|
On September 13 2011 21:16 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:07 Thorakh wrote:
We have two options:
- allow intelligent people to vote
- allow everyone to vote
That is the essence of this discussion. A technocracy cannot be worse than a democracy. Except for the part when it excludes everyone is stupid, hence splitting the country into a two-tier system, encouraging the spread of social injustice. The "intelligent" are by and large upper class, and as a result, they'll be encouraged to do good for their friends, and benefit their own kind, surely. Also, to suggest that anyone can go to college is just silly IMO. There are a myriad of reasons, and they're closely tied to social class. Children to look after due to teen pregnancies. Parents ordering their kids to go to work so they can bring back money for the family immediately. Children in lower class areas go to lower class schools with lower success rates. That's just how it is. People are not inherently stupid (most aren't). School systems would have to be changed, help should be given to those who need it (teen moms) so they can go to school, etc.
How does it creat social injustice when everyone is given an equal chance?
Of course I'm being cycnical. "Oh Cytokinesis they are all benevolent loving scientists and experts who want to help society!" Complete and utter bullshit. That is so naive I can't even comprehend it. Like I stated before, 95% of the professors I know are in their research for selfish reasons and would stop at nothing short of killing competitors to get to the top. Is this a problem because of the economy? Sort of. The bottom line is even if you had a panel of amazing experts at the start, corruption would seep in over time. Where does it say only one expert in a field is allowed to vote? If the entire scientific community + economists + sociologists + etc. is allowed to vote, how can selfishness enter the system?
If you think general public is stupid, why don't you ask yourself why the general public is stupid? Why don't you fight the ones that make the general public stupid. We know who they are, it's not hard to find. Instead of despising so much your fellow citizen, you could maybe start by wondering why TV channels or tabloids newspaper are allowed to lie and to serve people an ocean of shit everyday. That's a good start for a functional democracy. Fantastic, I agree, but it isn't going to happen, just like a technocracy is not going to happen.
Everybody has the right to say how the society in which he lives should be.
Would you be part of the people who can decide? Are you intelligent? Am I? Who is?
Some things are not fit for the public to decide, how to handle climate change for example as seen in the USA.
|
On September 13 2011 21:24 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming.
Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do? Climate scientists have the final say on wheter there is a problem, what needs to be done to address it, and what would happen in various scenarios depending on various attempts to solve it. In other words, economists run the cost-benefit analysis, but all variables related to climate (e.g. most of the benefit variables) are determined by climate scientists (by contrast, most of the costs variables are determined by economists). Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In a nutshell, instead of blaming democracy because stupid people take decision, blame what inside your democracy make people become stupid, namely, propaganda. Stupidity is natural, and has been around long since the rise of propaganda and media.
I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit.
People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today.
|
On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:24 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 20:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming.
Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do? Climate scientists have the final say on wheter there is a problem, what needs to be done to address it, and what would happen in various scenarios depending on various attempts to solve it. In other words, economists run the cost-benefit analysis, but all variables related to climate (e.g. most of the benefit variables) are determined by climate scientists (by contrast, most of the costs variables are determined by economists). On September 13 2011 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In a nutshell, instead of blaming democracy because stupid people take decision, blame what inside your democracy make people become stupid, namely, propaganda. Stupidity is natural, and has been around long since the rise of propaganda and media. I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit. People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today. The problem is no one is working on that. Who could work on that? The politicians. Who elects the politicians? The people. Who were the problem again? The people.
|
On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Look, the problem is simple: if a decision is taken, I want to be part of it, because it will affect my life.
The problem is that in some cases, what is in the interest of individuals is not in the interest of society as a whole (the "tragedy of the commons" problem). For example, when people get to be part of spending and taxation decisions, they invariably decide to increase spending and decrease taxes, with disastrous results (see California's proposition system as a good example of democracy in action). It's better for society if decisions are not made in such a way.
On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The only people who have legitimacy in their political opinions are the ones who are affected. These people are called: citizens, and the power should always come from them.
These are completely normative statements, and no one is required to agree with you. Most of us who are for technocracy in this thread have observed firsthand what happens when you believe that the power should come from citizens.
On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
First, how do you define who is "intelligent"?
IQ? LOL.
Level of studies? I know insensitive fucktards who have PhD, I don't think they would be any better than my building keeper to decide anything.
You fail to understand what a technocracy is. It is not a government where only intelligent people are allowed to vote. A techoncracy is a government where only people who have relevant expertise on a subject are allowed to vote.
On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why would the "stupid masses" accept decisions they are no part of? That's silly.
Why do patients accept the advice of their doctors? Their lawyers? Their teachers?
Because in most cases, other people know better than you about something.
|
On September 13 2011 21:24 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:16 bbm wrote:On September 13 2011 21:07 Thorakh wrote:
We have two options:
- allow intelligent people to vote
- allow everyone to vote
That is the essence of this discussion. A technocracy cannot be worse than a democracy. Except for the part when it excludes everyone is stupid, hence splitting the country into a two-tier system, encouraging the spread of social injustice. The "intelligent" are by and large upper class, and as a result, they'll be encouraged to do good for their friends, and benefit their own kind, surely. Also, to suggest that anyone can go to college is just silly IMO. There are a myriad of reasons, and they're closely tied to social class. Children to look after due to teen pregnancies. Parents ordering their kids to go to work so they can bring back money for the family immediately. Children in lower class areas go to lower class schools with lower success rates. That's just how it is. People are not inherently stupid (most aren't). School systems would have to be changed, help should be given to those who need it (teen moms) so they can go to school, etc. How does it creat social injustice when everyone is given an equal chance? Show nested quote +Of course I'm being cycnical. "Oh Cytokinesis they are all benevolent loving scientists and experts who want to help society!" Complete and utter bullshit. That is so naive I can't even comprehend it. Like I stated before, 95% of the professors I know are in their research for selfish reasons and would stop at nothing short of killing competitors to get to the top. Is this a problem because of the economy? Sort of. The bottom line is even if you had a panel of amazing experts at the start, corruption would seep in over time. Where does it say only one expert in a field is allowed to vote? If the entire scientific community + economists + sociologists + etc. is allowed to vote, how can selfishness enter the system? Show nested quote +If you think general public is stupid, why don't you ask yourself why the general public is stupid? Why don't you fight the ones that make the general public stupid. We know who they are, it's not hard to find. Instead of despising so much your fellow citizen, you could maybe start by wondering why TV channels or tabloids newspaper are allowed to lie and to serve people an ocean of shit everyday. That's a good start for a functional democracy. Fantastic, I agree, but it isn't going to happen, just like a technocracy is not going to happen. Show nested quote +
Everybody has the right to say how the society in which he lives should be.
Would you be part of the people who can decide? Are you intelligent? Am I? Who is?
Some things are not fit for the public to decide, how to handle climate change for example as seen in the USA.
Why do you say it's not going to happen?
Fight Fox News. Fight tabloids newspaper. Support political system that regulates the medias and put limit to the power of private interests. Look at the quality of the media in France and compare to England, and you will see that it's really a political problem. If the Sun existed in France, it would be closed after the first edition.
Public would obviously vote for doing something against the climate if they weren't manipulated. I don't know anybody in France who don't believe in climate change. It's a super-minority. But that's because our system is regulated so that medias can't become the propaganda machine of billionaires such as Murdoch for whom the most important is how many billions he will make next years even if it means the world will collapse.
Fight wild, unregulated capitalism, not democracy, for God sake.
|
On September 13 2011 21:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Look, the problem is simple: if a decision is taken, I want to be part of it, because it will affect my life. The problem is that in some cases, what is in the interest of individuals is not in the interest of society as a whole (the "tragedy of the commons" problem). For example, when people get to be part of spending and taxation decisions, they invariably decide to increase spending and decrease taxes, with disastrous results (see California's proposition system as a good example of democracy in action). It's better for society if decisions are not made in such a way. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The only people who have legitimacy in their political opinions are the ones who are affected. These people are called: citizens, and the power should always come from them. These are completely normative statements, and no one is required to agree with you. Most of us who are for technocracy in this thread have observed firsthand what happens when you believe that the power should come from citizens. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
First, how do you define who is "intelligent"?
IQ? LOL.
Level of studies? I know insensitive fucktards who have PhD, I don't think they would be any better than my building keeper to decide anything. You fail to understand what a technocracy is. It is not a government where only intelligent people are allowed to vote. A techoncracy is a government where only people who have relevant expertise on a subject are allowed to vote. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why would the "stupid masses" accept decisions they are no part of? That's silly. Why do patients accept the advice of their doctors? Their lawyers? Their teachers? Because in most cases, other people know better than you about something.
I think you don't understand.
Politics is not about expertise. It's about how we want to live together. That's not a science, that's life.
There are no life specialists. Some people find America amazing, some find it disgusting. It's taste, view on the world, ideology, sensibility. And nobody has to impose their views on other who wouldn't have a word to say.
No expert can say that freedom of speech à-la US is good or bad. I believe in the second one. I will vote for that in my society. And if it is imposed upon me by whoever, I will make the conclusion that I live in a dictatorship.
Exist technocracy.
|
On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit.
This is literally impossible. Only 50% of the population can have above-average intelligence. No matter how smart the general population gets, decisions are always increasingly poor as you allow more people to make decisions.
On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today.
People choose not to be educated on many, many issues. People form bullshit conspiracy theories very much on their own, despite mainstream media telling them otherwise, as these forums demonstrate perfectly well. People always, and have always, made bad decisions about just about everything.
And on top of that, even in a perfect world were people vote intelligently and rationally, there is still the problem of individual interest working against society's interest. It is usually in people's best interests to look after the short term and vote for increased spending and decreased taxes. Taken as a society, this is disastrous.
The whole point of government is that the people give it power in order to manage things that they cannot handle individually. This is true in a democracy or a dictatorship. The only quesiton is how, and to what degree. In a technocracy, it is to a greater degree than a Western liberal democracy, but in a more intelligent manner.
|
Why am I even replying in my rag tag shit English when sunprince forms well-written pieces that seem like my exact thoughts have materialized.
|
On September 13 2011 21:38 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit. This is literally impossible. Only 50% of the population can have above-average intelligence. No matter how smart the general population gets, decisions are always increasingly poor as you allow more people to make decisions. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today. People choose not to be educated on many, many issues. People form bullshit conspiracy theories very much on their own, despite mainstream media telling them otherwise, as these forums demonstrate perfectly well. People always, and have always, made bad decisions about just about everything. And on top of that, even in a perfect world were people vote intelligently and rationally, there is still the problem of individual interest working against society's interest. It is usually in people's best interests to look after the short term and vote for increased spending and decreased taxes. Taken as a society, this is disastrous. The whole point of government is that the people give it power in order to manage things that they cannot handle individually. This is true in a democracy or a dictatorship. The only quesiton is how, and to what degree. In a technocracy, it is to a greater degree than a Western liberal democracy, but in a more intelligent manner.
Hey, intelligence is not a scale. It's not about 50% more and 50% less. It's about knowing that humans are potentially unlimited beings and believing that they can take decisions for themselves and their community.
My sister is not as logical as me but she has fantastic sensibility and understand people much better than I do. Should she be out of political decisions because she is "stupid"? Many "experts" are insensitive assholes to whom I would never give any power. You see, my sister is a much better voter.
The more I think about your despising discourse the most I find it stupid.
|
On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think you don't understand.
No, you don't understand. You are completely naive in matters of political science, political theory, and game theory. All you're doing is regurgitating the "Derr, democracy is good, herp-derp" that has been ingrained into you from an early age.
On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Politics is not about expertise. It's about how we want to live together. That's not a science, that's life.
And some of us want our lives to be guided by intelligence and rationality instead of the braindead masses.
On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There are no life specialists. Some people find America amazing, some find it disgusting. It's taste, view on the world, ideology, sensibility. And nobody has to impose their views on other who wouldn't have a word to say.
And yet you come here and impose your views that "Democracy is the best, everyone should support it, democracy is a right, blah blah blah" on the rest of us.
On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
No expert can say that freedom of speech à-la US is good or bad. I believe in the second one. I will vote for that in my society. And if it is imposed upon me by whoever, I will make the conclusion that I live in a dictatorship.
Then you are either incapable or unwilling to understand what a dictatorship is. And you are also pitifully unaware of how political systems, including Western liberal democracies, actually work.
|
On September 13 2011 21:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, intelligence is not a scale. It's not about 50% more and 50% less. It's about knowing that humans are potentially unlimited beings and believing that they can take decisions for themselves and their community.
Let me explain this as clearly as I can since you're having difficulty understanding (and possibly due to a language barrier).
When you need a medical opinion, do you ask random people on the street, or do you see a doctor? When you need legal advice, do you ask random people on the street, or do you see a lawyer? When you want to build a bridge, do you ask random people on the street, or do you talk to an engineer?
In a democracy, you're basically asking random people on the street. In a technocracy, you ask the relevant expert. If you would rather ask random people, then that's cool, but don't come in here expecting us to think you're smart for doing that.
On September 13 2011 21:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
My sister is not as logical as me but she has fantastic sensibility and understand people much better than I do. Should she be out of political decisions because she is "stupid"?
If your sister understands people better than you do, you should listen to her advice when it comes to matters of people. And likewise, she should listen to your advice on logical matters. Does that not make sense to you?
|
On September 13 2011 21:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think you don't understand. No, you don't understand. You are completely naive in matters of political science, political theory, and game theory. All you're doing is regurgitating the "Derr, democracy is good, herp-derp" that has been ingrained into you from an early age. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Politics is not about expertise. It's about how we want to live together. That's not a science, that's life. And some of us want our lives to be guided by intelligence and rationality instead of the braindead masses. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
There are no life specialists. Some people find America amazing, some find it disgusting. It's taste, view on the world, ideology, sensibility. And nobody has to impose their views on other who wouldn't have a word to say. And yet you come here and impose your views that "Democracy is the best, everyone should support it, democracy is a right, blah blah blah" on the rest of us. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
No expert can say that freedom of speech à-la US is good or bad. I believe in the second one. I will vote for that in my society. And if it is imposed upon me by whoever, I will make the conclusion that I live in a dictatorship. Then you are either incapable or unwilling to understand what a dictatorship is. And you are also pitifully unaware of how political systems, including Western liberal democracies, actually work.
Hey darling, on top of being a musician, I study philosophy in a politically-oriented university (Paris-Nanterre option sociology-politics). So if we talk of expertise, and if you like it so much, maybe you shouldn't disqualify so badly my opinion.
I wonder if you consider yourself as part of the "braindead masses" or if you think you are part of the elite. It's such an amusing thought.
I have something for you, it's from someone who basically funded scientific rationality:
"Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it."
On September 13 2011 21:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
My sister is not as logical as me but she has fantastic sensibility and understand people much better than I do. Should she be out of political decisions because she is "stupid"? If your sister understands people better than you do, you should listen to her advice when it comes to matters of people. And likewise, she should listen to your advice on logical matters. Does that not make sense to you?
No. I think she is just as smart as me if no more, although it is an other form of intelligence, and I listen to her in any circumstances. I think she, as a citizen, would take much better decisions on economic areas that, let say, Milton Friedman, who, with all his expertise, has in my opinion done irreversible damages to Western world, because he lacked some of the qualities my sister has.
You see, the reason it doesn't work: I am sure you are a smart person, but I really wouldn't like to have you as a leader, for any decision at all. I am ok for giving you a vote in a democratic society, though, since the decision will affect you as well.
have a good one.
|
If this solves the rampant problem that I see in France and I suppose exists in most democracies, that is that the minister of environment is two month later the minister of culture, and then two months later the minister of commerce ect then it seems a good system. Seing bad ministers jump around to the head of cabinets they have no clue or are not interested in is bullshit.
But since it advocates giving the same power to a smaller group, the danger is that the less people in charge the easier it is to buy them.
|
On September 13 2011 21:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey darling, on top of being a musician, I study philosophy in a politically-oriented university. So if we talk of expertise, and if you like it so much, maybe you shouldn't disqualify so badly my opinion.
I can only evaluate your expertise based on what you write here. And thus far, its rather unimpressive nature suggess you know very little on the subject.
On September 13 2011 21:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I wonder if you consider yourself as part of the "braindead masses" or if you think you are part of the elite. It's such an amusing thought.
I would never think to presume that I know more than a physician about medicine, nor an engineer about construction. But for some reason, you think that you and other citizens do.
I justifiably consider myself an elite in some subjects (you know, the ones I have actually studied in detail), and braindead in others.
On September 13 2011 21:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it."
Congratulations for pulling a quote from Descartes, which wasn't even of any signifcance to the work it came from, in order to insinuate that I'm not as intelligent as I think I am. Does that make you feel smart?
Ironically, you might do well to consider the quote yourself. If people tend to think they are smarter than they are, that makes democracy a terrible idea.
|
On September 13 2011 21:59 NeonFox wrote:
If this solves the rampant problem that I see in France and I suppose exists in most democracies, that is that the minister of environment is two month later the minister of culture, and then two months later the minister of commerce ect then it seems a good system. Seing bad ministers jump around to the head of cabinets they have no clue or are not interested in is bullshit.
Haven't you heard from your fellow countryman Biff, though? That's what the people want, so it's a good thing!
On September 13 2011 21:59 NeonFox wrote:
But since it advocates giving the same power to a smaller group, the danger is that the less people in charge the easier it is to buy them.
It would probably be a larger group. There are far more relevant technical experts on various issues than there are politicians, I would guess.
|
On September 13 2011 22:01 sunprince wrote:
Ironically, you might do well to consider the quote yourself. If people tend to think they are smarter than they are, that makes democracy a terrible idea.
Sorry, can you explain to this particular member of the braindead masses why people's own opinion of themselves would affect democracy?
|
On September 13 2011 22:06 bbm wrote:
Sorry, can you explain to this particular member of the braindead masses why people's own opinion of themselves would affect democracy?
People make decisions in contravention of expert opinion because they think they know better, thereby resulting in terrible democratic decisions. People vote for politicians without doing any research, because they feel that they are smart enough to decide whether a politican seems respectable to them. Etc.
There majority of the people in the United States, for example, do not believe in evolution, because they think they are smarter than biologists. Their votes reflect that, and hence, there have been problems with schools (in the United States, school boards and superintendents are democratically elected) downplaying evolution and instead teaching intelligent design, which is effectively creation science.
|
On September 13 2011 22:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey darling, on top of being a musician, I study philosophy in a politically-oriented university. So if we talk of expertise, and if you like it so much, maybe you shouldn't disqualify so badly my opinion. I can only evaluate your expertise based on what you write here. And thus far, its rather unimpressive nature suggess you know very little on the subject.
That means that my expertise doesn't make me right, and therefore that your system is wrong. 
On September 13 2011 22:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I wonder if you consider yourself as part of the "braindead masses" or if you think you are part of the elite. It's such an amusing thought. I would never think to presume that I know more than a physician about medicine, nor an engineer about construction. But for some reason, you think that you and other citizens do. I justifiably consider myself an elite in some subjects (you know, the ones I have actually studied in detail), and braindead in others.
Pity that choosing if free-speech is good or not, or if everybody has the right to a good healthcare regardless of their wealth, or if TV channel should be nationalized or privatized, etc etc etc... has nothing to do with curing a disease or building a house, where the objective is clearly defined and therefore subject to the expertise of a specialist.
If you find what is the purpose of life, and therefore how society should objectively be, congratulation, you have solved human thought. If you haven't, please don't make loosy comparisons.
On September 13 2011 22:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it." Congratulations for pulling a quote from Descartes, which wasn't even of any signifcance to the work it came from, in order to insinuate that I'm not as intelligent as I think I am. Does that make you feel smart? Ironically, you might do well to consider the quote yourself. If people tend to think they are smarter than they are, that makes democracy a terrible idea.
I think you are like everybody: you think you are smarter than average (you are definitely not part of the despised "braindead masses") and that everybody else is stupid. So many people think it, it's really comical.
|
On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:24 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 20:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming.
Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do? Climate scientists have the final say on wheter there is a problem, what needs to be done to address it, and what would happen in various scenarios depending on various attempts to solve it. In other words, economists run the cost-benefit analysis, but all variables related to climate (e.g. most of the benefit variables) are determined by climate scientists (by contrast, most of the costs variables are determined by economists). On September 13 2011 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In a nutshell, instead of blaming democracy because stupid people take decision, blame what inside your democracy make people become stupid, namely, propaganda. Stupidity is natural, and has been around long since the rise of propaganda and media. I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit. People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today.
No, the average IQ is 100, that means that 50% of human beings have IQ smaller than 100.
However, no one is to say that 100 IQ is "smart", pepole with IQ lower than 110 usually can't graduate of collage, and even these pepole aren't that intelligent.
Pepole get to the point where they are considered "intelligent" when they have IQ higher than 120 (these pepole are called "gifted" by the ordinary population), and these pepole are about 20-25% of the population.
|
On September 13 2011 22:19 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 13 2011 21:24 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 20:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming.
Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do? Climate scientists have the final say on wheter there is a problem, what needs to be done to address it, and what would happen in various scenarios depending on various attempts to solve it. In other words, economists run the cost-benefit analysis, but all variables related to climate (e.g. most of the benefit variables) are determined by climate scientists (by contrast, most of the costs variables are determined by economists). On September 13 2011 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In a nutshell, instead of blaming democracy because stupid people take decision, blame what inside your democracy make people become stupid, namely, propaganda. Stupidity is natural, and has been around long since the rise of propaganda and media. I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit. People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today. No, the average IQ is 100, that means that 50% of human beings have IQ smaller than 100. However, no one is to say that 100 IQ is "smart", pepole with IQ lower than 110 usually can't graduate of collage, and even these pepole aren't that intelligent. Pepole get to the point where they are considered "intelligent" when they have IQ higher than 120 (these pepole are called "gifted" by the ordinary population), and these pepole are about 20-25% of the population.
IQ really proves one thing about intelligence: it's that people who invented it are really fucking dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
