The 145 Solution

Guest Post by Fred Reed

Sapience, not Sentience

In the modest and unassuming manner natural to this column, I advance a small proposal for the emendation of such tatters of the Constitution as can be found: For voting in federal elections, we should employ a literacy test to disenfranchise the majority of the population, to the infinite betterment of the country. This wise move should be accompanied by an increase in the voting age to twenty-five.

The necessity cannot be denied. Consider the following:

Forty-three percent of Americans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

Sixty-four percent cannot name the three branches of the federal government.

Fourteen percent are illiterate.

Twenty-six percent think the sun goes around the earth.

These numbers may be understood in various ways. To a curmudgeon, who obtains a sour satisfaction from the endless repetition of human folly, they provide the satisfactions of confirmation.  We all enjoy being right. In practical terms, they mean that democracy, or our mild approximation thereto, is a sham, a fraud, an impossibility, and a bad idea. No one so blankly ignorant, so mentally without furniture, so muddle-headed, limited, and barren, should be allowed within hailing range of a voting booth.

Such people cannot possibly know anything of national questions. Those who live in a featureless tundra of the mind usually do so from stupidity. It is unreasonable to blame them for a genetic condition over which they have no control, but it is equally unreasonable to allow them to vote. As for the fairly intelligent who through intellectual shiftlessness learn nothing, I have no patience with them. What possible cause is there for thinking the willfully dull, the deliberately ignorant, or the dull and ignorant, are ompetent to influence policy on matters that they cannot spell? Given that everyone today has access to virtually every book ever written and to the internet, there is little excuse for living in Oprah fog and Eminem darkness.

If fourteen percent are illiterate, a larger number must be nearly so. People who can barely read don´t. People so little engaged as to think Iraq attacked New York –forty-six percent!—vote almost at random, or in the direction in which they are shooed by cunning electoral mechanics and fixers.

The educated and thoughtful may have no idea of the night in which the rest live. We tend to associate with people like ourselves. Consequently if you know where Iran is, you probably don’t know anyone who doesn’t. But—a pre-Copernican quarter of the population believes that the sun moves around the earth? As we said in the Sixties, that’s a whole nuther head-space.

Thus a test of literacy, or more correctly of competence to vote. It might involve reading a paragraph of prose at the level of college, or of what used to be the level of college, and answering questions about it. There might be questions such as how many Congressmen are there, name a country bordering of Iraq, list three rights guaranteed (ha!) by the First Amendment, and when did World War Two take place.

This laudable proposal would transform politics. The basalt principle of current American governance is that you can fool enough of the people enough of the time. The smart can safely be ignored. People with capacious and well-stocked mental larders are statistically insignificant. Thus candidates campaign by grinning and smirking, hiding whatever intelligence they may have, and professing sympathy for orphans and the downtrodden. In France, a candidate with the mind of a lawn chair would be held in contempt, but in America he is thought to be of the people, and authentic. Unfortunately, he is.

The current fourth-grade posturing of politicians would last microseconds with an electorate well on the right side of the bell curve. We would have far fewer dolts and poltroons. I’m sure you can think of several of these.

I suspect people would be surprised to learn how little the members of the House of Representatives know. A Congressman of my acquaintance told me of going with a colleague on a junket to Thailand. His fellow legislator repeatedly referred to the country as “Taiwan.” Thus are we ruled. Allowing the foolish to vote makes likely the election of the equally fatuous, or of a wily confidence man.

Objectors to my splendid idea will assert that a government and electorate of the highly intelligent will exploit the rest. The franchise is said to protect the majority from the unscrupulous. But it does not.  IQs on Wall Street are said to begin at 145. Has the franchise protected anyone from them? Allowing the dim and untutored to vote simply provides the bright and unscrupulous with gullible vote-fodder. It does not prevent but makes possible the exploitation.

A voting age of twenty-five would ensure some degree of maturity, or might, even in an age of mall rats. It is ludicrous to think that teenagers can vote sensibly. They haven’t lived long enough. Like so much of American life, the adolescent vote sprang from the unrealistic idea that we are all equal in everything. Girls can be SEALs, everyone should go to college, that sort of thing. During Vietnam, the argument was that if the young were old enough to die in Asia, they were old enough to vote. And if six-year-olds are old enough to die in car accidents, they are old enough to drive.

While we are at it, we might as a minimum require candidates for federal office to have scored in the ninetieth percentile on the GREs. Again, It is curious that while in France intelligence and cultivation are regarded as good things, in America the use of words of more than one syllable is regarded as evidence of elitism, both being mortal sins. The only offense worse than being superior is knowing that you are.

But why not do yet better? If I may soar even higher into wild and uncontrolled supposition, suppose that candidates for high national office–Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency–were required to have an IQ of 145 or better. This is the beginning of real intelligence, perhaps aproaching the entry level for Silicon Valley (though intelligence at the level of a valley may not be the image I am looking for). Such men—at this level, almost all are—can keep in mind the various pipelines proposed for Caspian hydrocarbons, the effects of shifting exchange rates, and so on. They are precious hard to con. When they travel, they usually know where they are.Intelligent government: What a concept.

So much for ineffable wisdom and preternatural insight. The implementation of my splendid system is left to the student as an exercise.

 

Book of the week if you haven’t read it: We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,a wonderfully funny in a dismal way about the absurdity of the American “reconstruction” of Iraq, by a State Department guy who saw it.

28
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Paulo
Paulo

I wonder if Mr. 145 has taken the time to ponder what real intelligence, is? I have a few degrees and a varied technical background. I have also been taught by universtity professors so effing dumb I wouldn’t hire them to cut my lawn. However, I suppose they scored quite high on their ‘tests’. I too cringe when I hear Ebonics and rap. I also cringe when I hear Rick Perry or Pat Robertson speak. Get off your high horse, buddy. There is more than one way to measure intelligence beyond institutionalized ‘book learning’.

From Wiki:
The theory of multiple intelligences is a theory of intelligence that differentiates it into specific (primarily sensory) “modalities”, rather than seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general ability. This model was proposed by Howard Gardner in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner articulated seven criteria for a behavior to be considered an intelligence.[1] These were that the intelligences showed: potential for brain isolation by brain damage, place in evolutionary history, presence of core operations, susceptibility to encoding (symbolic expression), a distinct developmental progression, the existence of savants, prodigies and other exceptional people, and support from experimental psychology and psychometric findings.

Gardner chose eight abilities that he held to meet these criteria:[2] musical–rhythmic, visual–spatial, verbal–linguistic, logical–mathematical, bodily–kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. He later suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of inclusion.[3] Although the distinction between intelligences has been set out in great detail, Gardner opposes the idea of labeling learners to a specific intelligence. Each individual possesses a unique blend of all the intelligences. Gardner firmly maintains that his theory of multiple intelligences should “empower learners”, not restrict them to one modality of learning.[4]

Gardner argues intelligence is categorized into three primary or overarching categories, those of which are formulated by the abilities. According to Gardner, intelligence is: 1) The ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture, 2) a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life, and 3) the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge.[5]

Gardner’s ideas have been widely debated by psychologists, brain researchers, cultural analysts, and educational theorists. There are also ongoing debates about how Gardner’s theory could (or should) be applied in schools and other domains.

starfcker
starfcker

Love fred, but no. How about we just prosecute corruption. No white collar, club fed type bullshit either. Abuse trust, and you’re hanging with the brothers for awhile. No laws would need to be passed, just enforcing what we have.

Crat
Crat

My understanding is that of the modern Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter probably had the higher IQ’s. Woodrow Wilson was the only President with an earned PHD. Looking at Clinton’s amorality, Carter’s ineffectiveness, and Wilson damn near destroying the nation and through his interference and meddling in world affairs, and at least partially responsible for the horrible after effects and policies of WWI- I would say the suggestion of 145 IQ for a President needs revisiting!

starfcker
starfcker

Crat, you’ve been had. That’s just a media snow job. Every dem is the smartest (carter, clinton, obama), every repub is subhumanly dumb (reagan, quayle, w). Obama can’t do 8th grade math. He went to ivy league colleges, and graduated. Look at his grades. Oh, wait

SSS

The 145 IQ suggestion would make me the only TBP visitor eligible to vote. Can you imagine how much better off our country would be? Heh.

bb

Just take away the so right of women to vote.Women got Obama elected president twice. White women.

Stucky

Here’s a big problem. Lemme aks yew … you know what I’m sayin’, right?

comment image

Sensetti

My employer gave an IQ test the end of last year, voluntary of course, I scored 136. So I would not get to vote 🙁

Stucky

“My employer gave an IQ test the end of last year, voluntary of course, I scored 136.” — Sensetti

I’ll bet all the questions were about the Republican Party.

starfcker
starfcker

Want to fry your brain? Google, ‘wonderlic test’, and take the test online. It’s a little test they give football players before the NFL draft, 50 easy questions in 12 minutes. It ain’t that easy. I scored a 26, and I’ve always aced tests.

Sensetti

They did divide us liberal’s to the left, conservative’s to the right. The only thing I wondered about was why they handed the libtards a crayon.

Sensetti

The test I took was a lot of number sequence’s. Like, which number does not belong in this string. Or what would be the next number in a string of numbers et,etc.

Llpoh

SSS – I beg to differ. I think they should raise the bar to 150+, so I be the sole rep.

Paulo – you are a dumbass. You argue against Fred’s points, then make the perfect case for them.

This guy Gardner you quote saying intelligence is: 1) The ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture, 2) a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life, and 3) the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge.

The folks Fred is talking about cannot do any of those things, but you want them to be able to vote. Those mouth breathers rely on the handful that pay taxes for their very existence.

How about this – only people that do not receive direct govt assistance or who are not on the govt payroll be allowed to vote. A severe conflict of interest exists for all the others. That will eliminate the SNAP carders, the govt parasites, etc. from the rolls – all the folks with an interest in voting for more free shit and higher taxes.

But that is who the govt wants to vote, now isn’t it.

Kelli McAllister
Kelli McAllister

Wow, what a snob. And if your goal is obfuscation, you can’t do much better than “ineffable wisdom and preternatural insight.” Pompous much?

BP is notorious for shitting on Americans, so this column isn’t exactly a complete surprise. But even the briefest Google search led me to Mensa’s requirements for admission, a 130 IQ representing the top 2% of the population. Your suggested guideline of 145 is 0.1% of the population … in other words, nobody votes. Why not just make it mandatory to have a third nipple for voting rights?

Here’s an idea … make everybody re-register via photo ID before each election. The LIVs will never get it together, and will de facto disenfranchise themselves. And frankly, I believe stupid yet motivated individuals should be allowed to participate.

Anyway, none of this matters, since none of this could possibly pass Congress. As Aerosmith says, “Dream On.”

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

Much of the problem with uninformed American voters is Fox news and right-wing talk Radio. Talk about a bunch of liars; even the Supreme court got involved and ruled that Fox Broadcasting is allowed to lie about the news.

Fox News Has a First Amendment Right to Lie – Updated

IndenturedServant

SSS says:
“The 145 IQ suggestion would make me the only TBP visitor eligible to vote. Can you imagine how much better off our country would be? Heh.”

That perfectly demonstrates exactly why it’s such a stupid idea!

IndenturedServant

I don’t give a shit about IQ. A few very simple and doable changes would make an enormous difference in quality of government. (Currently our owners have exactly the kind of govt they want.)

1. Central banks are forever banned for the betterment of mankind. Simply talking about such things carries an on the spot death sentence. You can read about it all you want but writing or speaking about it = death.

2. If you receive a check from the govt during a given tax year, you are ineligible to vote. This applies to SS recipients (yes I know you paid in, but you’re too stupid to realize it’s a trap) and politicians serving in any capacity. Active military is allowed to vote because they have actual skin in the game.

3. Term limits. No one is ever allowed to hold any elected position for more than two, non-consecutive terms.

4. All politician pay is based on performance. Politicians get a base military type pay while serving and their constituents vote for their final pay based on performance while in office on the same ballot you vote their successor in with. Popular vote wins the day on final pay votes. In no case will a politician be paid more than the lowest paid, non-union school teacher in their district. Federal politicians are required to live in military style barracks of mixed political persuasion and share common bathrooms. Every square fucking inch of their barracks is to be under constant, 24/hr audio and video surveillance as a deterrent to imposing that over reaching bullshit on the people. In other words, they take one for the team so we don’t have to!

5. Lobbyists are banned from Mordor on the Potomac under penalty of death. All lobbyists get a “designated free speech zone” to pontificate from in each city (except Mordor) that is 3’x3′ directly downwind of the largest sewer plant or landfill.

Item #1 will take care of 99.9% of the bullshit and will likely negate the need for the other points.

IndenturedServant

Sensetti says:
“My employer gave an IQ test the end of last year, voluntary of course, I scored 136. So I would not get to vote :-(”

That’s because you vote for Republicrats.

hardscrabble farmer

I’ve lived under a system based on democratically elected representatives my entire life. Based on that experience I have come to the conclusion that universal suffrage as a means of enabling representatives to be elected through the democratic process is one of the worst political systems ever conceived for several reasons-

It is a contradiction of its central platform, namely equality. If one actually accepts the premise that all men/women are equal then representatives can and should be selected by means of a lottery. Those selected may decline but will no longer be allowed any form of government assistance at any time for the remainder of their lives.

Those who benefit from government largesse should be excluded from participation until such time as they are independent- children and prisoners are excluded for this reason, among others, it should extend to the general population.

Compensation and accomodation for elected officials should be commensurate to all other forms of public service and at the same levels, i.e. the barracks suggestioin above. We are selecting servants, not royalty.

Political education should be mandatory and lifelong and anyone who fails to maintain the proper grades or test scores is excluded from both public service selection as well as public benefits. If you cannot understand the basics of the system you live in, you cannot be expected to reap the rewards.

There ought to be some form of voluntary withdrawl from the system- like the type given to the Amish- for any reason, not only religious. If someone doesn’t want to participate, it seems oppressive to force them to simply because- as the immigration enthusiasts often cite- of an accident of birthplace.

There are others of course, but then I just come across as a bumpkin version of Heinlein.

The arc of universal suffrage always ends in tyranny.

HnH
HnH

What BS.

First, since IQ is always relative to the rest of the people (Bell curve!!!), only a fraction of one percent could vote. Better call it then what it would be: Plutocracy, oligarchy, whatever. Point is, we alreadey have that, but today it is the amount of money you make.

Second, measures of IQ are culture specific. Which means, we do not have a test that measures IQ accurately for everyone.

Third, intelligence is NOT an effective guideline for voting smart. Most African Americans are voting extremely smart, since they vote Democrat. Not even a Republican would go so far as to announce that their policies are generally beneficial for Blacks. Also many poor or middle income voters, vote dumbly, if they support Republicans, It’s against their financial interests.

Only rich people voting Republican vote actually smart.

OTOH, the whole political system is so broken that it does not matter if and for whom you do vote or not. The results are mostly the same anyway.

IQ, as a survival strategy, is highly overrated. In the coming collapse, dumb but fast acting people may have an advantage over very smart but slowly acting people.

The whole discussion is just pure BS.

DC Sunsets

Lots of high IQ people believe in things that are palpably untrue and stupid (statism is #1).

I prefer a term I think I coined: Consequentualism.

Consequentualist thinking is where a person can, employing axiom & logic, predict with great confidence the unintended consequences of various policies or actions.

This runs the gamut from, “If I lie to my wife, predictably bad things will follow” to “paying people who are ‘down on their luck’ will simply swell the ranks of those who are ‘down on their luck.'”

I have found that consequentialist thinking is uncommon among all people, unknown among the very stupid (as measured by IQ) and still rare among the highly intelligent. It actually becomes MORE rare as one climbs the education ladder, i.e., physicians, lawyers and Ph.D.’s are almost completely bereft of it.

Consequentialst thinking teaches us that the more we know, the less of total knowledge we have. It teaches us that when we act, the odds of unintended consequences outweighing intended effects are high. It tells us that every damn thing undertaken by force will always, on balance, produce evil.

Consequentialist thinking informs us inescapably that power corrupts, and thus all social systems that coercively aggregate power (e.g., the political state) are inevitably corrupt and bring about the polar opposite of what they are intended to produce (i.e., they produce chaos, not order, misery, not prosperity.)

Hagar
Hagar

Perhaps restricting voting to those who are property owners and/or have military service would change our fucked up system…just saying.

llpoh
llpoh

HSF and I are on the same page. Attaboy! I will let him into my 150+ club.

HnH is wrong on oh so many points. First, the stuff about IQs being culturally based is horseshit. The do-gooders want you to believe that, as it suits their narrative. But time after time, it is shown that IQ tests are not culturally biased.

Second – blacks are not voting “smart”. They are just smart enough to vote for their own self-interests – ie “keep dat free shit flowing!”

But that is not a reasoned approach, and shows zero understanding what is good for the country. We need voters who are well educated enough to understand what is good for the country, both long and short term, and not just folks who are voting for a free Obamaphone next year. Becasue something is beneficial in the short-term does not mean it will not destroy you personally in the long. Ditto goes for certain Repub factions.

HnH also makes this incredibly stupid comment: “dumb but fast acting people may have an advantage over very smart but slowly acting people”. The only time that is going to be true is in immediate fight or flight situations – ie in gun battles, or in running away, or similar.

Otherwise, dumb folks are going to die off in great numbers. Survival of the human species has always been about intelligence, and rarely about physical strength. Humans are a soft target. Wht did homo sapiens survive when Neanderthals were so much ore physicaly strong? Gee, I wonder.

Dumb ass folks will die by the millions in a real catastrophe, as will smart folks too. But I know I will not be hitching my wagon along side a fast running ghetto dweller when the shit hits the fan. HSF is the type I will be seeking out.

Re DC’s consequential thinking – I think that is a valid point. As a matter of fact, I have found it to be a personal strength.

I can not always explain to folks how I know certain actions will result in certain reactions. Consequential thinking has to do with visualization and not necessarily verbalization.

I have at times tried to explain it to folks this way – I somehow know when you hit the mule on the ass with a stick which way his head will turn. I cannot explain how I know it, but somehow I see/visualize links, and I am very often right. But owing to an inability to explain the links verbally, it can be very hard to convince others. It is at those points it is good to be the boss.

Stucky

“Second, measures of IQ are culture specific.” ——— HnH

MAYBE … when words (language) is involved.

For example, take this test question: “Billy has ten apples. A girl has four apples. What is the difference in the number of apples Johnny has?”

A white person of extreme intelligence (like, Llpoh) would take a few minutes, and answer “six”.

But, Neegrows don’t talk like that. It is confusing language. A Neegrow would day, “the difference is dat Billy is a raaayciss. Dat’s why he got mo’.”

However there is ZERO bias in the following … (if there is, please do tell me what it be).

comment image

Llpoh

Stuck – there have been test after test using the methods you show. Each one says no cultural bias. But that is politically incorrect.

A huge sampling was done of African university students, using methodology as you have shown the symbolic question. Turns out the average IQ of an African college student – the best of their students – is 85. From that the researchers deduced that the average IQ of 65 as had been previously reported and tested was indeed correct. Uh-oh.

When folks with IQs of 85 are your best and brightest, you are fucked.

IndenturedServant

Stucky said:
“However there is ZERO bias in the following … (if there is, please do tell me what it be).”

Uhh…….sum dem squares be white (da rayciss ones) and sum dem squares be black. (da righteous ones)

Zarathustra

I think the best form of government is a wise king, but there is always the problem of succession. I don’t agree at all that IQ should be a qualifier for leadership. Very bright people have a tendency to provide a justification for all of their actions, whether moral or not. It is also true that intelligence and wisdom do not often coincide. The problem is not stupid people in politics but politics itself.

Democracy= two men and a woman voting on whether or not to have sex.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading