Well, notice how I said "multi-pronged approach IQ tests". Not sure you're familiar with those, but they tend to measure various aspects of the IQ separately (like, say, spatial, vocabulary, calculus, pattern seeking, etc) and then also provide a composite score for convenience.
Well, at least it's convenient. *smile*
No, I'm not particularly familiar with such tests, and don't care to be -- at least not in terms of how I'd like to be governed. NO test is going to convince me that someone is better to govern my wallet, my life, my _child_ better than myself. Sorry, Hoss. This all sounds WAY too antiseptic to me, and I'm the King of Antisepsis.
More focused/specialized intelligence tests can almost certainly be designed for accurately assessing potential of just about any basic activity that can benefit from cognitive efficiency (be it in form of decreased execution time, more accurate work or any other number of things), and could even include the estimation//assessment of one's own professional performance based on both existing employment records and practical profession-appropriate tests.
So, for instance, a person might not be quite the sharpest tool in the shed, but they have a very impressive track record in a specific profession - they might get to vote on the particular laws which involve his profession.
So, let me summarize -- you are going to find the best bit of whatever from each and every citizen, rise that cream to the surface, and skim that cream for leadership. Well, yeah -- I'm on board. Who wouldn't be? You're saying you are going to somehow find the best bit of everything, somehow assess how it can be best used, and then somehow put it in the exact perfect spot to govern a perfect society. Tasty. Not very realistic, though. Palpably not so, in fact.
You are talking _pure_ theory. Like, as in, man, if we could just harness the best of everything and put it to its exact best use! Yeah, I agree with that. But you have to, at the very least, dip this bread in some pragmatic soup, Sickone. I can go to Wikipedia and come up with all the best ideas, ever, too. That doesn't make the ideas bear fruit. You REALLY think you could assemble a battery of tests to put everything in the right spot at the right time?
I don't see why the voting pools for different governmental positions or even legislative decisions couldn't be only partially overlapping and mostly separate. So, for instance, you'll probably WANT quite a few smart doctors, pharmacists, biologists, chemists and physicists working together with a few lawyers, economists, bankers and statisticians or actuaries, plus other assortments of professionals that might have overlapping applications DECIDING on legislation regarding health care and related issues, but you'll want IT guys, content providers and other similar background guys (and next to no doctors, biologists nor chemists) when you're talking internet regulation and other such things.
Now you appear to be talking about some sort of _administrative_ Nirvana. How on EARTH are you going to assemble this level of minutiae to get this decision-making accomplished? I'm back to your whole "everything in the perfect place, man!" idealism, and I am Mayor McIdeal from Idealsville. Are you going to have folks register their specialties? Maybe serial numbers on forearms so that you know where everyone stands on various things? For one, you are talking about a completely NON-anonymous society, no privacy, at least for the upper 25% of IQ (from what I gather). I wear an EFF hat for a reason. You don't get to know a damn thing about me, bro. That's not government. That's potential, organized slaughter. Please, please. Check the history books as you think through these ideals. The more bells and whistles you put on this, the more risk you put on everyone. I have to register as a scientist so I can vote on science-y things? Hm. Great. That will make it very easy for the science-haters to round me up during the revolution (more on that later).
Well, quite a few multinational companies (as far as the upper decisional echelons go) and just about every university on the planet have had far less problems than "pure bred" politicians when some sort of subform of meritocracy is employed. Sure, there are still political pressures, both internal and external, but in the absence of external political pressures, don't you think the internal ones would be sufficient to ensure election of a much more overall capable candidate ?
Wait, you are now comparing the government that should equally represent 300+ million people to a single company or university?! Tell me you are kidding. You want us to run this ship like Wal-Mart? Like Apple? Like Facebook? Like Harvard? The funniest part is that you think Universities and corporations don't have problems _every_ _day_. I went to a very, very small university, around 5 or 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the population of the United States, and I heard about problems every day. I had a brother-in-law who worked maintenance, and I worked food service, so maybe I saw the more grotty bits -- it's just as real as anything, though. Run this country like where I went to school? Um, no. I assure you that you'd have more credence if you give that nonsense up right now. Immediately. That's ridiculous.
Quite frankly, a hybrid between democracy (as far as keeping some form of voting in play), moderate meritocracy with a bit of a periodic round-robin theme (to prevent any talented individual from becoming the de-facto permanent leader of anything, that's probably a combo I'll most likely stand by it quite a while from this moment on.
OK. Now tell us how you'd make that happen. Practically speaking. Meritocracy is an ideology, not a government system. I'm back to the top on this: you want every bit of gold-tinged flotsam and jetsam without providing details on how you think this could possibly work long term.
Basically, everything is decided by a panel of experts, with a sort of senate-like vibe for cross-panel meetings and more like supreme court-like internal ones.
All the hits. A "senate-like" vibe (but not the Senate, no way)... Cross-panel meetings (but not really the checks and balances we have now), and some "supreme-court-like" processes thrown in for good measure.
Haven't you just described the three branches of the American gov't? On a good day, to be sure, but what's the difference? You're way WILL have bad days. Combating that has to be built in.
"The well-being of the human race, nation then individual citizens" should be the main cornerstones of the new form of government, its member qualifying either through IQ tests, professional recognition from his peers and/or a combination thereof.
That's already on the books. When is the last time you read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? You're order of priority is different (and entirely unsustainable for a world in which separate, sovereign powers exist), but the ideals are the same.
As far as not knowing where on the normal distribution your own abilities fall - well, as long as you have high enough confidence in the people composing each of those legislative and/or executive panels, who really cares if you personally had one of the many votes for candidate X (or Y) as long as results are beneficial.
I don't know a single person who fits the criteria you just mentioned. Do you? You know a body of people that you would put your very life into their hands? The life of your spouse? Your children? You are comfortable letting these folks make all of your decisions? Hm. I lied before. I CAN think of a single person who gets to make those decisions for me. Me. But that's it. You want to hand everything over to someone else, some THING else that you don't even have a say on...well. Have to wait for the revolution, I guess. (More on that later).
I *WAS* born into relatively strict socialism, I lived though a period of near-anarchy, then a banana-republic-worthy laissez-faire capitalism (as long as the bribes were flowing anyway), now quite a bit toned down due to the occasional compliance with EU directives and other similar documents.
Where are you from? I'm lost. Near-anarchy and a banana-republic? But then EU directives? Sorry, you're throwing around some REALLY strong phrases. But if you are in Europe -- wha? Where did you experience strict socialism, then near-anarchy and then a banana republic?
Honestly ? Other than what now appears (in retrospect) to be a rather normal and predictable series of shortages which nevertheless got blamed on the then-current "commie president", the median standard of life used to be much, much, MUCH better than what it is now, and quite a few people half-seriously, half-jokingly say they'd trade the entire putrid economic class for a few more years of (presumably/hopefully) mild dictatorship.
I'll wait to comment till I know where you are from... Commie president?
Sure, we do have some rich which are richer than they've ever been, but like almost anywhere else, the poor DO get poorer, and it's all a vicious circle. The average might have gone up, but the median almost certainly went down.
That's going on everywhere. I think that's why we're having this discussion.
Basically, it's happening in the scientific community, in particular in universities. With some reservations, of course.
Like I said, nations aren't universities, and those reservations? The devil's in there.
It's not perfect either, but more likely to get our collective behinds satisfied than just about any other of the alternatives.
Says you. I've no reason to believe that, and I've plenty of history to point to. There's NO reason to believe what you are saying will happen when the rubber hits the road.
So might as well give that a chance anyway.
As I said previously, we aren't playing a game of Civ where we can try this and try that. So, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Oh, what, you'd never get that signed into law, so, meh.
That goes for most of this. *smile* But working within the Democratic system to get better representation (more power) IS possible. At the very least, it's more realistic than thinking we can rip up the turf and replace it with this meritocracy you speak of. That's Plato stuff.
Honestly, I'd get rid of most of the political class. It, like people handling hedge funds and other "businesses" that never produced anything even remotely of any actual substance or value. See above for some more details.
What makes you think the folks you rise to the top (via whatever system) aren't just politicians, too? You understand "politics" is a real thing, right? A useful thing, in fact. You think some term limits and merit-based appointments will supersede all that? I only have one thing to say to that... heh ha hahaha hahaHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You just trust the smart are just barely altruistic enough to not screw everybody else over, for starters - that will do wonders in terms of efficiency. However, if worse comes to worst, there's also always the "revolt" option. That is, if you would not already sit at home having fun, doing your job, and not really caring what shadowy conspiracies (if any) exist within the command group(s).
AH! Here we go! I didn't realize you built in this little gem! WE CAN ALWAYS JUST SIMPLY REVOLT!
That's your grand plan? "Well, *shrug* we can always revolt!"
Not really foundational, governmental stuff, Sickone. Not in the slightest. Revolution can't be a valid aspect of any plan people won't just laugh at, don't you think?
There is strong evidence that suggest intelligence is only weakly correlated with genetics (i.e. how smart/dumb your parents are) and noticeably more strongly correlated with early life education, engagement and other similar e-words.
I didn't evoke nature vs. nurture. I evoked dumb people bearing and raising dumb kids. Are you taking these kids away from the dumb parents and having them be raised by people higher in the "merit" order? These kids are going to have the genes AND the nurture from these "dumb" folk. How are you assuring that the overall populous is getting "smarter" and not "dumber"? And please, don't say that the system will insure it, more meta-based hand-waving where things will just magically take care of themselves if you just, you know, put the really smart people in charge!
Basically, even if some kid's parents are dumb as bricks, keep the kid healthy, clothe and feed him properly, and who knows, he could quite literally become a genius. Small chance (far more likely he'll just turn up a quite normal child), but still a chance nevertheless.
No, actually. If all a child gets is base-adequate food and clothing, how could they possibly become more than their genetics? A smart kid needs that PLUS smart nurturing, smart exposure, smart opportunity that goes way beyond food and clothing. That's Maslow.
I agree with you, though. I think nurture is where it's at. But that is also merit based, right? If someone is way down the merit chain, what raises that kid up? Entropy is a tough nut. It is RELENTLESS. Things move downward unless they are maintained in an effortful and fruitful way. And that's just maintenance. We all get a good laugh when we play "telephone", but think about that. One time around the room, and "Washing hands can prevent disease" becomes "Kim Kardashian has a new love I see."
Which one one is going to save lives?
Which sentiment is easier to keep alive, realistically speaking?
Well, sorry, but I am tired of writing and... I am sleepy, closing my eyes badly. Nighty night (or morning).
As am I, thank you for the fruitful, civil discussion!