NationStates Jolt Archive

Until IQ increases, any way.
The minimum IQ for any human being should be 100.
Retards (not the insult, the disorder) should be enclosed in a complex where they can be cured of idiocy to become normal orderly citizens.

Hear, Hear.
All in favour, say I
All against, say Nay.

:!: I :!:

Evidently you don't know how IQ is measured -- it is defined by the average score people in the test-taker's age group have gotten on the IQ test. Average IQ will ALWAYS be 100, no matter what you do, since there is no set value for it.

Depending on the test, you can manipulate the scores.

On top of that, some people just test better than others.

What the result of that would be, "We're smarter than you so we're protecting you for your own good."

Until IQ increases, any way.
The minimum IQ for any human being should be 100.
Retards (not the insult, the disorder) should be enclosed in a complex where they can be cured of idiocy to become normal orderly citizens.

Hear, Hear.
All in favour, say I
All against, say Nay.

You raelize that 100 is the AVERAGE Human IQ right? You'd be detaining 49% of the human population. An IQ of 100 means that your intellectual age is 100% of your physical age. (only works for people under 18)

Averages are all relative anyway.

To the delegate from the nation of LockStock. The Government of SGWarning recommends that you read the novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. In the novel they attempt an experiment much like the one your nation is proposing. Although it is a work of fiction, it presents some startling ideas. A naton needs workers of below average intelligence. There are some jobs in a society that no citizen wishes to perform. Citizens will perform these jobs out of Economoic, Political, or Intellectual hardship (i.e. the poor, immigrants, and those of below average intelligence). If you force the highly intelligent people of your region to perform these jobs they will be severly unhappy with their roles in society. Those who can teach university level physics, should teach university level physics and not be forced to pick up garbage because a nation has no one suited to that job.

Kiki Von Putz
United Nations Delegate
Grand Duchy of SGWarning

I love that book!! I like it better than 1984 actually, because its more subtle. 1984 warns against technological fascism, BNW warns against technological socialism. It's a society where everyone's happy and everyone's needs are met. But still a society that you wouldn't want to live in. Whem you read 1984 you don't think it'll actually happen. BNW is much more realistic. My favorite anti-utopian book is Ayn Rand's Anthem though. Probably because it actually has a happy ending.

Funny thing.....

...even those with high IQs can be "stupid"..
alot of the time, their 'intelligence' overrides their common sense, so someone with a low IQ might not be as idiotic or stupid as someone with a high IQ...
..ponder that one.

IQ is an ineffective way of measuring intelligence, anyway. That's the long and short of it.

Besides, different cultures and different people interpret intelligence as different things. For example, I equate a level of creativity into my definition of intelligence, but most people would consider these these things to be separate. Intelligence is far too subjective of a concept to properly quantify. It's one of those things you get a feel of when you talk with a person, but is so hazy that you can't really assign a number value to it and be at all accurate.

IQ is an ineffective way of measuring intelligence, anyway. That's the long and short of it.

Besides, different cultures and different people interpret intelligence as different things. For example, I equate a level of creativity into my definition of intelligence, but most people would consider these these things to be separate. Intelligence is far too subjective of a concept to properly quantify. It's one of those things you get a feel of when you talk with a person, but is so hazy that you can't really assign a number value to it and be at all accurate.

The IQ test measures your ability to take the IQ test [literally]. It is a ROUGH APPROXIMATION of intelligence as defined by civil society. It was never meant to be anywhere near accurate.

IQ is an ineffective way of measuring intelligence, anyway. That's the long and short of it.

Besides, different cultures and different people interpret intelligence as different things. For example, I equate a level of creativity into my definition of intelligence, but most people would consider these these things to be separate. Intelligence is far too subjective of a concept to properly quantify. It's one of those things you get a feel of when you talk with a person, but is so hazy that you can't really assign a number value to it and be at all accurate.

The IQ test measures your ability to take the IQ test [literally]. It is a ROUGH APPROXIMATION of intelligence as defined by civil society. It was never meant to be anywhere near accurate.

Everyone posts against this issue, but the vote is exactly even. Interesting.....What if the threshold were lowered to like 65 or below on a standard IQ test, would the totals be different?

If you banned idiocy....well there goes 1.3 billion people of my population. *notes that the comdidian population are complete idiots* So even if it passed i wouldnt bother doing it.

I will read the book.
I h8 retards.

"I'm not racist, I hate everybody!"

Okay.
A new test.
There will be a test of 10000 questions over 500 days.
Certain questions give you two points, and other questions can give you up to ten points.
7500 will be considered 'Smart'.
The test would be given to people 17 and over.
If you score less than 5000 then you are shipped off.

Just like WWII.

Ok how about i just say being smart is outlawed in my country so we ship all the smart people to jail. Theres my solution and what do you know thats only one million of my population.

Standardized testing is a failure in many senses. Psychologists and other such people are beginning to realize that IQ is not everything. They have realized that IQ is heavily biased towards the measurement of mathematical and scientific induction and deduction. Many people are not good at these things but are good at other things. Thus, they have created other kind of Qs if you will. A kinetic Q, a word manipulation Q, and the infamous, IQ measureing mathematical ability.

Thus doing it based on IQ or standardized testing would take too long and be very inefficient. Besides, define idiocy :D It is sort of subjective depending on the speaker's own intelligence.

Don't forget about spacial skills and musical ability. There are probably even more than that in the multiple intelligences, but I'm too tired to look it up ;o

This is the list I always remember:

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

In its origins, standardized testing was never intended to be considered as the precise tool that many see it as today, but rather to help educators (and others) with general knowledge about their students.

To anyone interested, I recommend reading Isaac Asimov's essay "Thinking About Thinking" in his book "The Planet That Wasn't."

An excerpt:

"One common belief connects intelligence with 1. the ready accumulation of items of knowledge, 2. the retention of such items, and 3. the quick recall, on demand, of such items. . . . One may possess all three characteristics and yet give evidence of being quite stupid; and, on the other hand, one may be quite unremarkable in these respects and yet show unmistakable sighns of what would surely be considered intelligence."

He goes on to show that IQ tests only prove that those who can pass them can open doors locked by the intellect of minds similar to the designers of the tests.

The only certainty with intelligence is that every one is different (as per Strong Bad's children's book). A legislation passed to outlaw idiocy would promote future legislations to ban people on account of them being different from others. Looks like everyone on this forum is under arrest for not being the same.

LockStock, so if we banned idiocy, what makes you think that you wouldn't be among those "removed" from society?

Emperor of Utopiatology

"Fear the idiots, for they are many and like to burn things"

because I am smarter than every one I know, which is a hell of a lot of people:
FYI, I'm Mincetro.

and yet, you are capable of such a proposal? :D

because I am smarter than every one I know, which is a hell of a lot of people:
FYI, I'm Mincetro.

Its refreshing to see someone so unbiased about their IQ.

Low IQ can actually be an advantage. Why lock them away in some remote location when you can employ them.

If people are too smart, they prove to be threats to my rule.

I took a biased IQ test and scored the highest in my class. One of the questions was "What is the proper cooking time for chitlins?"

Mainstreaming works. People contribut to society and learn in the process.

Some emotional disoreders are misdiagnosed as low-IQ, for example, PTS, traumatic aphasia, and affective (emotional/expressive) disorders.