Should people who got less than 500 points in the leaving even allowed to vote?

marcus001

How much more competent would our political class be if they were handpicked and held to account by the cognitive elite?

Jesus Wept

1/10

Xenji

If you are using the leaving cert as an intellectual guage you are way off.

marcus001

Xenji wrote: »

If you are using the leaving cert as an intellectual guage you are way off.

Its not a perfect measure but its the best one we have. Not many people who get below 500 could be considered "smart".

Mad_Dave

Jesus Wept wrote: »

1/10

agreed, weak effort.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

How much more competent would our political class be if they were handpicked and held to account by the cognitive elite?

Sure why not scrap democracy altogether? :rolleyes:

RayM

marcus001 wrote: »

Its not a perfect measure but its the best one we have. Not many people who get below 500 could be considered "smart".

I'm not sure that ability to learn things off by heart is the best measure of a person's intelligence, tbh.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

How much more competent would our political class be if they were handpicked and held to account by the cognitive elite?

Im assuming the so called cognitive elite you describe are from the more affluent areas of Dublin?

I would hardly consider any of those politicians such as Varadkar and Brian Hayes to be particularly competent to be honest. They are completely divorced from the electorate.

Intelligence takes many forms. Being book intelligent doesn't necessarily mean an abundance of street smarts and vice versa.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

Its not a perfect measure but its the best one we have. Not many people who get below 500 could be considered "smart".

I got below 500 in the LC and I've got a degree in Chemistry. I don't consider myself a brainbox but I'm no thick. My OH didn't even do his leaving yet he's very successful in his chosen career so less of the generalising please. Ireland is a democracy and all Irish citizens over 18 are entitled to vote, whether YOU like it or not.

marcus001

RayM wrote: »

I'm not sure that ability to learn things off by heart is the best measure of a person's intelligence, tbh.

It's up there. Grades are highly correlated with IQ and trait industriousness. People with faster brains are able to crystallise more information and are also able to cover material faster resulting in better academic performance.

RobertKK

One might as well ask, 'should the richest people in society be allowed to vote since they are the least affected?'.

marcus001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Im assuming the so called cognitive elite you describe are from the more affluent areas of Dublin?

I would hardly consider any of those politicians such as Varadkar and Brian Hayes to be particularly competent to be honest. They are completely divorced from the electorate.

Intelligence takes many forms. Being book intelligent doesn't necessarily mean an abundance of street smarts and vice versa.

I think one of the best schools in the country for getting high grades in the leaving cert is in Cork. People with high intelligence tend to end up living in better neighbourhoods naturally, but anyone with the brains can get the grades regardless of background.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

It's up there. Grades are highly correlated with IQ and trait industriousness. People with faster brains are able to crystallise more information and are also able to cover material faster resulting in better academic performance.

And yet they still caused the bank collapse with their recklessness?

marcus001

RobertKK wrote: »

One might as well ask, 'should the richest people in society be allowed to vote since they are the least affected?'.

High intelligence is correlated with higher income but the average wage for someone with an IQ of 115 is still no more than 50,000 as far as I know. Once you start getting into higher figures the correlation is not as strong between intelligence and income.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

How much more competent would our political class be if they were handpicked and held to account by the cognitive elite?

I know a few people who got more then 500 in their leaving and are not the brightest, just good memories at the end of the day.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

High intelligence is correlated with higher income but the average wage for someone with an IQ of 115 is still no more than 50,000 as far as I know. Once you start getting into higher figures the correlation is not as strong between intelligence and income.

It takes some form of intelligence to increase income. Denis o'brien apparently failed his leaving cert for example. Too much emphasis is placed on the results of the school system which is deeply flawed. Leaving cert results should not and in many cases do not define you for life.

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

I got below 500 in the LC and I've got a degree in Chemistry. I don't consider myself a brainbox but I'm no thick. My OH didn't even do his leaving yet he's very successful in his chosen career so less of the generalising please. Ireland is a democracy and all Irish citizens over 18 are entitled to vote, whether YOU like it or not.

I think the country would be run better if we didn't have so many politicians appealing to the lowest common denominator.

marcus001

jamesbere wrote: »

I know a few people who got more then 500 in their leaving and are not the brightest, just good memories at the end of the day.

So because you know a few people that somehow refutes the strong correlation between intelligence and academic achievement.

Its also very possible that they're smarter than you and that makes it hard for you to accurately gauge their intelligence. I know I can't tell the difference between someone with a 130 IQ and someone with a 150 IQ, but the difference is very real.

gitzy16v

Re-reg's are getting smarter.

marcus001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It takes some form of intelligence to increase income. Denis o'brien apparently failed his leaving cert for example. Too much emphasis is placed on the results of the school system which is deeply flawed. Leaving cert results should not and in many cases do not define you for life.

Yes but once you start to get into the millions the difference in income starts to become more about connections and being in the right place at the right time than just pure brains.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

I think the country would be run better if we didn't have so many politicians appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Are you for real?

Who, exactly, are the lowest common denominator? People who get less than 500 points in their leaving? That's probably about 3/4 of the country. I suppose you got 600 points in your leaving, you live in an affluent area and are earning a million a year. You, sir, are an out and out snob.

RayM

marcus001 wrote: »

It's up there. Grades are highly correlated with IQ and trait industriousness. People with faster brains are able to crystallise more information and are also able to cover material faster resulting in better academic performance.

One could argue that the person who gets 380 points without opening a book is more naturally intelligent than the person who gets 500 after spending two years studying their arse off in an expensive grind school.

I got over 500 but I'm pretty damn thick when it comes to a lot of things.
Your thread is bad and you should feel bad.

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

Are you for real?

Who, exactly, are the lowest common denominator? People who get less than 500 points in their leaving? That's probably about 3/4 of the country. I suppose you got 600 points in your leaving, you live in an affluent area and are earning a million a year. You, sir, are an out and out snob.

I didn't quite get 600 and I don't earn close to a million a year. I just think that a competent quasi aristocracy would be beneficial for a country like ours, and rather than being based on herititary privilege it should be based on academic achievement, still the best objective measure of competence for just about every job worth having.

marcus001

RayM wrote: »

One could argue that the person who gets 380 points without opening a book is more naturally intelligent than the person who gets 500 after spending two years studying their arse off in an expensive grind school.

Didn't open a book. That's not very smart is it?

Industriousness is another positive trait alongside intelligence so if someone wants to get into the elite through sheer work ethic I see no problem with that.

You would still need to be intelligent to get the 500 anyway.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

I didn't quite get 600 and I don't earn close to a million a year. I just think that a competent quasi aristocracy would be beneficial for a country like ours, and rather than being based on herititary privilege it should be based on academic achievement, still the best objective measure of competence for just about every job worth having.

So we should just go back in time, should we? I got 420 points in my leaving back in 1999 and I never studied a bit. I'm a QC analyst for a big pharmaceutical company but yet you seem to think I'm not capable of voting in an election? My OH is a HGV mechanic earning twice what I earn, but he's not capable of voting because he's not intelligent enough? Would you ever cop on and actually think about what you're saying? You're actually insulting the majority of the Irish people.

Oh and by the way, what jobs are not worth having, as a matter of interest?

RayM

marcus001 wrote: »

Didn't open a book. That's not very smart is it?

Industriousness is another positive trait alongside intelligence so if someone wants to get into the elite through sheer work ethic I see no problem with that.

Calculated that they needed around 380 points for their preferred CAO choice. Decided not to waste their precious teenage years nerding it up for the extra points that they wouldn't need. Smart use of their time.

You might as well show people episodes of Mrs Brown's Boys at the polling station, and if they laugh once, ban them from voting.

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

So we should just go back in time, should we? I got 420 points in my leaving back in 1999 and I never studied a bit. I'm a QC analyst for a big pharmaceutical company but yet you seem to think I'm not capable of voting in an election? My OH is a HGV mechanic earning twice what I earn, but he's not capable of voting because he's not intelligent enough? Would you ever cop on and actually think about what you're saying? You're actually insulting the majority of the Irish people.

Oh and by the way, what jobs are not worth having, as a matter of interest?

Well, ideally we wouldn't deprive people of rights they already have. We would instate it for future generations so that as the years go on we will have a more intelligent electorate. Then and only then will we have good governance. You cannot govern a country democratically with an average IQ below 90 and even slightly above that you get lots of incompetence and corruption.

In order to save democracy we need to award democratic rights based on competence. That is my firm belief.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

So because you know a few people that somehow refutes the strong correlation between intelligence and academic achievement.

Its also very possible that they're smarter than you and that makes it hard for you to accurately gauge their intelligence. I know I can't tell the difference between someone with a 130 IQ and someone with a 150 IQ, but the difference is very real.

I couldn't give a toss if their smarter than me or not, leaving cert is not the best gauge for intelligence. An IQ test is the best option.


Anyway I wouldn't want them deciding on the fate of our country, trust me

marcus001

RayM wrote: »

Calculated that they needed around 380 points for their preferred CAO choice. Decided not to waste their precious teenage years nerding it up for the extra points that they wouldn't need. Smart use of their time.

You might as well show people episodes of Mrs Brown's Boys at the polling station, and if they laugh once, ban them from voting.

Decided not to waste time doing as well as they possibly can in their exams. Played Xbox alone and wanked while their friends were all busy studying. Real asset to society there.

Basically no one intelligent does that. Even if they can, they don't. You'd know that if you'd spent your life surrounded by them.

marcus001

jamesbere wrote: »

I couldn't give a toss if their smarter than me or not, leaving cert is not the best gauge for intelligence. An IQ test is the best option.


Anyway I wouldn't want them deciding on the fate of our country, trust me

Exams are essentially a test of IQ and work ethic. As I said before, the best predictor of exam success is IQ followed by trait industriousness.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

Well, ideally we wouldn't deprive people of rights they already have. We would instate it for future generations so that as the years go on we will have a more intelligent electorate. Then and only then will we have good governance. You cannot govern a country democratically with an average IQ below 90 and even slightly above that you get lots of incompetence and corruption.

In order to save democracy we need to award democratic rights based on competence. That is my firm belief.

Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to a real life Ross O'Carroll Kelly?

If you're not a troll, you are a very sad and stuck up individual. How can you even bring yourself to converse with us and our sub-par intelligence?

Realt Dearg Sec

marcus001 wrote: »

You cannot govern a country democratically with an average IQ below 90

Well, genius, you would need to start by sitting down and having a stern talk with whoever designed the test if it threw up an average of 90.

RayM

marcus001 wrote: »

Decided not to waste time doing as well as they possibly can in their exams. Played Xbox alone and wanked while their friends were all busy studying. Real asset to society there.

Basically no one intelligent does that, you'd know that if you'd spent your life surrounded by them.

Why are you bringing "****" into the discussion? Would an intelligent person make such a generalisation? Sounds like your arguing in favour of your own disenfranchisement, tb perfectly h with you.

wandererz

I didn't get any points in the leaving cert yet i ended up advising some of the biggest enterprise and government organisations in Ireland and worked for multi billion dollar companies.

My nephew just got fantastic results and decided to study English.

In my opinion...go figure!

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

Exams are essentially a test of IQ and work ethic. As I said before, the best predictor of exam success is IQ followed by trait industriousness.

It's an interesting topic you've brought up but you're essentially talking about a society where only the most intelligent make the decisions for everyone else.

Slight flaw to that, I can imagine that would cause a lot of social unrest.

Sparks43

RayM wrote: »

Why are you bringing "****" into the discussion? Would an intelligent person make such a generalisation? Sounds like your arguing in favour of your own disenfranchisement, tb perfectly h with you.

If he was truly intelligent the term "self pleasure" would be more appropriate to ****

Ive written 3 different responses to this thread and they all end up stupid because the premise is stupid.

Whats the lowest common denominator? I'd argue its having enough houses to house everyone and having enough jobs to keep everyone employed having reliable public transport and when you need to visit a hospital you get a bed straightaway and get seen to by the top of their field, and when you've paid the taxes neccessary to provide all of that you have enough left over to have a comfortable life style.

I'd argue the above is the lowest common denominator, and I'd also argue its what every politician should be striving for.

The problem is they all can't agree how to do it. (And a few are on the take)

jamesbere

Sparks43 wrote: »

If he was truly intelligent the term "self pleasure" would be more appropriate to ****

I prefer the term "personal gratification"

marcus001

LittleMuppet wrote: »

Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to a real life Ross O'Carroll Kelly?

If you're not a troll, you are a very sad and stuck up individual. How can you even bring yourself to converse with us and our sub-par intelligence?

Maybe because you think in stereotypes.

You mistake my fairly detached and pragmatic approach to suffrage with actual disdain for people who are not highly intelligent. This would be a ludicrous way to exist since the vast majority of people are of about average intelligence. I'm not nearly as stuck up as I may admittedly be coming across, I'm actually fairly down to earth and can converse with anyone.

marcus001

RayM wrote: »

Why are you bringing "****" into the discussion? Would an intelligent person make such a generalisation? Sounds like your arguing in favour of your own disenfranchisement, tb perfectly h with you.

It was a joke. This is AH.

marcus001

jamesbere wrote: »

It's an interesting topic you've brought up but you're essentially talking about a society where only the most intelligent make the decisions for everyone else.

Slight flaw to that, I can imagine that would cause a lot of social unrest.

It might but then again it might not. I think it might foster a sense of noblesse oblige amongst the voting population and the rest of the population might end up being happy with the decisions made overall because they would likely be smarter decisions.

LittleMuppet

marcus001 wrote: »

Maybe because you think in stereotypes.

You mistake my fairly detached and pragmatic approach to suffrage with actual disdain for people who are not highly intelligent. This would be a ludicrous way to exist since the vast majority of people are of about average intelligence. I'm not nearly as stuck up as I may admittedly be coming across, I'm actually fairly down to earth and can converse with anyone.

I certainly don't think in stereotypes. I was slagged in school for my 'posh' accent and the fact I didn't conform to what my classmates considered normal. You are coming across as disdainful of anyone who is not academic. Everyone has their own talents and no-one is beneath anyone else, regardless of their ‘intelligence' and academic ability. Tbh you don't seem down to earth at all.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

Maybe because you think in stereotypes.

You mistake my fairly detached and pragmatic approach to suffrage with actual disdain for people who are not highly intelligent. This would be a ludicrous way to exist since the vast majority of people are of about average intelligence. I'm not nearly as stuck up as I may admittedly be coming across, I'm actually fairly down to earth and can converse with anyone.

Do you think you could converse with me despite me never going to college?

marcus001

Sparks43 wrote: »

If he was truly intelligent the term "self pleasure" would be more appropriate to ****

It took longer than expected for someone to question my intelligence.

Because intelligent people use phrases like self-pleasure all the time.

gitzy16v

marcus001 wrote: »

It might but then again it might not. I think it might foster a sense of noblesse oblige amongst the voting population and the rest of the population might end up being happy with the decisions made overall because they would likely be smarter decisions.

Some people sound like **** though.

RayM

marcus001 wrote: »

It was a joke. This is AH.

A joke? A joke??? Is such masturbatory frivolity not a waste of one's time; time that could no doubt be better spent?

marcus001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think you could converse with me despite me never going to college?

Well, I don't really want to get into personal stuff, but its usually hard to find common ground. That doesn't mean I don't try. I used to keep up with football for the sole purpose of being able to chat to the lads I used to work with during college even though I never could give a ****e.

marcus001

marcus001 wrote: »

Because intelligent people use phrases like self-pleasure all the time.

No they don't.

People who are up their own arses do.

Cheerful Spring

marcus001 wrote: »

How much more competent would our political class be if they were handpicked and held to account by the cognitive elite?

What IQ got to do with anything? In my view, Personality, emotional and mental state, personnel views on life, would be better ways to judge if a person is fit for office. Highly intelligent people make mistakes too, intelligence does not make you immune.

jamesbere

marcus001 wrote: »

It might but then again it might not. I think it might foster a sense of noblesse oblige amongst the voting population and the rest of the population might end up being happy with the decisions made overall because they would likely be smarter decisions.

I think you would fit in well in this time period