Should people who got less than 500 points in the leaving even allowed to vote?

marcus001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No they don't.

People who are up their own arses do.

No one has ever used that phrase in the history of the English language whether they are up or down their arses.

wandererz

From what i have been fed by the media, it seems that most politicians in Ireland are ex teachers.
Is that true?

If so, in my opinion they are failed. They are not nor neither have been entrepreneurs or leaders. Simply getting onto the bandwagon.

They did not go to becoming researchers, serious educators in universities, heads of companies etc. before taking on political roles.

There are a few, Leo Varadkar being one.
He managed to become a medical doctor, so that obviously took a significant bit in terms of LC results. That didn't make him a great health minister however. Time will tell if he becomes a great Taoiseach.

In other countries there is a reasonably good representation of people in cabinet.
I haven't done a study recently so I don't know what that is in Ireland.

marcus001

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What IQ got to do with anything? In my view, Personality, emotional and mental state, personnel views on life, would be better ways to judge if a person is fit for office. Highly intelligent people make mistakes too, intelligence does not make you immune.

We're not talking about fitness for office, we're talking about who should be allowed vote.

I would also argue that intelligent people on average make fewer mistakes.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

Well, I don't really want to get into personal stuff, but its usually hard to find common ground. That doesn't mean I don't try. I used to keep up with football for the sole purpose of being able to chat to the lads I used to work with during college even though I never could give a ****e.

So becaue I didn't go to college it means I am automatically only interested in football?

Well I have other interests. Whats your favourite symphony? Mine is either Beethoven No 7 or Dvorak's New World Symphony. I know many people proclaim Beethoven's fifth was the best but I prefer his 7th.

I know you are a beginner at golf so we could talk about that perhaps?

marcus001

wandererz wrote: »

From what i have been fed by the media, it seems that most politicians in Ireland are ex teachers.
Is that true?

If so, in my opinion they are failed. They are not nor neither have been entrepreneurs or leaders. Simply getting onto the bandwagon.

They did not go to becoming researchers, serious educators in universities, heads of companies etc. before taking on political roles.

There are a few, Leo Varadkar being one.
He managed to become a medical doctor, so that obviously took a significant bit in terms of LC results. That didn't make him a great health minister however. Time will tell if he becomes a great Taoiseach.

I'm not even sure Leo would be elected under the system I'm proposing.

I'm fully aware that he probably has a lot of support amongst the affluent South Dublin set, but the political landscape would be fundamentally different under this system. There would be far less emphasis on personality over substance. That's what Leo is. I think, left to the high achievers to decide, we'd simply get competent professionals as opposed to ideologues on both sides.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

We're not talking about fitness for office, we're talking about who should be allowed vote.

I would also argue that intelligent people on average make fewer mistakes.

And your evidence to prove this is.....

marcus001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So becaue I didn't go to college it means I am automatically only interested in football?

Nah just the lads that I worked with.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

We're not talking about fitness for office, we're talking about who should be allowed vote.

I would also argue that intelligent people on average make fewer mistakes.

Seriously? In my line of work, I cannot make mistakes EVER. But according to you, I'm not intelligent but none of my batches of medication have ever been recalled. How do you explain that? My father was a physicist and made mistakes all the time. The Garda Commissioner is an intelligent woman and look at all her mistakes. Do you want me to go on?

'To err is human...'

marcus001

jamesbere wrote: »

And your evidence to prove this is.....

It seems fairly intuitive to me, I don't need to read it in a scientific journal to deduce that intelligent people probably make fewer mistakes. Although I don't know whether clumsiness is related to intelligence, general competence certainly is.

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

Seriously? In my line of work, I cannot make mistakes EVER. But according to you, I'm not intelligent but none of my batches of medication have ever been recalled. How do you explain that? My father was a physicist and made mistakes all the time. The Garda Commissioner is an intelligent woman and look at all her mistakes. Do you want me to go on?

'To err is human...'

You see these personal anecdotes are not one bit compelling to me because for all I know they're totally made up. And just because you don't make mistakes doesn't mean that intelligent people on average don't make fewer mistakes.

As for Noirín, she's smarter than you give her credit for because I doubt a lot of these mistakes are really unintentional.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

It seems fairly intuitive to me, I don't need to read it in a scientific journal to deduce that intelligent people probably make fewer mistakes. Although I don't know whether clumsiness is related to intelligence, general competence certainly is.

So you decided in your own head this true.

marcus001

jamesbere wrote: »

So you decided in your own head this true.

I use heuristics.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

I use heuristics.

Ah seriously you've made statement with no prove and decided to say "I use heuristics" to baffle us lowly humans.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

You see these personal anecdotes are not one bit compelling to me because for all I know they're totally made up. And just because you don't make mistakes doesn't mean that intelligent people on average don't make fewer mistakes.

As for Noirín, she's smarter than you give her credit for because I doubt a lot of these mistakes are really unintentional.

Believe what you want about me, I honestly couldn't give a hoot. I don't class myself as intelligent. I got a degree in something I loved, while working full time. Your opinion on me doesn't even register. You assume that just because someone doesn't do well in their leaving that they're not as intelligent as you. You don't know their personal circumstances or their background. A girl I went to school with was 6 months pregnant doing her leaving and she's a CPA now. What would you say about her?

Have you just started college by any chance?

wandererz

marcus001 wrote: »

I'm not even sure Leo would be elected under the system I'm proposing.

I'm fully aware that he probably has a lot of support amongst the affluent South Dublin set, but the political landscape would be fundamentally different under this system. There would be far less emphasis on personality over substance. That's what Leo is. I think, left to the high achievers to decide, we'd simply get competent professionals as opposed to ideologues on both sides.

Surprisingly there are a good many competent and educated people in the background. Just as with the US Government and the Whitehouse, these are the people that ensure that Government continues no matter what happens or who the head is.

Cheerful Spring

marcus001 wrote: »

I'm not even sure Leo would be elected under the system I'm proposing.

I'm fully aware that he probably has a lot of support amongst the affluent South Dublin set, but the political landscape would be fundamentally different under this system. There would be far less emphasis on personality over substance. That's what Leo is. I think, left to the high achievers to decide, we'd simply get competent professionals as opposed to ideologues on both sides.

Your views are retarded.

Intelligent people can be risk takers. Are you honestly going to claim all bankers are not educated and intelligent? We know most of them went to university. So what happened? Their intelligence, failed them, when they decided to risk other peoples money? There is likely other intelligent risk takers in other professions.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

I use heuristics.

Of course you do...

A method not guaranteed to be perfect *rollseyes*

freshpopcorn

This sound like a policy a dictating principal would bring into a school so the students could only elect exactly who he/she wanted on the students council.

jamesbere

LittleMuppet wrote: »

Believe what you want about me, I honestly couldn't give a hoot. I don't class myself as intelligent. I got a degree in something I loved, while working full time. Your opinion on me doesn't even register. You assume that just because someone doesn't do well in their leaving that they're not as intelligent as you. You don't know their personal circumstances or their background. A girl I went to school with was 6 months pregnant doing her leaving and she's a CPA now. What would you say about her?

Have you just started college by any chance?

We can't comprehend is intelligence, he's on another level. Like the lawnmower man

marcus001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ive written 3 different responses to this thread and they all end up stupid because the premise is stupid.

Whats the lowest common denominator? I'd argue its having enough houses to house everyone and having enough jobs to keep everyone employed having reliable public transport and when you need to visit a hospital you get a bed straightaway and get seen to by the top of their field, and when you've paid the taxes neccessary to provide all of that you have enough left over to have a comfortable life style.

I'd argue the above is the lowest common denominator, and I'd also argue its what every politician should be striving for.

The problem is they all can't agree how to do it. (And a few are on the take)

The lowest common denominator is someone who is duped year after year by sound bites of one kind or another.

Highly intelligent people aren't moved by the idea of a 5 point plan or strong and stable, they can see it for the bull**** electioneering it is.

I'm not saying that the average Joe can't see through it as well but many don't, especially if they have preexisting biases one way or another.

A better quality electorate would lead to better quality elections, election debates and elected governments.

marcus001

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your views are retarded.

Intelligent people can be risk takers. Are you honestly going to claim all bankers are not educated and intelligent? We know most of them went to university. So what happened? Their intelligence, failed them, when they decided to risk other peoples money? There is likely other intelligent risk takers in other professions.

This isn't even an argument against my position, or if it is, spell it out for me, I'm not smart like you.

LittleMuppet

jamesbere wrote: »

We can't comprehend is intelligence, he's on another level. Like the lawnmower man

Or a fresher who has just had his first psychology/ politics lecture!

wandererz

Considering that the OP's account is relatively new and the number of posts in such a short period of time i am declaring FAKE news sponsored by someone or the other.

No need to bother any further, simply ignore.

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

Of course you do...

A method not guaranteed to be perfect *rollseyes*

You use heuristics as well. Every single day.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

You use heuristics as well. Every single day.

I know I do and I know exactly what heuristics are. The difference is I don't shout about it on forums to sound intelligent

LittleMuppet

wandererz wrote: »

Considering that the OP's account is relatively new and the number of posts in such a short period of time i am declaring FAKE news sponsored by someone or the other.

No need to bother any further, simply ignore.

I think I've done feeding trolls for the night!

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

Believe what you want about me, I honestly couldn't give a hoot. I don't class myself as intelligent. I got a degree in something I loved, while working full time. Your opinion on me doesn't even register. You assume that just because someone doesn't do well in their leaving that they're not as intelligent as you. You don't know their personal circumstances or their background. A girl I went to school with was 6 months pregnant doing her leaving and she's a CPA now. What would you say about her?

Have you just started college by any chance?

In never once accused you of caring about my opinion of you, nor did I ever offer my opinion on you nor do I have one except that you're obviously offended by this thread.

Cheerful Spring

marcus001 wrote: »

The lowest common denominator is someone who is duped year after year by sound bites of one kind or another.

Highly intelligent people aren't moved by the idea of a 5 point plan or strong and stable, they can see it for the bull**** electioneering it is.

I'm not saying that the average Joe can't see through it as well but many don't, especially if they have preexisting biases one way or another.

A better quality electorate would lead to better quality elections, election debates and elected governments.

Do you know what party is leading the country right now? Who are the intelligent people voting for?

The problem is you think the intelligent people are perfect and can't make mistakes, this is not true, and there is no evidence to look to that would show a master race of intelligent people would run things better for the country.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

In never once accused you of caring about my opinion of you, nor did I ever offer my opinion on you nor do I have one except that you're obviously offended by this thread.

I seriously doubt he's offended by this thread

Blazer

Completely agree with the ops point however I would limit it to only those who got it 10 years ago or more.
The leaving cert is completely dumbed down now. Hell you even get points when you fail Honours Maths ffs.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

In never once accused you of caring about my opinion of you, nor did I ever offer my opinion on you nor do I have one except that you're obviously offended by this thread.

Night night xoxox

LittleMuppet

jamesbere wrote: »

I seriously doubt he's offended by this thread

*She

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

I know I do and I know exactly what heuristics are. The difference is I don't shout about it on forums to sound intelligent

You do now because you Googled it and then came back with "method not guaranteed to be perfect" which is an obvious copy paste job from wikipedia and not your own understanding of the term.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

You do now because you Googled it and then came back with "method not guaranteed to be perfect" which is an obvious copy paste job from wikipedia and not your own understanding of the term.

It's a definition. Definition's tend to be the same everywhere you look.

marcus001

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you know what party is leading the country right now? Who are the intelligent people voting for?

The problem is you think the intelligent people are perfect and can't make mistakes, this is not true, and there is no evidence to look to that would show a master race of intelligent people would run things better for the country.

Intelligent people are voting for the parties which have been designed to appeal to the masses. They vote for the parties that exist. If the electorate were narrowed down the parties would be more representative of the intelligent voters.

gitzy16v

Ive nowhere near 500 points...not by a long shot....I care for people,I vote according to their needs.
You gonna take that away from me?

jamesbere

LittleMuppet wrote: »

*She

She you say, well us lower forms of intelligence must stick together.

We're off to have sex op, night

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

It's a definition. Definition's tend to be the same everywhere you look.

Someone who really understood stood the term would more likely describe it as a mental shortcut because that is how they would understand it as that is how it functions for them in their mind.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

You do now because you Googled it and then came back with "method not guaranteed to be perfect" which is an obvious copy paste job from wikipedia and not your own understanding of the term.

Or maybe I should just dumb it down for you and say it's basically just using your own judgment?

Anyway, I'm done for the night. Us average intelligent people still need sleep to function.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

Someone who really understood stood the term would more likely describe it as a mental shortcut because that is how they would understand it as that is how it functions for them in their mind.

U OK hun xxx

marcus001

She's gonna be watching this thread for at least another hour.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

Someone who really understood stood the term would more likely describe it as a mental shortcut because that is how they would understand it as that is how it functions for them in their mind.

Well I guess it's perfectly cromulent word

Cheerful Spring

marcus001 wrote: »

Intelligent people are voting for the parties which have been designed to appeal to the masses. They vote for the parties that exist. If the electorate were narrowed down the parties would be more representative of the intelligent voters.

How many intelligent people do you think exists in this perfect society of yours? How many will be allowed to vote? What happens if they **** up and society breaks down? Remember you removing the majority to be second class citizens, ruled by an Elite of intelligent beings.

gitzy16v

gitzy16v wrote: »

Ive nowhere near 500 points...not by a long shot....I care for people,I vote according to their needs.
You gonna take that away from me?

Forget about your supposed intelligence.

Hey troll,answer my question,you stupid little prick.

marcus001

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How many intelligent people do you think exists in this perfect society of yours? How many will be allowed to vote? What happens if they **** up and society breaks down? Remember you removing the majority to be second class citizens, ruled by an Elite of intelligent beings.

I haven't looked it up but I think something like 15% of people get over 500.

They're not beings, they're people. Their average salaries are only a little bit higher than the average industrial wage. Its not like they're all on 100k a year, not even close. There are probably more people with a 105 IQ on 100k a year simply because there are more of them.

somefeen

If the right to vote was based on intelligence then it's very clear that advocates of the policy would be excluded from voting.

FishOnABike

marcus001 wrote: »

Well, ideally we wouldn't deprive people of rights they already have. We would instate it for future generations so that as the years go on we will have a more intelligent electorate. Then and only then will we have good governance. You cannot govern a country democratically with an average IQ below 90 and even slightly above that you get lots of incompetence and corruption.

In order to save democracy we need to award democratic rights based on competence. That is my firm belief.

It wouldn't make one bit of a difference having a 'smarter' electorate if all they have to vote for is the same collection of incompetents and village idiots that have been running the country for the past few decades.

Cheerful Spring

marcus001 wrote: »

I haven't looked it up but I think something like 15% of people get over 500.

If you going to argue for it should you not have those statistics/data points?

marcus001

FishOnABike wrote: »

It wouldn't make one bit of a difference having a 'smarter' electorate if all they have to vote for is the same collection of incompetents and village idiots that have been running the country for the past few decades.

A different breed of politician would emerge, undoubtedly. People who would have no chance going up in front of the masses.

wandererz

marcus001 wrote: »

Intelligent people are voting for the parties which have been designed to appeal to the masses. They vote for the parties that exist. If the electorate were narrowed down the parties would be more representative of the intelligent voters.

Makes no sense at all.
Intelligent people vote for their own party that can benefit them the most.
The same for other people.

All parties exist. If they don't then they are, by definition, non-existent.

If the electorates vote was narrowed down then the parties would be more representative of the majority!

What kind of ****e are you spewing here.