expresses your motive well for elderly people are probably the only group which actually follows politics, and are the most intelligent in it. Every single group votes based on blocks like you have described for elderly people; Hispanics vote mostly on illegal immigration, Asians on legal immigration, Blacks on race.

>And IQ is a flawed system
Citation needed.

You do get that you have selected the one thing from my statement that supports your belief and ignored everything else completely, this tells me you are an unintelligent individual and your opinion is meaningless.

I just hate this intellectual fallacy that is being sprouted which states IQ is somehow meaningless. This is what Communists in Russia tried to argue. This thesis that IQ is a false-system is completely wrong.

It is not false, it is flawed, but it still works fine.

I would argue you to be wrong. Look into scientific studies on IQ; it shows very well the future of a person. If he will pass college, if he will die young, what score he will get on the ACT test.

It is meaningless. You want proof? Then define what intelligence is and give us a universal set of rules that define it. You just can't do it

You can say the exact same thing for a driving test:

Oh well, this whole thing is like, based on the fallacy which assumes that this test will pinpoint how well I drive. It is based on a set of rules which cannot be described as "universal"

Would you argue that someone who fails a driving test is a better driver than someone who perfectly passes it? I mean, afterall, the two scores should mean no difference to you since the test is based on abstract rules.

A driving test is to ensure you are a qualified enough driver to take the road without causing harm. Driving has a set of rules that must be learned before you can do it. The "abstract" rules are still rules. IQ isn't anything like that. At all.

Really, I didn't even need to answer you at all because your argument was totally irrelevant. So until you can give me a set of rules that define intelligence, you still lose this argument.

Look into scientific studies which use IQ to measure a persons later success in life. IQ is a very valuable measurement which can very accurately pinpoint what a person will become and what he can become. A driving test is a very good example to what you use as an argument. IQ tests measure, again, very accurately what a person would score on the ACT, which thus would decide what he will become in life making it an accurate test. Driving tests measure how people can do abstract things such as parallel park, and this equates well with how they can maneuver using a wheel.

Another example of its accuracy is how it passed through the blood; how family members tend to have the same IQ's eachother, and the same racial groups.

In all the studies comparing identical and fraternal twins -- it is found that separated identical twins raised apart scored closer in IQ than fraternal twins raised together. Other sources of excellent data are found in studies of adopted children. Adopted children are closer to their genetic parents' IQs rather than with their foster parents who they grow up with.

"define what intelligence is and give us a universal set of rules that define it."

What about this do you not comprehend?

What about not being a total fucking retard do you not understand? You are trying to argue that because there is no simple handbook written which states what intelligence is, that is it totally irrelevant which cannot be the case if you look into scientific data.

The universal system of intelligence is measured through scientific studies which prove the validity of IQ in showing how a person evolves in life: the grades he gets, how much money he makes in a job. That has strong correlation with IQ. And to see that IQ is very relatable to heredity makes my case stronger.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, read a book about it (ones that weren't published in the Soviet Union).

Look to my example of a drivers test which I expanded upon in my last comment. It applies very well to your idiotic argument.

"the grades he gets, how much money he makes in a job. That has strong correlation with IQ."
Neither of which prove IQ is a useful measure of intelligence.

"And to see that IQ is very relatable to heredity makes my case stronger."
So because it's hereditary it's a good measure of IQ. Yeah that doesn't make sense

"Look to my example of a drivers test which I expanded upon in my last comment. It applies very well to your idiotic argument."
Naw it was actually completely irrelevant, try again.

You must have anger issues buddy. You can't argue the validity of how well a test measures something, if you can't even define what it is it's measuring in the first place. You can't argue the validity of how well a test measures something, if you can't even define what it is it's measuring in the first place. I typed it twice so you understand it. If you still don't then I can't imagine how slow your cognitive abilities are.

"IQ measures intelligence to the point of which it is seen in society."
No it doesn't.

"Nobody knows what "intelligence" literally means"
Yep, all I needed to hear.

You know what, I'm done. No scientist would agree with your Soviet-like thesis, just so you know that.

I have explained to you everything but heredity; and that makes my case stronger because it shows that intelligence is a matter of biology, the brain, evolution. It is NOT "abstract" and environmental just because it doesn't go well with your autism.

Grades, occupation, and income have everything to do with IQ. Studies have shown a .82 correlation between IQ and yearly income. If you're going to argue against that as not being "useful", then I'm going to throw up over my keyboard.

Well you keep being mad (I really can't help that you lost this argument) and I'll take my leave now.

Haha, k bud. Take this to /sci/ and see what they say.

correlation and causation are very different...life doesn't revolve in a vacuum where IQ is the dominant factor which decides all things. Not to say a higher IQ will not benefit you in real life, but some people mature gradually over time and develop their intelligence. So essentially in order for your system of government to vote you're proposing:

1. Annual IQ tests which must be moderated/standardized, created, distributed and marked

This will cost an immense amount of money not to mention the fact that taking a written IQ test doesn't prove your intelligence at all

2. You are segregating society into 2 classes, one higher and one lower.

Subjugating the lower classes to humiliation may either lead to a revolution of that class, or eventually the discrimination of that lower class, beginning with revoking the rights to vote. A split society is never good, look what happened in America in the 60's and 70's, two different social groups (young vs old) fighting for reform/conservative

Your system is flawed. Ideal sure, I believe Socrates (or one of his students) thought around the same lines as you, that only the intelligent should lead however it just won't work.

>Well the problem is that IQ is an awful indicator of true intelligence
All scientific evidence which measures a person's growth in life and achievement would say otherwise. Go back to Revleft.

It is a flawed system tho.
you can not say someone is dumb solely on their IQ as it is a measurement of how they can learn, not have learnt.

Just on average someone with a high IQ is an intelligent person, and someone with a low IQ is unintelligent.

But it is certainly an accurate system of measurement when it comes to pinpointing a person's intelligence, that is, a person's ability to learn and adapt to society's challenges.

Just because blacks, on average, score near to mentally retarded doesn't make them retarded of course; but it does show that their intelligence capabilities are less than Asians and Whites because they even score poorly in Western countries where their environment is better.

the problem is that over 120 IQ 40 year olds tend to find themselves in many similar economical social circles. When a decision needs to be made it's likely between them and another party being chosen to suffer they would all go 'well fuck THOSE guys huehue'

that's actually an incredibly basic notion concerning democratic functions. I hope you don't vote.

Ahh...Ignorance is bliss.

Lol mad cracka, yo time of runnin thang is ova.

Dere will never be another straight whitey prezident ever ag'in, an' dere's nuttin' you can do boutit.

You come across as a very terrible troll.
We all know black people can not afford the internet.

publik librarey nigga