NationStates Jolt Archive

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

do the intelligent also have blond hair and blue eyes?

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

So if I'm really tired and don't score well (let's say 46%)I'm poor even though I would normally get a 98%?

So if I'm really tired and don't score well (let's say 46%)I'm poor even though I would normally get a 98%?

Well, not getting enough sleep before the test sn't very smart now, is it? :p

Ah, yes, because you're born with an elevated level of a certain attribute (in this case intelligence - which, from the content of your post, I respectfully doubt that you have anyway) you're entitled to more than your fellow man...wait. Didn't we scrap caste systems and aristocracy in most of the western world some time ago?

it cant possibly work as long as you allow the stupid to breed

i think you are going to have to finally use some kind of solution to deal with that.

maybe we can round up the stupid and put them in labor camps until they die from disease and exhaustion...

This is like the movie Gattaca

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

And with a strict eugenics program a nation could become known for its great levels of physical fitness!

this is a pretty retarded way of organizing society. How do you account for cultural factors and existing inequities?

its just a nationstates idea for god's sake!

retests would be available year by year, and you arent going to be marked that unfairly, so you might go down a class, but in the new test you will be where you deserve.

This system exists in every country, albeit not officially run by the government.

And, Ashmoria, the reason "darwinism" is in the title is because it has the attributes of a darwinian system, namely that the rich, and therefor intellegent will live longer lives and have more children, increasing the averages for IQ.

And, just to clarify, my IQ is 168

its just a nationstates idea for god's sake!


Well, you see, that's your big mistake. General isn't an RP forum, so we generally think that people who post things like this are being serious. And sometimes, they are.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Welcome to the world of the poor for not knowing the difference between immigration and emigration, and the the negation of balancing is unbalancing!
You just failed your own tests.

ok, i should have used emmigration, its just that you hear the former so much more often. The negative of balancing IS imbalancing, as a quick google search will authenticate , although unbalance is an accepted alternative.

Kanabia, It originally was in the nationstates forum, but was moved by moderators for reasons unbeknownst to the general population of this board

Ah, yes, because you're born with an elevated level of a certain attribute (in this case intelligence - which, from the content of your post, I respectfully doubt that you have anyway) you're entitled to more than your fellow man...wait. Didn't we scrap caste systems and aristocracy in most of the western world some time ago?
No, we scrapped a hereditary system that handed out power based on whose flaring twat you happened to have slid out of a few decades ago. A caste system based on real capability would lead to a government by the capable, and an overall improvement in quality of life.
I don't really understand why he'd want to keep the poor (stupid) people though. Much easier to put them on trains and ship them into Poland.

its just a nationstates idea for god's sake!

retests would be available year by year, and you arent going to be marked that unfairly, so you might go down a class, but in the new test you will be where you deserve.

This system exists in every country, albeit not officially run by the government.

And, Ashmoria, the reason "darwinism" is in the title is because it has the attributes of a darwinian system, namely that the rich, and therefor intellegent will live longer lives and have more children, increasing the averages for IQ.

And, just to clarify, my IQ is 168
several issues. Firstly, some people don't test well. Second, you never define intelligence, IQ, or even WHICH intelligence you intend on measuring. Third, there is nothing "darwinistic" within this system. Descent with modification and survival of the fittest in no way play into this. Fourth, buth eugenics and social darwinism were rejected years ago.

But I'm sure you considered this with your 168 IQ...considering that would put you in with less than 2.2% of the population.

but if you read it on teh interweb, (say it with me now everyone!) IT MUST BE TRUE!

So if I'm really tired and don't score well (let's say 46%)I'm poor even though I would normally get a 98%?

as I said, everyone would be entitled to an annual retake of the test, class boundaries aren't rigid.

But if you stay up all night before the test, i think that is a good implication of your intellegence

one big problem with the theory is that lower classes and the impoverished tend to breed quicker then the wealthy, as can be seen with national growth rate's first world countries grow very slowly compared to the populations of third world countries.
another problem is your country needs to be productive, for instance my IQ is over 10 points more then my collueges, but he is a harder worker and is far more productive then myself, making him a more desirable member of society. (yes i am admitting to being lazy i am at work right now wasting time).

as I said, everyone would be entitled to an annual retake of the test, class boundaries aren't rigid.

But if you stay up all night before the test, i think that is a good implication of your intellegence
or that you have insomnia.

What everyone here seems to forget is that society does this to itself already.....it's called capitalism. Although the capitalist system of social darwinism (which in its true form, by the way, is NOTHING like what has been proposed here) is not as "official" or well regulated as what we're discussing, one can make a cogent case that it actually is more efficient, with certain tweaks and adjustments. Capitalist social dawinism allows for development in individuals. If a person is a crappy worker, they get paid squat. If that person later buckles down and starts working harder and more efficiently, their pay, and along with it social status, goes up. This "test" is much less responsive, because it does not allow for a learning curve between administrations of the test in the fluid way that a pay-oriented system does.

Also, in a capitalist system, those who may not be smart in the "traditional" way of being smart, or who scoff at the "intelligentsia" you praise so highly, to innovate, or rise above what their situation would normally dictate. Many entrepreneurs in this country (USA) are fabulously wealthy, and most of the really wealthy ones barely even finished highschool.

To sum up, Capitalism already weeds out the dumb and unintelligent -- it relegates them to the service industry or the military -- it's just not quite as obvious as an administered IQ test.

And, Ashmoria, the reason "darwinism" is in the title is because it has the attributes of a darwinian system, namely that the rich, and therefor intellegent will live longer lives and have more children, increasing the averages for IQ.

which is why india population is crashing and germany's is growing out of control?

the smart and well-to-do have fewer children than the poor and uneducated.

and rich doesnt equal smart.

all this said i beleive stupid people shouldn't be able to vote, not after the whole george w thing in the usa

Kanabia, It originally was in the nationstates forum, but was moved by moderators for reasons unbeknownst to the general population of this board

Yeah, some of them can be silly old twits sometimes. Don't mind them. :p

What everyone here seems to forget is that society does this to itself already.....it's called capitalism. Although the capitalist system of social darwinism (which in its true form, by the way, is NOTHING like what has been proposed here) is not as "official" or well regulated as what we're discussing, one can make a cogent case that it actually is more efficient, with certain tweaks and adjustments. Capitalist social dawinism allows for development in individuals. If a person is a crappy worker, they get paid squat. If that person later buckles down and starts working harder and more efficiently, their pay, and along with it social status, goes up. This "test" is much less responsive, because it does not allow for a learning curve between administrations of the test in the fluid way that a pay-oriented system does.

Also, in a capitalist system, those who may not be smart in the "traditional" way of being smart, or who scoff at the "intelligentsia" you praise so highly, to innovate, or rise above what their situation would normally dictate. Many entrepreneurs in this country (USA) are fabulously wealthy, and most of the really wealthy ones barely even finished highschool.

To sum up, Capitalism already weeds out the dumb and unintelligent -- it relegates them to the service industry or the military -- it's just not quite as obvious as an administered IQ test.
or, appearently, an internet forum!
*pulls up lawn chair and a bag of popcorn*
this should be a good one.

all this said i beleive stupid people shouldn't be able to vote, not after the whole george w thing in the usa

The truly stupid people were the ones who could have changed things over there, but were too lazy to get up from their seat in front of the TV and vote.

Oh relax about Bush. It's not like the republic will self-destruct because we had a less than ideal president. Take a look at Buchanan...who failed miserably to do anything even remotely resembling preparation for the Civil War, which everyone saw coming, and yet, miraculously, he did NOTHING about.

Now THAT'S what I call a stupid president.

or, appearently, an internet forum!
*pulls up lawn chair and a bag of popcorn*
this should be a good one.

I'm not quite sure of your meaning, good sir. The military is, was, and always will be, a prime method for societal advancement for those who's forte is more physical than mental. I see no reason to take offense with implying that unintelligent people find the army an attractive career option. It provides food, boarding, prestige, decent pay, and all for services that aren't outside their capabilities.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and refrain from ad-hominem attacks.

I'm not quite sure of your meaning, good sir. The military is, was, and always will be, a prime method for societal advancement for those who's forte is more physical than mental. I see no reason to take offense with implying that unintelligent people find the army an attractive career option. It provides food, boarding, prestige, decent pay, and all for services that aren't outside their capabilities.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and refrain from ad-hominem attacks.
all that means is you've just opened a can of worms. We have alot of people both in the service industry (considering a full 25% of our economy is made up of financial, insurance, and real estate) and military people who won't take that comment very well.

Oh, and not everyone is stupid in either grouping. Painting with a wide brush is a bad idea.

And, just to clarify, my IQ is 168

Really? Mine's 88 billion.

all that means is you've just opened a can of worms. We have alot of people both in the service industry (considering a full 25% of our economy is made up of financial, insurance, and real estate) and military people who won't take that comment very well.

Oh, and not everyone is stupid in either grouping. Painting with a wide brush is a bad idea.

Ah. Simple misunderstanding. I didn't explain that in that context, "service industry" should have been explained as the "hospitality industry" And I'm just saying that some less intelligent people like the military as a career option, as do many smart ones.

On this forum, it would appear to me that painting with a broad brush is inevitable. If we took the time to lay out every little argument for and against, we'd have a scholarly publication here, not the humorous little kerfuffle we currently know and love.

Really? Mine's 88 billion.
oh yeah?! Well mines infinity-plus-one!

Really? Mine's 88 billion.

hahahaha....Really?! I would never have guessed.

Ah. Simple misunderstanding. I didn't explain that in that context, "service industry" should have been explained as the "hospitality industry" And I'm just saying that some less intelligent people like the military as a career option, as do many smart ones.

On this forum, it would appear to me that painting with a broad brush is inevitable. If we took the time to lay out every little argument for and against, we'd have a scholarly publication here, not the humorous little kerfuffle we currently know and love.
Yep, stupid people work at hospitality jobs. Or, you know, young people who are looking for a part time job. Or unskilled labor (which does not imply stupid). Or people working several jobs. Or the fact that a bar manager who only works two nights a week makes 70-80,000 dollars.
And I personally stay away from painting with a wide brush as much as I can. Despite the fact that this is just for amusement, I have no desire to be ripped to shreds or create a flame war. I'd rather use sound arguments than say "all ____'s do ____"

oh yeah?! Well mines infinity-plus-one!

So what , Mine is twice that. (Infinity plus 2)

My thought is that it is Darwinianistic (did i just make up that word? :P) as the survival of the fitest is occuring except that people are putting down what are the definitions of "fit".

Currently "fit" is defined as - able to make more money than someone else, as we all know Money is the centre of modern day society (this is affected by the country they live in, and effects the education they or their children receive, their medical care, general quality of life), other factors to include are things such as getting a balanced diet (knowledge of what a balanced diet is, and availibility of foods to balance) then bring into account what factors we currently deal with to find and reproduce with a mate, Money again becomes a factor (support of the child/children, etc etc etc)m physical fitness i suppose is an issue etc etc etc.

What you are suggesting would be to replace the current "fit" definition with fit = high IQ... but i high IQ doesnt mean you will make the most money currently, currently it is probably still very much in a balance of charisma, who you know, the money you have to start with (so rich familys have rich kids) the ability to make yourself rich isnt really there (im not say you cant do well but being the fittest isnt very easy)

With some form of standardised tests you could potentially discover who is more intellegent, Although factors other than IQ should be taken into account as IQ is certainly not the end all and be all factor in intellegence.

Surely a better way would be to improve education so that instead of effectively killing off (Althoguh it isnt murder if it were just to commit them to a shitty lifestyle surely though it may be manslaughter if they die from circumstances which they didnt get into themselves but however were forced upon them) (ofc if the government do it its neither because they can do whatever they want and just put the people who disagree with them ont eh low iq list) you would raise the overall intellegence of the people.

(sorry i dont think intellegence is granted at birth but something that you learn, you develop your logic skills and creative skills etc as a kid and and continue to do so as an adult, Intellegence all depends on whether you were a complete messer as a kid or you payed attention, you can effectively "learn" how to do well in an IQ test, just in my opinion)

I agree however with the concept of somehow testing people, and putting them into some sort of levelled system, although i think it should also be a matter of things like determination and hard working (ness) etc.

People who are thick as two short planks and refuse to work for a living unless it inlvoves living on social support and taking herion all day, should be left in a shitty house (hovel) where they can be as unproductive to society as they wish, while the Garbage Collection Agents have a pretty decent lifestyle and if they are prepared to put the work in etc etc maybe on the job training (trainign funded by govt etc) they can move up the ranks or move department (so people dont feel stuck in the job and have a chance at advance ment)
While the professional sports stars, tv stars, movie stars, company managers, doctors, school headmasters etc etc all live in equally (reasonalby lavish) houses (and the groups aribitary, just to sort of give the impression that people who make millions these days should be taken down a few notches and grouped with other equally hard working people)

Theres a point thought, would you have low IQ sports stars living in hovels? and hugely obese ugly people living in luxury villias? :)

Ok i got a bit carried away with this post, i just liked the overall idea but the fine details and other peoples comments got me writing a spel.)

So what , Mine is twice that. (Infinity plus 2)
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

mmm...nothing like a "my intellectual penis is bigger than your intellectual penis!" to cheer you up in the morning:)

hahahaha....Really?! I would never have guessed.

Yup. Don't believe me?

which is why india population is crashing and germany's is growing out of control?

the smart and well-to-do have fewer children than the poor and uneducated.

Gah, thank you for saving me the hassle of having to spell that out. Of all the things that are wrong with that OP that's by far not the worst but by far the most obviously logically wrong one. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Adolf, I thought you were dead.

you also have the inheritance factor. monetary not genetic.

well OK both

smart people (and stupid people) tend to have more average children than they are. regression toward the mean (not that i undertand it, i just was told this) means that the exceptional have less exceptional children.

so

if MY iq is 168 and i get a nice job, house, car, etc. and i work hard all day to make even more of myself but my CHILD only has an iq of 110 (more than average but less than me) my child doesnt get to inherit the fruits of my labor, someone elses child does. the child of some other couple will get my house, car, job because he has the 168 iq and my child doesnt.

pfffft im not working extra hard for someone else's kid.

WOW this topic has gone on a bit since i last checked it!

Some issues:

"intellegence does not equal wealth"

Err... it does in this system!

"Poor people breed more"

I've already addressed this point, read my posts.

"im not working for someone else's kid"

This system goes hand in hand with communism, everything belongs to the government, you are assigned food and possessions. During your child's infancy until he is 18, you are working to keep your family in the class division you are assigned, if your child then goes down a class, presumably still to a reasonably respectable job, he then has the responsibility to provide the best possible opportunities for his child.

This system goes hand in hand with communism, everything belongs to the government, you are assigned food and possessions. During your child's infancy until he is 18, you are working to keep your family in the class division you are assigned, if your child then goes down a class, presumably still to a reasonably respectable job, he then has the responsibility to provide the best possible opportunities for his child.
um...communism fights for no class distinctions...and really no true government for that matter

The biggest flaw with such an idea is the second you put the smart guys at the top, they'll pull the whole thing down again as being a stupid idea in the first place.

haha to last post, not really.

Sorry, i guess I shoudl have distinguished between the State property element of communism and the general principle, in that post I refer to State Property, as the State owns everything

haha to last post, not really.

Sorry, i guess I shoudl have distinguished between the State property element of communism and the general principle, in that post I refer to State Property, as the State owns everything

You ever read Starship Troopers old boy? In it, one of the main character's teachers at Boot Camp explained that, early on in Earth's history (Our future, their past) this system had been tried. The result?





The military shot them all and took over.

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

This is a society that is doomed. It's a no growth culture. You forbid the poor from leaving and conversely, probably forbid outsiders from entering. You are laying the groundwork for a genetic nightmare, an economic nightmare and a social nightmare. Welcome to the Third Reich.

"im not working for someone else's kid"

This system goes hand in hand with communism, everything belongs to the government, you are assigned food and possessions. During your child's infancy until he is 18, you are working to keep your family in the class division you are assigned, if your child then goes down a class, presumably still to a reasonably respectable job, he then has the responsibility to provide the best possible opportunities for his child.
yeah

did you miss the part where the managed economy/society of the soviet union and communist china sucked? and its not all the fault of being run by homicidal maniacs. the part where you DONT own what you used to own and where you cant pass it on to your own children made people stop going the extra mile to build their future.

the more efficiently your system is run, the less incentive i have to work hard. my iq earned my spot, not my hard work. why would i be in the office past 5pm if its not going to get me anything extra? why should i bring my new invention to the attention of the boss if i dont get anything more from it? may as well go home and enjoy my kids now since in a few years the stupid ones are going to be living far far away from me.

as i have previously said, things like effort would be taken into account in future tests, and acheivments such as an invention would also act as a status gain.

People, instead of just making a random comment about a potential problem, try saying something a little more constructive, as I am getting tired of pointing out perfectly obvious solutions to obvious problems

Saying that intellegence is (or should be) the only key to success is stupid (pun intended)...

Things like a strong work ethic, perseverance in the face of adversity, punctuality (and other good manners), risk-taking and luck are some other keys to success.

Controlling for luck is commendable, but what happens if you end up with a bunch of 180-IQ national managers with absolutely no work ethic, come in 3 hours late every day and give up easily?

as i have previously said, things like effort would be taken into account in future tests, and acheivments such as an invention would also act as a status gain.

People, instead of just making a random comment about a potential problem, try saying something a little more constructive, as I am getting tired of pointing out perfectly obvious solutions to obvious problems

You're ignoring the points people are making, but here's a couple of good ones:

You just described the Third Reich

Your economy would fail, as most communist economies were awful

The military would most likely overthrow you, ala Heinlein

as i have previously said, things like effort would be taken into account in future tests, and acheivments such as an invention would also act as a status gain.

People, instead of just making a random comment about a potential problem, try saying something a little more constructive, as I am getting tired of pointing out perfectly obvious solutions to obvious problems

okay, if you took effort/doggedness into account, that would help.

You're ignoring the points people are making, but here's a couple of good ones:

You just described the Third Reich

Your economy would fail, as most communist economies were awful

The military would most likely overthrow you, ala Heinlein

yeah, communist/socialist economies suck balls.

as i have previously said, things like effort would be taken into account in future tests, and acheivments such as an invention would also act as a status gain.

People, instead of just making a random comment about a potential problem, try saying something a little more constructive, as I am getting tired of pointing out perfectly obvious solutions to obvious problems
okay, what is intelligence? What is IQ? Which theory are you planning on using? What of people who test poorly? If you are using Gardners theory, which intelligence is more valuable? Which gets a higher ranking? I mentioned this all before.
more:
what determines your job? Your test score? So you study for years to be a doctor, and your score drops, so you now have to go study something new?

What of IQ test biases?

perhaps i should make myself even more clear- as well as problems, add ways in which these could be fixed, and possible improvements to the system

and i'd like to reiterate the fact that this was origianally just a nationstates idea, but the mods took it upon themselves to move it to its current location

perhaps i should make myself even more clear- as well as problems, add ways in which these could be fixed, and possible improvements to the system

and i'd like to reiterate the fact that this was origianally just a nationstates idea, but the mods took it upon themselves to move it to its current location

Ways to fix it? Why should we help fix the Third Reich? Go oppress the 'stupid' without others help. The Mods moved it because this is a general discussion, not a Roleplay - thus the move to the forum named 'General'.

perhaps i should make myself even more clear- as well as problems, add ways in which these could be fixed, and possible improvements to the system

and i'd like to reiterate the fact that this was origianally just a nationstates idea, but the mods took it upon themselves to move it to its current location
why would we suggest improvements to a system we're arguing against? I personally follow Gardner, and therefore think this system is bad in many dozens of irreconcilable ways

and yeah, I know its from NS, and you might not actually believe in this system, but I feel like arguing, and you seem willing to play devils advocate:p

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Just have a free market economy in the first place and the market will take care of that in a generation or two, but will still leave the door open for hard work.

you appear to miss the point of this discussion- I am not suggesting that England, for example adopts this stance, I am just proposing it as an interesting system of running a country, I wouldnt implement it on an actual country

directed to Skinny87

directed to Skinny87

Use the quote function, it's much easier. I reiterate: your system is deeply flawed and offensive, with connotations of the Third Reich and Eugenics. I find said things disgusting and so deeply, deeply flawed, so why should I help?

okay, what is intelligence? What is IQ? Which theory are you planning on using? What of people who test poorly? If you are using Gardners theory, which intelligence is more valuable? Which gets a higher ranking? I mentioned this all before.
more:
what determines your job? Your test score? So you study for years to be a doctor, and your score drops, so you now have to go study something new?

What of IQ test biases?

Ok, I was just about to post something like that, but you beat me too it.

Also, intelligence is not the only thing that makes person great. There's also strength of character, creativity, generosity, perseverance, and countless other things. To ignore them would constitue a severe lack of judgment.

One problem with your theory: Not all smart people are also not lazy. (And some, like me, can't produce a clear sentence)

I have an 'above average' IQ, and I would seriously contribute nothing to society in this world of yours. As would most other people with high IQs, because studies show that we are generally a more lazy group of people. We don't feel challenged enough, so we do nothing. In this society of yours, all challenge would be gone because you're just giving us everything.

In any case, IQ is a measurement of how smart you can become, not how smart you are. People with lower IQs can be a million times smarter then someone with an above average IQ.

IQ is an empty glass, knwoledge is the water you fill it up with.

yeah i have a friend who has IQ 175 and he consistently scores quite a lot lower on tests than people with much lower scores than him

I was reading the first post on this thread and it occurred to me that whoever thought of this system never considered the Flinn Effect (I'd provide a link but my computer is being incredibly lacking). Anyway, the general idea behind the Flinn Effect is that as generations go by, people are progressively getting smarter and smarter. I'd have to check up on it some more before saying anything, but it would definitely be worthwhile to see how it might fit into this argument.

The thing with controlled evolution in a caste or level based society is that its unethical. Its so easy to see that, that it really doesn't need to be pointed it,besides, many of the people here have already expressed the main critisms in some way or another.

One problem with your theory: Not all smart people are also not lazy. (And some, like me, can't produce a clear sentence)

I have an 'above average' IQ, and I would seriously contribute nothing to society in this world of yours. As would most other people with high IQs, because studies show that we are generally a more lazy group of people. We don't feel challenged enough, so we do nothing. In this society of yours, all challenge would be gone because you're just giving us everything.

In any case, IQ is a measurement of how smart you can become, not how smart you are. People with lower IQs can be a million times smarter then someone with an above average IQ.

IQ is an empty glass, knwoledge is the water you fill it up with.


Great stuff! Fits in nicely with a chapter I'm reading for my Philosophy of Mind course. Right now its talking about knowledge as a sort of ability.

yeah i have a friend who has IQ 175 and he consistently scores quite a lot lower on tests than people with much lower scores than him

...he probably studies a lot less than they do.

If he studied at their rate, he'd be kicking ass probably... if he wasn't completely lucky on the IQ test (IE, if his IQ evaluation is accurate).

I was a B student in my bachelor's studies... went to about half my classes, bullshitted on many an essay-test question, scrambled to finish coursework on the day it was due, crammed for most exams.

Conversely, in the process of completing my master's degree... I attended nearly every class, studied at least weekly if not nightly, took more time to write papers, etc... and finished with a 3.8 grad GPA (out of 4.0). Some of those grad classes had harder content and much tougher assignments than any I battled during the undergrad years.

Grades are as much a function of WORK and ATTENDANCE as they are a f(x) of INTELLIGENCE. Though, it goes without saying... intelligence greatly helps.

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.
dude, besides being completely fascist, this will never work. Poor people(who are more likely to be stupid) have more kids than rich people. The whole point is to decrease the population of poor people.

Or just kill the poor, like in that dead kennedys song...

dude, besides being completely fascist, this will never work. Poor people(who are more likely to be stupid) have more kids than rich people. The whole point is to decrease the population of poor people.

Or just kill the poor, like in that dead kennedys song...


READ THE INTERMEDIARY POSTS

Alright, now that my computer is doing better, I wiki'ed the Flynn Effect (in one of my earlier posts I spelled it as "Flinn", sorry) and it could have some relevance to this debate.

According to Wikipedia, the Flynn Effect is "the continued year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates". It goes on to state that the average rise is about 3% per decade, which is really not bad at all considering the many factors which may interrupt this progress (disease and war come to mind, for example). So, it would seem that we would have no need of a caste or level based system to promote intelligence, as we our mental capabilities are growing as generations go by.

However, and I do agree with this, it does state that the Flynn Effect is very perplexing, and it may be that the exact cause of it is not exactly clear. Its very interesting stuff, I'd recommend anyone interested in this debate to read it, as it might be a good point in the debate. Anyway, I'm out for now, have a good one guys.

Oh, right, the link, here ya go !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_Effect

thats an interesting point, but still doesnt eliminate the "need" to integrate this system into society

Intelligence can't be measured, only vaguely estimated, and even then it can be way off.

In this system of government, it wouldn't matter if you're a good person, if you're dependable, if you're trustworthy, if you're loyal... if you're stupid, you're useless? That's the kind of thinking that would, ironically, get you landed in the useless pile below the smarter people.

Intelligence can't be measured, only vaguely estimated, and even then it can be way off.

In this system of government, it wouldn't matter if you're a good person, if you're dependable, if you're trustworthy, if you're loyal... if you're stupid, you're useless? That's the kind of thinking that would, ironically, get you landed in the useless pile below the smarter people.

yet again i have to reiterate that things like this WOULD be taken into account, and would perhaps help wih jobs in the public sector, and thereby social advancement

perhaps i should make myself even more clear- as well as problems, add ways in which these could be fixed, and possible improvements to the system

and i'd like to reiterate the fact that this was origianally just a nationstates idea, but the mods took it upon themselves to move it to its current location
it cant be fixed. managed societies and economies suck. the govenment cant do better than the people themselves.

if you want "better" take any of the democracies of north america or europe, break the stranglehold the rich have on wealth, improve educational opportunies, remove barriers to starting new businesses, build an emphasis on intelligence being the most desirable trait in a mate, and there ya go.

Alright, now that my computer is doing better, I wiki'ed the Flynn Effect (in one of my earlier posts I spelled it as "Flinn", sorry) and it could have some relevance to this debate.

According to Wikipedia, the Flynn Effect is "the continued year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates". It goes on to state that the average rise is about 3% per decade, which is really not bad at all considering the many factors which may interrupt this progress (disease and war come to mind, for example). So, it would seem that we would have no need of a caste or level based system to promote intelligence, as we our mental capabilities are growing as generations go by.

However, and I do agree with this, it does state that the Flynn Effect is very perplexing, and it may be that the exact cause of it is not exactly clear. Its very interesting stuff, I'd recommend anyone interested in this debate to read it, as it might be a good point in the debate. Anyway, I'm out for now, have a good one guys.

Oh, right, the link, here ya go !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_Effect

There's a scene in "Waking Life" (movie) where Ethan Hawke is discussing something with his 'wife' in their bed. He brings up an experiment he heard about, which the results would lead one to believe that once information is shared with a certain number of people, more people become smarter by some kind of singular intelligence osmosis or something.

Example: one guy has an idea, and it causes an invisible explosion that spreads across a large area, possibly the world (to an extent) and everyone within a certain distance of the explosion gains some of that idea into their mind without knowing it. This would account for the general increase of overall intelligence across the boards, kind of like a BitTorrent download where the downloaders are uploading what they've already downloaded to everyone else who doesn't already have that part of the file.


This is, of course, just a theory, just thoughts, incredibly unproven and is not in any way a scientific fact. It is interesting to think about, though. I know we've all had those times where we just kind of off-handedly think about something obscure and put it in the back of our minds and then hear about someone making and selling a product similar to what we'd thought about, or they'd wrote a book based on what we'd had an idea of. That kind of thing might indicate this kind of phenomenon occurring, while either we were caught in someone else's explosion or we caused it and chose not to act on it but someone else did.

It's just fun to think about.

it cant be fixed. managed societies and economies suck. the govenment cant do better than the people themselves.

if you want "better" take any of the democracies of north america or europe, break the stranglehold the rich have on wealth, improve educational opportunies, remove barriers to starting new businesses, build an emphasis on intelligence being the most desirable trait in a mate, and there ya go.

you can't do all those things... take money away from the rich, they'll start fewer businesses, which means that people will have fewer employment options... which will hinder their ability to earn money, increase wealth (however meager), and in turn start the businesses they want to start. High taxes -- especially where said high taxes are imposed on the rich and middle classes to steal their money and arbitrarily redistribute it to the poor --generally deter entrepreneurlism and increase unemployment. If unemployment is low BY CHOICE (IE, people have food stamps, medicine and shelter, so why work?), then those who CAN break through and start businesses might have a tough time finding employees to help man the ship.

Simply put, the more income people and businesses are allowed to keep, the better the business environment.

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Yet another problem - Darwinism, evolutionary, social and intellectual, is already at work. You don't need to make it a legal/social imperative. In fact to do so is to negate it altogether. By making it a legal imperative, you eliminate the spontaneous leaps forward that make it work - you've doomed it altogether.

The system, as ordained by nature or God or whatever, works. Don't try to make it better, you'll just destroy it.

you can't do all those things... take money away from the rich, they'll start fewer businesses, which means that people will have fewer employment options... which will hinder their ability to earn money, increase wealth (however meager), and in turn start the businesses they want to start. High taxes -- especially where said high taxes are imposed on the rich and middle classes to steal their money and arbitrarily redistribute it to the poor --generally deter entrepreneurlism and increase unemployment. If unemployment is low BY CHOICE (IE, people have food stamps, medicine and shelter, so why work?), then those who CAN break through and start businesses might have a tough time finding employees to help man the ship.

Simply put, the more income people and businesses are allowed to keep, the better the business environment.

I agree. Business is a parasite, currency is an addiction - this is why I'd be all for a semi-communist/anarchist/socialist kind of government, working out, of course, the kinks in which corruption and dictatorship come involved. I think Finland does a pretty good job of a mild form of something like this.

What a childish, silly idea.

What a childish, silly idea.

Childishness and silliness are some of the best qualities someone can have. Children, unless tainted by adults and their warped views on the world, would never be as evil as the adults are.

If everyone had perfect ideals, then guess what? They'd come true. If no one were to second-guess the goals of equality and harmony, then there'd be nothing to stop it.

READ THE INTERMEDIARY POSTS
NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*goes to read intermediary posts*

Childishness and silliness are some of the best qualities someone can have. Children, unless tainted by adults and their warped views on the world, would never be as evil as the adults are.

If everyone had perfect ideals, then guess what? They'd come true. If no one were to second-guess the goals of equality and harmony, then there'd be nothing to stop it.


Nor, indeed, are they as reasonable, realistic, clear-sighted or capable as adults.

Oh Brave New World that has such people in it.

In all seriousness my friend, it does well to read around. Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are amazing reads on this subject.




Also 2 times Infinity + 1 would be 2Infinity +2. But with your IQ of twice infinity + 1 I suppose you already knew that. ;)

Nor, indeed, are they as reasonable, realistic, clear-sighted or capable as adults.

"Realistic" meaning doubtful of the possibility, and even the stopping of the ability to have a utopia for everyone.

"Feeding the homeless? That's not realistic."
"World peace? That's not realistic."

Adult reality sucks, because they subject themselves to the horrid world they've made for themselves, and they can't believe that they could possibly be wrong about -everything-, and therefore succumb to the idea that maybe everything could be okay and would, indeed, be much better if they'd stop thinking about their current reality and instead would try to work toward their better reality.

Children have no problem doing this - it's simple to them. Someone needs help, you give them help. Easy. Why do adults have such a hard time with that idea? Consequences of such actions are arbitrary - it's worth whatever happens to know that everyone can rely on everyone in a better world. No war, no killing, no thievery. Why steal when you can ask and recieve?

Sure, certain people would try to come and fuck up this perfect reality by trying to control everything and becoming powerhungry, possibly killing for the hell of it, but as a people, unified, we could stop whatever would happen. There will always be murdering bastards, it's just a matter of how many there are and how much we do to stop them.

you can't do all those things... take money away from the rich, they'll start fewer businesses, which means that people will have fewer employment options... which will hinder their ability to earn money, increase wealth (however meager), and in turn start the businesses they want to start. High taxes -- especially where said high taxes are imposed on the rich and middle classes to steal their money and arbitrarily redistribute it to the poor --generally deter entrepreneurlism and increase unemployment. If unemployment is low BY CHOICE (IE, people have food stamps, medicine and shelter, so why work?), then those who CAN break through and start businesses might have a tough time finding employees to help man the ship.

Simply put, the more income people and businesses are allowed to keep, the better the business environment.
i didnt say it would be easy

or ideal

i said it would be better

each democracy in north america and europe does a pretty good job in promoting the able over the unable. for the most part, if you want to improve on what is already being done you would do as i outlined. improve educational opportunities, make it easier to start and build a business, and, the hardest, break the stranglehold the wealthy have on wealth.

this would allow the current disenfranchised smart people to rise to their "proper" position in society.

then if we encourage the notion that "smart is sexy" the smart people will tend to breed more than they do now.

"Realistic" meaning doubtful of the possibility, and even the stopping of the ability to have a utopia for everyone.

"Feeding the homeless? That's not realistic."
"World peace? That's not realistic."

Adult reality sucks, because they subject themselves to the horrid world they've made for themselves, and they can't believe that they could possibly be wrong about -everything-, and therefore succumb to the idea that maybe everything could be okay and would, indeed, be much better if they'd stop thinking about their current reality and instead would try to work toward their better reality.

Children have no problem doing this - it's simple to them. Someone needs help, you give them help. Easy. Why do adults have such a hard time with "that idea? Consequences of such actions are arbitrary - it's worth whatever happens to know that everyone can rely on everyone in a better world. No war, no killing, no thievery. Why steal when you can ask and recieve?

Sure, certain people would try to come and fuck up this perfect reality by trying to control everything and becoming powerhungry, possibly killing for the hell of it, but as a people, unified, we could stop whatever would happen. There will always be murdering bastards, it's just a matter of how many there are and how much we do to stop them.


Yeah. Realistic meaning "doubtful of the possiblity to have a utopia for everyone."

You hit the nail on the head.

Yeah. Realistic meaning "doubtful of the possiblity to have a utopia for everyone."

You hit the nail on the head.

I know it, I'm just good like that.

Also 2 times Infinity + 1 would be 2Infinity +2. But with your IQ of twice infinity + 1 I suppose you already knew that. ;)

Mathematically, you are both correct, unfortunately.

INFINITY + 1 = INFINITY

As infinity cannot be raised as a value.

Therefore

INFINITY + 2 = INFINITY
INFINITY + 3 = INFINITY
INFINITY + 4 = INFINITY

and so on up to

INFINITY +INFINITY = 2(INFINITY) = INFINITY

And as a continuation of this,

2(INFINITY + 1) = 2INFINITY + 2 = INFINITY + 2 = INFINITY

would the test be timed, as when i did a timed iq test versus a untimed one the diffrence was 20 points (yeah i'm a bit slow but still smart)

And, just to clarify, my IQ is 168
Rule of thumb: nobody with greater than 100 IQ thinks that IQ is worth bragging about.

Rule of thumb: nobody with greater than 100 IQ thinks that IQ is worth bragging about.
So true. :D

Rule of thumb: nobody with greater than 100 IQ thinks that IQ is worth bragging about.

My IQ is 3000. :)

Also 2 times Infinity + 1 would be 2Infinity +2. But with your IQ of twice infinity + 1 I suppose you already knew that. ;)

You just consigned yourself to the ranks of the unwashed masses.

Infinity times anything is still infinity. So twice infinity plus 1 is infinity plus 2!

You just consigned yourself to the ranks of the unwashed masses.

Infinity times anything is still infinity. So twice infinity plus 1 is infinity plus 2!
No, nothing exceeds infinity. So twice infinity plus 1 is still infinity.

No, nothing exceeds infinity. So twice infinity plus 1 is still infinity.

But I was claiming my IQ was twice that of Sarkhaan, who had factored their IQ out: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10732468&postcount=30

Oh, and by the way infinity (aleph one) does exceed infinity (aleph null). Which of the infinite number of infinities are you referring to? I took Sarkahan to be referring to the aleph null infinity, as he refered to integers in the post.

But I was claiming my IQ was twice that of Sarkhaan, who had factored their IQ out: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10732468&postcount=30

Oh, and by the way infinity (aleph one) does exceed infinity (aleph null). Which of the infinite number of infinities are you referring to? I took Sarkahan to be referring to the aleph null infinity, as he refered to integers in the post.
AB gets a cookie!

eugenics and social darwinism were rejected years ago.

Understandably, people seem to be very unclear about what Intellectual Darwinism is. It's a confusing misnomer. This notion is opposite to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism might presume, for example, that the rich are rich and the poor are poor because the rich are naturally superior. Or that racism is nature's law. More importantly, Intellectual Darwinism is a philosophy, not a theory. It rejects racism, hereditary aristocracy, and all arbitrary assignments of power and superiority. It also rejects the current makeup of society as detrimental and primitive. The current U.S. president presents a fine case for it.

It could even mean that you get to do exactly what you most want to do in life and are best at. Albert Einstein didn't belong at a patent office, you know. Imagine all the Einsteins out there who will never make it out of their patent offices, for one reason or another, and how much faster our civilization would evolve had it been structured and primed for human achievement and advancement. This extends beyond the Einsteins of the world. How many of you feel stuck in a job you know you don't belong in? How many of you have an idea of what you'd like to do, but the cards are stacked against you? The extension of this philosophy is as simple as ensuring those who are good at something get to do it--to the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Darksolia, in my experience you will encounter extreme hostility if you promote this philosophy without explaining its differences from traditional forms of aristocracy. There is always someone smarter than us, and the idea at first inspires notions of tyranny and anger at insult.

thank you

oh yeah?! Well mines infinity-plus-one!


Mai unteigents is infinitty TIMES infinitty... Ai tuk a test on teh intarwebs!

Understandably, people seem to be very unclear about what Intellectual Darwinism is. It's a confusing misnomer. This notion is opposite to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism might presume, for example, that the rich are rich and the poor are poor because the rich are naturally superior. Or that racism is nature's law. More importantly, Intellectual Darwinism is a philosophy, not a theory. It rejects racism, hereditary aristocracy, and all arbitrary assignments of power and superiority. It also rejects the current makeup of society as detrimental and primitive. The current U.S. president presents a fine case for it.

It could even mean that you get to do exactly what you most want to do in life and are best at. Albert Einstein didn't belong at a patent office, you know. Imagine all the Einsteins out there who will never make it out of their patent offices, for one reason or another, and how much faster our civilization would evolve had it been structured and primed for human achievement and advancement. This extends beyond the Einsteins of the world. How many of you feel stuck in a job you know you don't belong in? How many of you have an idea of what you'd like to do, but the cards are stacked against you? The extension of this philosophy is as simple as ensuring those who are good at something get to do it--to the betterment of mankind as a whole.


Intelligence, in the absence of goodness, is worse than goodness in the absence of intelligence.

Give me a society of good people, and I would prefer to join them any day over a society of intelligent people.

It's not intelligence that makes a society good, but things like kindness, humility, compassion, honesty, industrious. etc.

What is intelligence, anyway? The ability to devise better bombs? I'm very suspicious of your version of intelligence. Perhaps you could define it for me.

Understandably, people seem to be very unclear about what Intellectual Darwinism is. It's a confusing misnomer. This notion is opposite to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism might presume, for example, that the rich are rich and the poor are poor because the rich are naturally superior. Or that racism is nature's law. More importantly, Intellectual Darwinism is a philosophy, not a theory. It rejects racism, hereditary aristocracy, and all arbitrary assignments of power and superiority. It also rejects the current makeup of society as detrimental and primitive. The current U.S. president presents a fine case for it.So rather than just claiming that the rich are rich because they are genetically superior, we will choose an arbitrary and inaccurate system to determin who is superior and give them the wealth? Which is basically putting social darwinism into practice? It doesn't reject arbitrary assignments of power, it creates a new one. And no one willingly gives up power. You just create a new aristocracy based on the fact that great grandpa did well on a test.
I've posed several questions that have still not been answered. What is IQ? Whose theory of IQ are we going with? Some people reject the notion, others propose multiple intelligence (and this is currently the most accepted theory). Which IQ are we going to measure? If more than one, which is more "valuable"? Who will make the test? How do you get rid of bias? Every test to date has a European and wealth bias. What of people who test poorly? Sick on the day of the test? Who is going to force the current powerholders to give up their power? After a new group has power, who will force them and their children to give up that power? If there is a family, who do we base off of...the most intelligent? Least intelligent? Lets say we base it off the father. So a man who lives alone and has a high IQ deserves more than a father who has a low IQ but a wife and three children? And what determines your job? A test score? What if your test score decides you should be a doctor, but you want to be a plumber? What if you study for 10 years to be a doctor, and suddenly your score drops? Do you have to go study to be something else all of a sudden? Or are we going to allow anyone to be a doctor if they want, and just pay the low IQ people less? Because something tells me we'll have alot of shitty doctors with no motivation to do better.

I have yet to have a single one of these questions answered.

It could even mean that you get to do exactly what you most want to do in life and are best at. Albert Einstein didn't belong at a patent office, you know. Imagine all the Einsteins out there who will never make it out of their patent offices, for one reason or another, and how much faster our civilization would evolve had it been structured and primed for human achievement and advancement. This extends beyond the Einsteins of the world. How many of you feel stuck in a job you know you don't belong in? How many of you have an idea of what you'd like to do, but the cards are stacked against you? The extension of this philosophy is as simple as ensuring those who are good at something get to do it--to the betterment of mankind as a whole.being good at something =/= wanting to do it. I'm good at science. I still hate doing it. I'm good at music. I don't want that for my living. You feel stuck in your job? then maybe you should work your ass off and change carrears. Or if you have life stacked against you, work hard. Get good grades. Get scholarships. Go to college.

Darksolia, in my experience you will encounter extreme hostility if you promote this philosophy without explaining its differences from traditional forms of aristocracy. There is always someone smarter than us, and the idea at first inspires notions of tyranny and anger at insult.[/QUOTE]

You just consigned yourself to the ranks of the unwashed masses.

Infinity times anything is still infinity. So twice infinity plus 1 is infinity plus 2!
2 ( 1/0 + 1 ) = 2/0 + 0/0 = 2/0 = infinite.

An ideal aristocracy - actual rule by the best - really is the ultimately effective form of government. The problem is that actually, practically instituting that breed of meritocracy is almost impossible to do. Look at old-time aristocracies - they were just political pyramid schemes (that applies to feudalism especially) and self-enforcing spiral cycles of power consolidation in the hands of a not-so-elite.

If a way could actually be found to institute a system where power/position/etc. was stratified according to ability, rights were retained by everyone, the best, most rational, and most intelligent laws were made by the "best" rulers, and means and strata in life was determined perfectly by ability and achievement - that would work. It would be ultimately effective, ultimately fair, and ultimately extropic, efficient, self-ascendant, and productive.

Intelligence, in the absence of goodness, is worse than goodness in the absence of intelligence.

Give me a society of good people, and I would prefer to join them any day over a society of intelligent people.

It's not intelligence that makes a society good, but things like kindness, humility, compassion, honesty, industrious. etc.

What is intelligence, anyway? The ability to devise better bombs? I'm very suspicious of your version of intelligence. Perhaps you could define it for me.

What is goodness? By what moral code do you define "good", and how do you derive or support that moral code? Is it religious? Is it altruist-collectivist? Is it rational egoist? Intelligence, as very strictly defined (the scale of one's ability to accurately and speedily absorb, process, and retain large amounts of complex information) is far less ambiguous than your vague mention of "goodness".

I, personally, am an Objectivist. Rational egoism. My guess from previous readings of your posts is that you probably violently disagree with that philosophy of metaphysics, epistemology, and morals and ethics. On the same note, I find your espoused subjectivist-spiritualist beliefs irrational, pointless, and stupid.

So whose standard of "goodness" are you talking about? How do you define that?

Some scientists did an experiment once. They got rats to run mazes and picked the "smart" rats that did well and bred them and ran their decendants through mazes and then bred the smartest rats in that group and so on. At they same time they also bred the "dumb" rats where were poor at running mazes and then bred them and selected the dumbest of their children and so on. So finally they had two groups of rats. One that was super smart at running mazes and one that was super dumb. Then the scientists flooded the maze. The smart rats drowned, the dumb rats swam.

2 ( 1/0 + 1 ) = 2/0 + 0/0 = 2/0 = infinite.

2(1/0 + 1) = 2/0 + 2 = Infinite + 2

How do you get 2 * 1 = 0/0?

Some scientists did an experiment once. They got rats to run mazes and picked the "smart" rats that did well and bred them and ran their decendants through mazes and then bred the smartest rats in that group and so on. At they same time they also bred the "dumb" rats where were poor at running mazes and then bred them and selected the dumbest of their children and so on. So finally they had two groups of rats. One that was super smart at running mazes and one that was super dumb. Then the scientists flooded the maze. The smart rats drowned, the dumb rats swam.

What a pretty little story with so little substantiation and so much snide implication!

If I actually believed you, I'd say that the rats being bred for intelligence probably had little to nothing to do with that fact and was related to or caused by something different. Association does not imply causation.

2 ( 1/0 + 1 ) = 2/0 + 0/0 = 2/0 = infinite.

Wrong wrong wrong. 2/0 != infinity. 2/0 = undefined. They are not the same thing.

Although I like the concept (being a smart person and all), I disagree, its fascism with a different race.

All of this argument about a childs concept of infinity, think in terms of surreal numbers.

What a pretty little story with so little substantiation and so much snide implication!

If I actually believed you, I'd say that the rats being bred for intelligence probably had little to nothing to do with that fact and was related to or caused by something different. Association does not imply causation.

Think of it this way. It is difficult to be good at something. It is very easy to be bad at something. The smart rats had a very tight genetic bottleneck and probably lacked gentic variation. Since it is easy to be bad at something the dumb rats probably had more genetic variation than the smart rats. When conditions were changed the greater variation amoung the dumb rats gave them a better chance of having genes that made them effective swimmers.

Of course it could be something simpler, such as the dumb rats were fat and fat floats.

Children, unless tainted by adults and their warped views on the world, would never be as evil as the adults are.

Your naivete is astounding.

2(1/0 + 1) = 2/0 + 2 = Infinite + 2

How do you get 2 * 1 = 0/0?
2 * (0/0), possibly? By a similar argument as below, x/x is always 1, even as x tends to 0.

Wrong wrong wrong. 2/0 != infinity. 2/0 = undefined. They are not the same thing.
1/x tends to infinity as x tends to zero. Whether or not it is actually defined as infinity does not change the fact that the result is infinite in magnitude.

1/x tends to infinity as x tends to zero.

That's true when decreasing x arbitrarily close to 0. When you actually hit zero, that no longer holds true. Calculating 1/10^-30 is one thing, but extending the results to 1/0 is unwarranted extrapolation. 1/0 is logically-mathematically incalculable, and that includes a result of infinity. It's 'undefined' for a reason.

That's true when decreasing x arbitrarily close to 0. When you actually hit zero, that no longer holds true. Calculating 1/10^-30 is one thing, but extending the results to 1/0 is unwarranted extrapolation. 1/0 is logically-mathematically incalculable, and that includes a result of infinity. It's 'undefined' for a reason.
Then why not label the inverse of infinity to be undefined too? It's an established axiom that infinity to the minus 1 is zero. Surely it's a self-contradiction to declare one to be the inverse of the other but not vice-versa?

EDIT: I do believe I may have made somewhat of a fool of myself. It's not an axiom; it's a convention. Still, it's as valid a convention as 1/0 would be, wouldn't you say?

2 * (0/0), possibly? By a similar argument as below, x/x is always 1, even as x tends to 0.


conventionally x/x is always 1 iff x != 0. x/0 = infinity, always. so if x=0 then 0/0 gives infinity. Thus 1, as in infinity + 1 does not equal infinity. If it did, then I could claim that infinity = 1 and 2(inf +1 ) = 4 = infinity etc. We end up with all values being equivalent to each other and to infinity. I think I prefer to stick with the 0/0 is infinity and not 1 convention.

EDIT: I do believe I may have made somewhat of a fool of myself. It's not an axiom; it's a convention. Still, it's as valid a convention as 1/0 would be, wouldn't you say?

You argued for me. :D 1/infinity isn't really zero; it's arbitrarily close to zero. Equating it to zero is a convention, as you said. Calling 1/0 'undefined' is sort-of a convention. It's just a verbal placeholder for "we have no freaking idea". It's not infinity, though.

You argued for me. :D 1/infinity isn't really zero; it's arbitrarily close to zero. Equating it to zero is a convention, as you said. Calling 1/0 'undefined' is sort-of a convention. It's just a verbal placeholder for "we have no freaking idea". It's not infinity, though.

Technically we call it undefined only because we have no way of knowing which infinity it is equvalent to. If you go back to basics and count the number of times you can take 0 away from 1 (one definition of division) the result is infinity. We can thus be sure that the result is infinity, just an undefined one.

The same procedure does not help with 1/infinity. All we can do there is an asymptotic procedure and infer from this. 1/n -> 0 as n -> infinity.
There is a conceptual problem though in that one can not approach infinity, thus the result of being arbitrarily close to 0.

Technically we call it undefined only because we have no way of knowing which infinity it is equvalent to. If you go back to basics and count the number of times you can take 0 away from 1 (one definition of division) the result is infinity. We can thus be sure that the result is infinity, just an undefined one.

That works forwards, but not backwards. 0*infinity != 1.

That works forwards, but not backwards. 0*infinity != 1.

Ain't maths wonderful! ;)

LOL. Check this out:

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Having created this thread you would be one of the extremely poor.

Having created this thread you would be one of the extremely poor.

People on this forum have no sarcastic creativity. You're like the tenth person to have said that.

LOL. Check this out:

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0

Ahem!

Huh...

Okay, let's pretend for a moment that forcing people to remain poor because of test scores isn't morally reprehensible.

Even if you think giving smart people bonuses based on being smart, and having the government enforce said doctrine, is a good idea. How do you define 'Smart'? The definition of 'Smart' is constantly changing as our culture changes. Who gets to decide what it means to be 'Smart'? What does 'Smart' mean? And don't smart people naturally rise to the top most of the time in our culture anyway?

2/0 can equal infinity if you deal in hyperreal sets.

{2, 2, 2, 2, 2,.....} (Value = 2)
divided by
{1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5,..} (Value = 0)

=

{2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ...} (Value = infinity)

We are taught, in high school algebra, that 2/0 = Undefined.

That doesn't mean 2/0 equals infinity in all types of higher mathematics.

Speaking of 1/0 1/∞, mathematicians do not consider it correct to use those expressions within the framework of arithmatic simply because arithmatic simply does not have the tools to deal with infinity. Within the framework of calculus, one would say that the limit of 1/x as x approaches ∞ equals 0. Furthermore the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 does not exist. (You might have thought that this would have been ∞, but mathmeticians prefer to say that the limit does not exist because ∞ is limitless.)

Ah, yes, because you're born with an elevated level of a certain attribute (in this case intelligence - which, from the content of your post, I respectfully doubt that you have anyway) you're entitled to more than your fellow man...wait. Didn't we scrap caste systems and aristocracy in most of the western world some time ago?
*wants to post something about Rawls' arguements but can't be bothered... veil of ignorance yadda yadda you know what i'm talking about...*


thus ends another utterly pointless post. go me!

thus ends yet another

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.
Why are you allowing dumb people to breed? Put them in zoos! :D

Intellectual darwinism is the prinicple where the population are tested and given housing, jobs and possessions in accordance with their scores. Thereby, the intellegencia rule the country and the stupid remain extremely poor. This kind of society breeds intelligence and eventually the nation becomes known for its great levels of intellegence.

Unfortunately, this requires a strict no-immigration policy to stop the poor leaving and imbalancing the finely tuned system of govenment.

Then you should be a lower class citizen. Because it's stupid to consider intelligence is the only 'thing'. What about physical qualities? I wouldnt want a nation full of ugly dorks...

Then you should be a lower class citizen. Because it's stupid to consider intelligence is the only 'thing'. What about physical qualities? I wouldnt want a nation full of ugly dorks...

that completely defies the point, and anyway, In a nation where this is run, smart becomes sexy, and that's a good thing for any country