I once did an IQ test and scored 42.

Turns out, i’m God.

LOL I’d probably fail wrecker 😕

and as I admit to being of low IQ, how do u get these boxy things for copied bits of text…..

how do u get these boxy things for copied bits of text…..

like that.

Or that

thats them…. aww go on tell me

I did a few IQ tests at school when some of the teachers thought I was not like other kids. First one “graded” me as super high, the second to try to confirm the first’s result, expressed concern that I was of so low an IQ that I shouldn’t be able to function as a human being.

True was the first test was full of questions that I found easy, the second the opposite. Basically the test was flawed. And me.

I’m useless at current affairs, anything classed as ”popular culture”. But I’ve got a head full of useless crap, excellent if life was a pub quiz.

thats them…. aww go on tell me

Click the quote button
Paste the text you want in the box
click the quote button again

I struggle with lots of references on this site (e.g. I had to google the Nutkin chap, footballers, “celebs”, musicians, TV personalities that folk mention who I don’t have a clue about). I guess I just don’t watch enough TV or I’m reading the wrong stuff.

wrecker – i don’t know if there is a convention which is different from the rules but:

(1) You can be deployed to take an active part in hostilities from 17.
(2) You can be deployed at 16 if not taking an active part.
(3) If at 16 removing you from your ‘unit’ would cause unnaceptable disruption the MOD can deploy you anyway.
(4) At 16 you sign up, and are tied into serving till 22. At whatever age they deploy you, you made the decision to enlist at 16 (with no ‘escape clause’ when you are suddenly old enough to make life changing decisions).

But old enough to be sent to war and be told to die for your country eh?
You can leave school at 16 in Scotland. You can also get married (without parental consent) and legally have sex/children.

Not to forget: Leave home without parental consent, Stand for election as a Community Councillor, pay National Insurance, and serve in a Young Offenders Institution…

To be honest most 16 yr olds in Scotland probably have as enlightened a view of the world, and the issues surrounding Independence as any of the adults I have met; so I have no issue with giving them a vote. Doing it for one election is wrong.

Being ‘intelligent’ is held in ludicrously high esteem (second probably only to good looks) that most people think they’ve either got it, or they haven’t.
The ‘doctrine’ of an inborn intelligence seems to be ingrained in academic thinking. If I had an apple for every time a student told me “I failed because I wasn’t clever enough”, I could probably quit lecturing and go into the cider-making business.

The reason is probably all the research, including mono and dizygotic twins reared together and apart that tells us that Intelligence is about 0.8 correlation and so largely genetic. Those who enter school as the brightest amongst their peers will leave in exactly the same position [ on average:wink: ].
is this person also claiming that being intelligent is not actually useul and so should not be held in high esteem – what should it be fame of the type Jordan has?

The truth is, the very idea of IQ, ‘intelligence’ and being ‘clever’ is hugely controversial. Did you know that the IQ test was developed and popularised by the Nazis? Fascist Germany used the test as a way to ‘ethnically cleanse’ less desirable out from their society.

Did you know that is entirely false as it was developed in the UK by Galton and then in france by Binet [1915]and now called the stamford Binet test [ 1916] as it was popularised and used at Stamford. It was also used for WW1 recruits

See intelligence does count as it means you can know that all of that is bobbins

Ah Junkyard, intelligence is useful, but that’s knowledge not intelligence.

I know but it makes for a much worse punchline …or I lack the intelligence to do it justice.

I believe it’s the applicants who should be tested for intelligence, not the voters.

I believe it’s the applicants who should be tested for intelligence, not the voters.

If the voters had been tested for intelligence then they themselves would in effect be testing the applicants for intelligence! 😉

IQ – where to set the bar, 150 or 160 maybe?

What about linking it to income instead?
That might allow some of the more practically minded people, who are actually driving the economy forward, a say on how their taxes are spent. Could also be used to exclude the benefit scroungers, whilst also allowing the soldier who’s fighting for their country at 16, a little say too.

[quote]W

hat about linking it to income instead?
That might allow some of the more practically minded people, who are actually driving the economy forward, a say on

how their taxes are spent. Could also be used to exclude the benefit scroungers, whilst also allowing the soldier who’s fighting for their country at 16, a little say too.[/quote][/quote]

What like in the good old days, do you know much about history?

Millionaires always know best

I would suggest that you send your suggestions to Gove and his cronies, you are obviously a person of high intellect who thinks things through and considers all the angles……

box problem, my IQ is very low

TuckerUK – Member

How much better would society be if potential voters had to pass a certain basic IQ level before being allowed to vote?

Go on, tell me………..if only your specially selected clever people were allowed to vote how much better would it be, what sort of government would we have today ? How would it be different to what we’ve got – who would have won the last election ?

I’m all ears 🙂

The minimum recruitment age is 16 years (although personnel may not serve on armed operations below 18 years)

I think it’s actually law now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/11/britain-child-soldiers-army

Go on, tell me………..if only your specially selected clever people were allowed to vote how much better would it be, what sort of government would we have today ? How would it be different to what we’ve got – who would have won the last election ?

I’m all ears

Who said anything about specially selected clever people? You think people with an IQ of (e.g.) 80 and above are ‘special’ and/or ‘clever’? I think that says more about you than it does about my idea.

I see, not specially selected clever people then. Perhaps randomly selected clever people ?

So anyway, tell me………..if only your selected clever people were allowed to vote how much better would it be, what sort of government would we have today ? How would it be different to what we’ve got – who would have won the last election ?

I’m all ears 🙂

EDIT : But I’m not holding my breath. Despite obviously being very clever yourself – I’m sure you would pass your special IQ test, I don’t suppose you’ve thought your “amusing” suggestion through.

If you had, you would realise that there was a time when only the clever educated people were allowed to vote, and peasants weren’t. In those days we had Tory and Liberal governments. Today we have a Tory/LibDem government, nothing much has changed.

we should not assume people with high iq’s are not complete morons when it comes to anything other than doing an iq test.

i quite like the idea that MPs should be selected at random in a similar fashion to a jury.

Lets widen the debate. Should convicted criminals serving a sentence in a prison be allowed to vote, assuming they pass the IQ test that is?

rudebwoy,
All fair comments , except maybe sending the idea to Gove. Dangerous. 😉
And the fact that I asked a question, rather than made a suggestion. Maybe “WTF?” would have been more appropriate.

Was just curious why some folk seemed to find certain qualifying conditions acceptable for the vote. Maybe they like the idea that they could be part of the “elite”.
Income may be a little more “distasteful” as the differentiator, but I’m not sure the outcome would be any different. There’s always a strong correlation between test results and wealth. And income is already measured for tax purposes so it would be a lot easier and cheaper, and more practical to use the variable that’s already easily available. Then there’s also the “fairness” argument that those paying more tax have more invested in the country.
But, these aren’t suggestions. Just showing an extension on this idea of “Qualifying for the vote.”

However, going back to your earlier point “that a govt is elected by barely 20% of the populace that are over 18”.
Would it be that strange if restricting the vote along the lines of income or IQ or other qualifying criteria, somehow increased the value that people placed on it and increased Participation?

So is the OP suggesting that you can’t have a high IQ and be a facist bigot?

Hope not. I score terribly in IQ tests. The questions usually don’t make much sense to me – very abstract – I tend to guess at them.

There’s always a strong correlation between test results and wealth

there is not

The American Psychological Association’s 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes

WEALTH and IQ

as you may have meant income as you mentioned income tax which is better
INCOME AN IQ

However

That might allow some of the more practically minded people, who are actually driving the economy forward, a say on how their taxes are spent. Could also be used to exclude the benefit scroungers, whilst also allowing the soldier who’s fighting for their country at 16, a little say too.

Because that would exclude the young.

Just go on IQ, that could be used to skew voting further left. 😆 Seeing as science has shown right wingers are lesser beings intellectually.

The best solution is just to remove the cadindates political party from the ballot paper, (and indeeed the vicinity of the voting station). Then the candidates will have to be recognisable to their potentional constituents, hopefully for doing something worthwhile.

Saves people just blindly dabbing whatever political party they supposedlly support. As I often point out there is no real difference.

edit : possibly a more pragmatic approach than

i quite like the idea that MPs should be selected at random in a similar fashion to a jury

which I mooted a couple of weeks back

I like boobs.

IQ’s not everything, as druid shows.

I suspect his cunning use of the word “around” rather suggests otherwise.

Knowledge/Intelligence/Google wizard.

Choose 4

Maybe we should have an IQ test …errm test here. See who is worthy of voting.

I already know mine, I’ve done a number of IQ tests for jobs, mensa applications or just for fun. They’re a load of rubbish, you can learn how to do well in them. I don’t rate them despite being able to achieve a high score.

How about morality tests? They’d be better in my eyes for who can vote.
People who care about other people, they’re the ones who should be allowed to run things. Being smart means nothing. I’m smart and I’m a waste of space.

Loum– fair play , you got me there!

its took me a while to find this thread again, low IQ maybe, or late night– if you want to ensure a 100% turnout, restrict the vote to just me.

I like boobs.

+1