|
United States22883 Posts
Certified scientists disagree all the time. Which one should a layman believe? And again, you're making the scientist more important. Why not just put them in charge in the first place?
Your idea completely oversimplifies the way politics work. There's about a million competing factors for every decision, most of which are unknown to the public so we just assume "so and so" politician hates the environment. The reality is "so and so" politician has their morals, the well-being and prosperity of their constituency, local, national and global concerns to consider and there is no correct answer. If Mr. so and so did a shitty job, then you remove them from office. Unfortunately, only about 30% of the general public, those who would CARRY our new democracy, have any interest in voting.
Bureaucracies are designed to be inefficient to provide stability. "Pure" democracies are much, much less efficient and are notoriously unstable.
Honestly, why would you choose a distracted idiot to make a decision for you when there's a devoted smart person who could make it?
|
What a worthless asshole. Again, he is not intelligent in a true intellectual way. You can tell in the way he speaks. What he does have, is the capacity for highly efficient formal problem solving and that's it. As evidenced by his perpetual employment as a bouncer.
|
More like world best IQ test taker. Just as being the world's best puzzle solver, poker player, starcraft player, scrabble player, etc, doesn't mean you overall smartest anything. Just like idiot savants are great at one thing but retarded at most other things. If he actually believes his own press, it's proof.
The great minds that make history require some smarts, but most importantly it requires a single minded focus and dedication for a lifetime. Without focus, all that smarts are divided and dissipated, and result in good, perhaps even great results in multiple fields, but won't be world changing.
|
IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence.
|
On January 19 2008 16:19 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 15:58 skyglow1 wrote:On January 19 2008 15:14 Funchucks wrote:On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote:
Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? Samso's post for instance. He's obviously done some work, so you could doa bit of research on what he's done and stuff. Why should I do research on a smug, ridiculous bouncer who believes in intelligent design? samso didn't post any of his stuff, he just expressed admiration. You'll notice he didn't give so much as a quote. Apparently, he didn't find a single original idea worth repeating. Apparently, you didn't either. A: "Hey, this random nobody is incredibly smart and important!" B: "Bullshit! He's a random nobody!" A: "Hey, you can't just make a judgement like that. Go and spend days or weeks seeking out and reading all of his stuff! Then if it turns out you were right, you wasted all that time, you can come back and tell me I'm wrong. Don't expect any help from me! You have to make all of the investment in disproving my outlandish claim, or else acknowledge my point. Don't expect any more from me, I already asserted my viewpoint to be correct! Get to it!" B: "LOL STFU" Ergo: LOL STFU
Wow way to overreact and stuff words into my mouth. I wasn;t even the one claiming he was incredibly smart or important. Whatever I won't bother to continue replying.
|
On January 19 2008 16:45 skyglow1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 16:19 Funchucks wrote:On January 19 2008 15:58 skyglow1 wrote:On January 19 2008 15:14 Funchucks wrote:On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote:
Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? Samso's post for instance. He's obviously done some work, so you could doa bit of research on what he's done and stuff. Why should I do research on a smug, ridiculous bouncer who believes in intelligent design? samso didn't post any of his stuff, he just expressed admiration. You'll notice he didn't give so much as a quote. Apparently, he didn't find a single original idea worth repeating. Apparently, you didn't either. A: "Hey, this random nobody is incredibly smart and important!" B: "Bullshit! He's a random nobody!" A: "Hey, you can't just make a judgement like that. Go and spend days or weeks seeking out and reading all of his stuff! Then if it turns out you were right, you wasted all that time, you can come back and tell me I'm wrong. Don't expect any help from me! You have to make all of the investment in disproving my outlandish claim, or else acknowledge my point. Don't expect any more from me, I already asserted my viewpoint to be correct! Get to it!" B: "LOL STFU" Ergo: LOL STFU Wow way to overreact and stuff words into my mouth. I wasn;t even the one claiming he was incredibly smart or important. Whatever I won't bother to continue replying.
No, you were just the one claiming that people who didn't invest a lot more time and effort looking into him (after already watching a half-hour show on him) shouldn't dismiss him as not worth looking into.
|
On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence.
Hello Captain Obvious!
|
On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious!
you missed him?
|
On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious!
Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware.
|
On January 19 2008 16:32 Jibba wrote:
Certified scientists disagree all the time. Which one should a layman believe?
The one that's most credible in their eyes. For a US citizen, you're incredibly frightened of democracy.
And again, you're making the scientist more important.
They're not more important, they serve a different purpose.
Why not just put them in charge in the first place?
Because I believe democracy is the best way for a society to be governed. If the vast majority of people think a prominent scientist is being a nutcase on a particular issue, they shouldn't have to organize a military coup or a series of bloody protests to refuse his "advice" on how to handle the problem.
Unfortunately, only about 30% of the general public, those who would CARRY our new democracy, have any interest in taking part in voting.
If you only count the voting age population, it's closer to 35-50% depending on the election. But its true that the US has poor turnout compared to other democracies (South American and Asian democracies continue to improve their voter turnout percentages, approaching 80+% in some countries). It's also true that US numbers are dropping as rumors of election fraud become more common.
I don't think this is terribly hard to explain. People don't tend to vote when the outcome is predetermined. When you're effectively limited to 2 choices, coke or pepsi, and you prefer mountain due, why should you vote?
I infer that you believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, people don't vote because the stupid masses don't give a damn what happens... I'd have to disagree. I think they don't vote because they aren't being asked the right questions. If its a matter of a lack of intellect, education and wealth, why are Asian and South American democracies so much more vocal than the US constituency? I argue its not a problem on the individual level, but a systemic problem. The biggest political choice US citizens are ever asked to make is which rich corporate-supported liar they think will win the election. The media doesn't even characterize elections in terms that illuminate issues or even values, their biggest question is "can this candidate win?" In such a muddied and superficial and disgustingly narrow political climate, how can you expect anyone, let alone the middle and lower classes (those that benefit the least from voting upon a corporate-bought candidate) to much care about the outcome?
"Pure" democracies are much, much less efficient and are notoriously unstable.
I don't think there are any historical examples of sufficient size you can point to in order to support this assertion, so I'll just assume you're talking out your ass and politely say you're wrong. The only democracies I can think of were either technologically insignificant and absorbed during european expansion and colonialism; or they were crushed militarily shortly after their creation (we're talking within months) to bring them back in line with the rest of the "civilized" world. Short and sweet: we don't know, and at least I don't think we should make any assumptions about it until we've had the opportunity to give it a try.
|
On January 19 2008 12:37 ManaBlue wrote:I watched the whole thing and was actually pretty disappointed. I thought he was actually going to display his intelligence and speak on something. Instead he babbled on for one of the most pretentious and narcissistic speeches I have ever heard. There's a reason no one knows who he is, and why he's contributed nothing to science or anything else productive. Show nested quote +
From his wiki article:
"Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, an essay collection of works that question Darwinian evolution edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]"
That's all I needed to read to know this guy is a douche.
My thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm a huge fan of representative democracy, not direct democracy.
I infer that you believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, people don't vote because the stupid masses don't give a damn what happens... I'd have to disagree. I think they don't vote because they aren't being asked the right questions. If its a matter of a lack of intellect, education and wealth, why are Asian and South American democracies so much more vocal than the US constituency? I argue its not a problem on the individual level, but a systemic problem. Any systematic corruption problems the US has are magnified in SA and Asian democracies. We're not voting because people are lazy and they think there's more important things to do, or that others can pick up the slack.
They're not more important, they serve a different purpose. No, they are more important. They're informing the public and swaying their decisions. Anyone voting would be doing so based on the knowledge someone else gave them, which really defeats the purpose of giving them a vote in the first place.
I'm through with discussing it. It fails on every level from logistics to even usefulness. James Madison put it nicely.
A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
|
On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote:On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything.
Yeah, I thought the same, he just used the catchphrase from the show and IMO it's pretty obvious you can't measure intelligence with a standartised test. Not to mention the test itself is made by people, which are supposedly less intelligent than the guy who took the test, how are they able to even remotely objectively test and measure intelligence above their own? They simply can't.
|
Not one original idea in this entire video. Waste of time.
|
hm and here u see the perfect example what happens when really high intelligence isnt nurtured with education. i like how he talks about the ultra high iq people "taking responsibility" to solve problems others can't solve, yet he is the guiness record holder for highest IQ and does what to take responsibility? Yep, thats right, he helps to solve the most complex and pressing problems of mankind as a bouncer in a bar. Only until a fight breaks loose and he forgets all those great solutions of course. t.t
|
On January 19 2008 12:03 zdd wrote:
Having a bigger head doesn't mean being smarter, look at elephants, whales, and other big headed creatures versus monkeys and ravens, who are clearly more intelligent. It's the brain size compared to the body size of the animal that determine how intelligent it is. Roughly said atleast.
|
On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote:On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything.
Well either way my point remains the same. Replace op with "makers of the video" 
|
Madison's concern was for private property rights, not political control. He worried about tyranny returning, not liberty spreading.
Madison spent most of his time in congress limiting the power of the federal government to protect private property and increase state autonomy. Yes, Madison initially opposed the creation of the Bill of Rights, but he did so because he felt that naming some rights would imply that other rights did not exist. Eventually he succumbed to political pressure and accepted the task of integrating proposed rights into a bill he felt reasonably described his idea of democracy. The ninth amendment was a safeguard against government restricting the unnamed freedoms of its citizenry.
These are the actions of a man trying to protect and possibly increase the republicanism (or, as I like to think of it, the larval form of liberal democracy) that existed at the time, not of one that regretted his part in authoring the Constitution and hoped democracy would weaken and be overcome by the privileged and moneyed sectors of society.
Though Madison's authoring of the constitution suggests that he was in agreement with John Jay, who once wrote, "The people who own the country ought to run it (for their benefit alone)." He had a closer relationship with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education."
Before the creation of the US republic, there'd only been sparse few documented examples of republics in history. One in Athens, which had only survived for a few decades. Another in England, called the Commonwealth which lasted from 1650-1660. There are few other experiments in republicanism (prior to the creation of the US) that I'm aware.
Still, despite the lack of successful precident, the US experiment was begun, and it worked spectacularly in blatant opposition to earlier concerns about republicanism that, "They have cast all the mysteries and secrets of government ... before the vulgar (like pearls before swine) ... They have made the people thereby so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humility enough to submit to a civil rule." --Clement Walker, 1661.
In the beginning, as laid out in the Constitution, only adult white male property owners could vote for their representatives. Today, any human being over the age of 18 can vote for representatives. That's progress towards democracy fought for through popular struggle. Why should the progress toward democracy stop there, though? IMO, the only things that need be safeguarded from democracy is property and individual rights. People should be allowed to maintain ownership over resources they own, and they should be protected from harm both in the form of physical violence and coercion and in the form of censorship.
What's required to protect those things? Limiting choice? Maybe a little, but not to the extent that currently exists. "Congress shall make no law" can just as easily be amended "the people shall make no law" and minorities would be protected from the "tyranny of the mob."
But go ahead and throw another quote at me.
|
On January 19 2008 14:16 MarklarMarklar wrote:
i guess you dudes would find this smart guy more fun
That was immensely interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
