[Closed] Time for a Compulsory IQ Test?

The scary thing is that around half the population is below average intelligence!

IQ's not everything, as druid shows.

Wouldnt' make any difference. The ones that vote are the ones intelligent enough to realise it matters.

Even worse, the average person has less than 2 legs

thickos hoping around, whatever next

The ones that vote are the ones intelligent enough to realise it matters.

The scary thing is that around half the population is below average intelligence!

Erm, not entirely true..... IQ is not a bell shaped distribution. It's skewed and truncated.

Anyone with a half decent IQ would've known that.....

(runsawayandhides)

thickos hoping around, whatever next

druidh - Member
The scary thing is that around half the population is below average intelligence!

I think you'll find that depends on how you define average.

only if anyone standing for office had to pass the same test...

And this thread only goes to show that around half the population also has no sense of humour 😆

Not an IQ test, but a general knowledge current affairs test, not a complicated one, and say a 50% pass rate. But I listened to Jeremy Vine once, and I was very frightened, very...

Some of the discussions I heard around AV, about what AV actually was, were terrifying...

Maybe not an IQ test but possibly they should be tested to see if they have a basic understanding of what they're voting on. I know a dude of 53 who voted for one party all his life, and I quote, "cuz my dad told me to vote for them"

/Rant
And what about the Muppet Salmond in Scotland looking to give school children the vote in the independence referendum. Not old enough to vote in a general election, local, election, leave school, buy cigarettes, alcohol, fireworks or a bloody kitchen knife but old enough to vote on a constitutional issue..... I suspect my cat has a better understanding of the issue and whats at stake than the average school child that's just seen braveheart!
/End_of_Rant

I think you'll find that depends on how you define average

ah beaten to it. Yes, Median value or Mean value...

[quote=Gweilo ]
And what about the Muppet Salmond in Scotland looking to give school children the vote in the independence referendum. Not old enough to vote in a general election, local, election, [b]leave school[/b][b]???[/b], buy cigarettes, alcohol, fireworks or a bloody kitchen knife but old enough to vote on a constitutional issue.....
But old enough to be sent to war and be told to die for your country eh?

You can leave school at 16 in Scotland. You can also get married (without parental consent) and legally have sex/children.

I think you'll find that depends on how you define average

I'd assumed druidh had laid out bait for that by using 'around half'..

ah beaten to it. Yes, Median value or Mean value...

STOP MAKING ME ALL STATISTICAL ON A FRIDAY!!!!

Mean is synonymous with Average. Median and Mode are entirely different measures.

Anyway - it doesn't matter. IQ is just a state of mind.

I think what the OP is after is the following:-

Do you watch Jeremy Kyle?
Do you buy scratch cards?
Do you live on benefits and believe that is your career?
Have you never eaten fruit?
Does five-a-day mean number of times you shoot up?

If you answer yes to any of the above you may not vote and you must be sterilised.

Simple.

There should be a QI test hosted by Stephen Fry. Everyone gets a chance to set off the klaxon.

[quote=vinnyeh ]I'd assumed druidh had laid out bait for that by using 'around half'..
😉

IQ tests...hmmm what do dey do in skool'idge.. is day etst (tests) of intelligence..
Or..
What like.

IQ in it's inherent form is a flawed test profile. It doesn't prove anything really except a score on a scale.

Many people on this planet have exceptional intelligence and have neither passed, or know of, exams.

I do quite like Stephen Fry, but the constant repeats on Dave are getting tiresome. 😉

But old enough to be sent to war and be told to die for your country eh?

Very different issues- right to vote is the privilege granted to an individual.
Fighting for your country in time of need is a respnsibility, as part of the collective.

And this thread only goes to show that around half the population also has no sense of humour

Aaah, if only we were above average like druidh, we'd have seen that cleverness.

STOP MAKING ME ALL STATISTICAL ON A FRIDAY!!!!

Mean is synonymous with Average. Median and Mode are entirely different measures.

yes sir, sorry sir, won't do it again sir.

I think what the OP is after is the following:-

Do you watch Jeremy Kyle?
Do you buy scratch cards?
Do you live on benefits and believe that is your career?
Have you ever eaten fruit?
Does five-a-day mean number of times you shoot up?

If you answer yes to any of the above you may not vote and you must be sterilised.

Simple.

thing is, the above goes against many things I beleive in, it is contrary to the values I hold and the society I want to live in...

...but I can't help but pretty much agree with it wholeheartedly.

[quote=vinnyeh ]But old enough to be sent to war and be told to die for your country eh?

Very different issues- right to vote is the privilege granted to an individual.
Fighting for your country in time of need is a respnsibility, as part of the collective.
Deciding who we should go to war with is a power given to the government by the electorate.

A possible Goodwin's

http://realdoctorstu.com/2011/07/11/the-iq-myth-and-its-fascist-origins-just-how-intelligent-are-you/

[i][b]Western culture has a peculiar fascination with ‘intelligence’. I’ve not taken an IQ test for years – and hopefully never will again. Being ‘intelligent’ is held in ludicrously high esteem (second probably only to good looks) that most people think they’ve either got it, or they haven’t.
The ‘doctrine’ of an inborn intelligence seems to be ingrained in academic thinking. If I had an apple for every time a student told me “I failed because I wasn’t clever enough”, I could probably quit lecturing and go into the cider-making business.

The truth is, the very idea of IQ, ‘intelligence’ and being ‘clever’ is hugely controversial. Did you know that the IQ test was developed and popularised by the Nazis? Fascist Germany used the test as a way to ‘ethnically cleanse’ less desirable out from their society.[/i][/b]

at 16 - get married.. also - buy a pet. enter into a contract.

Anyway, the number of intelligent folk that spout scary views makes this a somewhat dubious proposal..

I think what the OP is after is the following:-

Do you watch Jeremy Kyle?
Do you buy scratch cards?
Do you live on benefits and believe that is your career?
Have you never eaten fruit?
Does five-a-day mean number of times you shoot up?

If you answer yes to any of the above you may not vote and you must be sterilised.

Simple.

One thing at a time, one thing at a time!

Deciding who we should go to war with is a power given to the government by the electorate.

Only in around half of all cases.

IQ test was developed and popularised by the Nazis? Fascist Germany used the test as a way to ‘ethnically cleanse’ less desirable out from their society.

IQ Test
ICBMs
Peoples car
Motorways
Package Holidays/Holiday Resorts

They sure knew a thing or two eh?

But old enough to be sent to war and be told to die for your country eh?

Soldiers must be 18 or over to go on tour.

I feel that some think I'm suggested that only Mensa (the society that has questions involving education to test one's IQ!) members can vote, whereas in fact I'm just saying that people who are unable to form coherent thoughts should be unable to.

Thomas Cook was a Nazi?!

[quote=shifter ]Thomas Cook was a Nazi?!
That's why there are lots of coach tours to Poland

VinnyH - Don't set me off on sending what are little more than children to fight pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the appalling treatment they get when they come back. That's a different rant

And if the ability to procreate has any bearing on anything your suggesting children as young as 11 or 12 could be allowed to vote....

Wrecker - not in 1981. I went on active service at 17 1/2

IQ has little to do with common sense, sense of fairness, compassion, etc...

Not an IQ test- they're not that good at judging intelligence, and in any case the relevance of intelligence is slight, here- you can be smart and ill-informed.

But a current affairs quiz? Perhaps, when you vote for a candidate, you should be challenged to identify his policy stance on certain issues, or his party's? Or to correctly identify past actions?

Parliamentary democracy is a clever deceit, gives the impression that the voter has some input, reality is that a govt is elected by barely 20% of the populace that are over 18

Wrecker - not in 1981. I went on active service at 17 1/2

Fair enough gweilo, but I don't think they're proposing to apply the intelligence test retrospectively.....

I once did an IQ test and scored 42.

Turns out, i'm God.

LOL I'd probably fail wrecker 😕

and as I admit to being of low IQ, how do u get these boxy things for copied bits of text.....

how do u get these boxy things for copied bits of text.....

like that.

[quote=Gweilo ]and as I admit to being of low IQ, how do u get these boxy things for copied bits of text.....
Or that

thats them.... aww go on tell me

I did a few IQ tests at school when some of the teachers thought I was not like other kids. First one "graded" me as super high, the second to try to confirm the first's result, expressed concern that I was of so low an IQ that I shouldn't be able to function as a human being.

True was the first test was full of questions that I found easy, the second the opposite. Basically the test was flawed. And me.

I'm useless at current affairs, anything classed as ''popular culture". But I've got a head full of useless crap, excellent if life was a pub quiz.

thats them.... aww go on tell me

Click the quote button
Paste the text you want in the box
click the quote button again

[quote=bigblackshed ]I'm useless at current affairs, anything classed as ''popular culture". But I've got a head full of useless crap, excellent if life was a pub quiz.
I struggle with lots of references on this site (e.g. I had to google the Nutkin chap, footballers, "celebs", musicians, TV personalities that folk mention who I don't have a clue about). I guess I just don't watch enough TV or I'm reading the wrong stuff.

wrecker - i don't know if there is a convention which is different from the rules but:

(1) You can be deployed to take an active part in hostilities from 17.
(2) You can be deployed at 16 if not taking an active part.
(3) If at 16 removing you from your 'unit' would cause unnaceptable disruption the MOD can deploy you anyway.
(4) At 16 you sign up, and are tied into serving till 22. At whatever age they deploy you, you made the decision to enlist at 16 (with no 'escape clause' when you are suddenly old enough to make life changing decisions).

But old enough to be sent to war and be told to die for your country eh?
You can leave school at 16 in Scotland. You can also get married (without parental consent) and legally have sex/children.

To be honest most 16 yr olds in Scotland probably have as enlightened a view of the world, and the issues surrounding Independence as any of the adults I have met; so I have no issue with giving them a vote. Doing it for one election is wrong.

Being ‘intelligent’ is held in ludicrously high esteem (second probably only to good looks) that most people think they’ve either got it, or they haven’t.
The ‘doctrine’ of an inborn intelligence seems to be ingrained in academic thinking. If I had an apple for every time a student told me “I failed because I wasn’t clever enough”, I could probably quit lecturing and go into the cider-making business.

The truth is, the very idea of IQ, ‘intelligence’ and being ‘clever’ is hugely controversial. Did you know that the IQ test was developed and popularised by the Nazis? Fascist Germany used the test as a way to ‘ethnically cleanse’ less desirable out from their society.

See intelligence does count as it means you can know that all of that is bobbins

Ah Junkyard, intelligence is useful, but that's knowledge not intelligence.

I know but it makes for a much worse punchline ...or I lack the intelligence to do it justice.

I believe it's the applicants who should be tested for intelligence, not the voters.

I believe it's the applicants who should be tested for intelligence, not the voters.

If the voters had been tested for intelligence then they themselves would in effect be testing the applicants for intelligence! 😉

IQ - where to set the bar, 150 or 160 maybe?

What about linking it to income instead?
That might allow some of the more practically minded people, who are actually driving the economy forward, a say on how their taxes are spent. Could also be used to exclude the benefit scroungers, whilst also allowing the soldier who's fighting for their country at 16, a little say too.

W

hat about linking it to income instead?
That might allow some of the more practically minded people, who are actually driving the economy forward, a say on

how their taxes are spent. Could also be used to exclude the benefit scroungers, whilst also allowing the soldier who's fighting for their country at 16, a little say too.

What like in the good old days, do you know much about history?

Millionaires always know best

I would suggest that you send your suggestions to Gove and his cronies, you are obviously a person of high intellect who thinks things through and considers all the angles......

 

box problem, my IQ is very low

TuckerUK - Member

How much better would society be if potential voters had to pass a certain basic IQ level before being allowed to vote?

Go on, tell me...........if only your specially selected clever people were allowed to vote how much better would it be, what sort of government would we have today ? How would it be different to what we've got - who would have won the last election ?

I'm all ears 🙂

The minimum recruitment age is 16 years (although personnel may not serve on armed operations below 18 years)

I think it's actually law now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/11/britain-child-soldiers-army

Go on, tell me...........if only your specially selected clever people were allowed to vote how much better would it be, what sort of government would we have today ? How would it be different to what we've got - who would have won the last election ?

I'm all ears

Who said anything about specially selected clever people? You think people with an IQ of (e.g.) 80 and above are 'special' and/or 'clever'? I think that says more about you than it does about my idea.

I see, not specially selected clever people then. Perhaps randomly selected clever people ?

So anyway, tell me...........if only your selected clever people were allowed to vote how much better would it be, what sort of government would we have today ? How would it be different to what we've got - who would have won the last election ?

I'm all ears 🙂

EDIT : But I'm not holding my breath. Despite obviously being very clever yourself - I'm sure you would pass your special IQ test, I don't suppose you've thought your "amusing" suggestion through.

If you had, you would realise that there was a time when only the clever educated people were allowed to vote, and peasants weren't. In those days we had Tory and Liberal governments. Today we have a Tory/LibDem government, nothing much has changed.

we should not assume people with high iq's are not complete morons when it comes to anything other than doing an iq test.

i quite like the idea that MPs should be selected at random in a similar fashion to a jury.

Lets widen the debate. Should convicted criminals serving a sentence in a prison be allowed to vote, assuming they pass the IQ test that is?

rudebwoy,
All fair comments , except maybe sending the idea to Gove. Dangerous. 😉
And the fact that I asked a question, rather than made a suggestion. Maybe "WTF?" would have been more appropriate.

Was just curious why some folk seemed to find certain qualifying conditions acceptable for the vote. Maybe they like the idea that they could be part of the "elite".
Income may be a little more "distasteful" as the differentiator, but I'm not sure the outcome would be any different. There's always a strong correlation between test results and wealth. And income is already measured for tax purposes so it would be a lot easier and cheaper, and more practical to use the variable that's already easily available. Then there's also the "fairness" argument that those paying more tax have more invested in the country.
But, these aren't suggestions. Just showing an extension on this idea of "Qualifying for the vote."

However, going back to your earlier point [i]"that a govt is elected by barely 20% of the populace that are over 18"[/i].
Would it be that strange if restricting the vote along the lines of income or IQ or other qualifying criteria, somehow increased the value that people placed on it and increased Participation?

So is the OP suggesting that you can't have a high IQ and be a facist bigot?

Hope not. I score terribly in IQ tests. The questions usually don't make much sense to me - very abstract - I tend to guess at them.

There's always a strong correlation between test results and wealth

The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes

as you may have meant income as you mentioned income tax which is better
INCOME AN IQ
[img] [/img]
However

That might allow some of the more practically minded people, who are actually driving the economy forward, a say on how their taxes are spent. Could also be used to exclude the benefit scroungers, whilst also allowing the soldier who's fighting for their country at 16, a little say too.

Because that would exclude the young.

Just go on IQ, that could be used to skew voting further left. 😆 Seeing as science has shown right wingers are lesser beings intellectually.

The best solution is just to remove the cadindates political party from the ballot paper, (and indeeed the vicinity of the voting station). Then the candidates will have to be recognisable to their potentional constituents, hopefully for doing something worthwhile.

Saves people just blindly dabbing whatever political party they supposedlly support. As I often point out there is no real difference.

edit : possibly a more pragmatic approach than

i quite like the idea that MPs should be selected at random in a similar fashion to a jury

I like boobs.

IQ's not everything, as druid shows.

I suspect his cunning use of the word "around" rather suggests otherwise.

Knowledge/Intelligence/Google wizard.

Choose 4

Maybe we should have an IQ test ...errm test here. See who is worthy of voting.

I already know mine, I've done a number of IQ tests for jobs, mensa applications or just for fun. They're a load of rubbish, you can learn how to do well in them. I don't rate them despite being able to achieve a high score.

How about morality tests? They'd be better in my eyes for who can vote.
People who care about other people, they're the ones who should be allowed to run things. Being smart means nothing. I'm smart and I'm a waste of space.

Loum-- fair play , you got me there!

its took me a while to find this thread again, low IQ maybe, or late night-- if you want to ensure a 100% turnout, restrict the vote to just me.

I like boobs.

+1