37 replies to this topic

[WilliamW]

Paracelse, on 16 June 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Understandably I'm not any of those either, but lets consider a simple comparaison!  Take q dubya with a computed IQ (he never took the test) of 87 , how could he compare to even me who has one of 149?  Sound silly to even attempting to mesure.  I understand now what you are trying to explain, but it is one thing to adapt the laws to create equal rights to all (see above for what I mean by that) and modify the genes of all to create a civ with equal IQ.  Not too mention it would be boring as hell.  I could not longer make fun of the like of dubya; no longer have a bumper sticker saying a village in Texas lost his idiot etc....
It is true that there is something to do to change.  But do you seriously thing UN; US and EU government will change the way things are?  Meaning the creation of a new breed of hungry serfs who works for peanuts?  Furthermore sheeple do not have the IQ to understand that.

You do not understand at all Paracelse. You think 'equal' has to do with IQ ...and since it is not possible for everyone to have the same IQ - we cannot therefore have a world in which everyone is equal. Your IQ cannot even allow you to imagine how to create such a world!

Edited by WilliamW, 16 June 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[karmakazi]

WilliamW, on 16 June 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

"Bull**** - We need not wait that long!  Who told you that? What you do now is power.  We have to make that system sis "

LOL oh that is what you said! Heh.

To answer:  No one told me that, it came from observation.  Human beings all see things different ways through their own individual experience and perception of the world.  Humans have a tendancy to prefer "feeling" right about something over being open minded and accepting the truth.  So, they would argue over how peace could be achieved and it would probably take a thousand years or more for them to finally agree on a method... if they ever agree.  I personally do not need to argue, I'm fine just doing my thing and my life is fairly peaceful.  But I'm aware of the way most people tend to live and think.

WilliamW, on 16 June 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

You do not understand at all Paracelse. You think 'equal' has to do with IQ ...and since it is not possible for everyone to have the same IQ - we cannot therefore have a world in which everyone is equal. Your IQ cannot even allow you to imagine how to create such a world!

It's not that equal has to do with IQ, it is that people of different IQ's have different views of the world and hold different things as being important.  A person of higher IQ  is like a person standing on a hill in a crowd... they can see farther, see what is up ahead, and have a better idea of what the group is doing.  They can figure out more of a situation than those with a lower IQ.  Comparatively, people with a lower IQ aren't as open minded, are less aware of what is going on around them, and do not understand other people as well.  This again is from observation, I see it every day.  I've seen two people with lower IQ have an argument and neither of them realizes that the other person is talking about a similar but different concept, and that is the reason they are arguing.  When I point this out to them, the argument goes away because they then understand each other, are on the same page, and because they aren't talking about conflicting subjects they then agree about each of the two subjects.  It is things like that which would prevent peace.

People cannot be peacefull if they cannot stop arguing, and they cannot stop arguing if they can't even comprehend what the other person is trying to say.  Honestly, it's just human nature.



Many will say they want peace, they want the world to be peaceful and they want there to be no war or fighting.  That we should all just get along...

But we have peace in the places where there is no war actively going on, and when that happens, the people will fight amongst themselves.  People will fight with their family, their spouse's, or even fight in a competitive sense by trying to be the better at something or claiming their "side" is better, whether its a side of religion, politics, or even their team in a sport.  When there is no drama, people look for it and make it up, starting fights because all they understand is drama and violence.

When things are calm, that personality type panics and doesn't know what to do.  They have a need to either be in a fight or be trying to patch up after a fight.  So when things are calm, they will find something to fight about.  In some cases, people I have known like this, they seem to be uncomfortable in their own thoughts... so there always has to be something going on, that way they are distracted from what's really going on in their head.

How do you make a person like that be peaceful?  Without tranquilizers and years of psychiatric help or having a near-deadly or earth shattering life changing event, it isn't possible.

Edited by karmakazi, 16 June 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Paracelse]

karmakazi, on 16 June 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

LOL oh that is what you said! Heh.

To answer:  No one told me that, it came from observation.  Human beings all see things different ways through their own individual experience and perception of the world.  Humans have a tendancy to prefer "feeling" right about something over being open minded and accepting the truth.  So, they would argue over how peace could be achieved and it would probably take a thousand years or more for them to finally agree on a method... if they ever agree.  I personally do not need to argue, I'm fine just doing my thing and my life is fairly peaceful.  But I'm aware of the way most people tend to live and think.




It's not that equal has to do with IQ, it is that people of different IQ's have different views of the world and hold different things as being important.  A person of higher IQ  is like a person standing on a hill in a crowd... they can see farther, see what is up ahead, and have a better idea of what the group is doing.  They can figure out more of a situation than those with a lower IQ.  Comparatively, people with a lower IQ aren't as open minded, are less aware of what is going on around them, and do not understand other people as well.  This again is from observation, I see it every day.  I've seen two people with lower IQ have an argument and neither of them realizes that the other person is talking about a similar but different concept, and that is the reason they are arguing.  When I point this out to them, the argument goes away because they then understand each other, are on the same page, and because they aren't talking about conflicting subjects they then agree about each of the two subjects.  It is things like that which would prevent peace.

People cannot be peacefull if they cannot stop arguing, and they cannot stop arguing if they can't even comprehend what the other person is trying to say.  Honestly, it's just human nature.

Thank you very much

[karmakazi]

Paracelse, on 16 June 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Thank you very much

Aww you're welcome

[ranrod]

Countries have tried communism as a way to get equality for all.  These countries among other things abolished institutionalized religion to help accomplish this.  What they found is that at the end of the day, all they accomplished was replacing one small group of people at the top with another small group of people at the top.  The rest felt oppressed - they were already like that, but communism didn't do anything to change that - it just changed who's oppressing them.

[Paracelse]

ranrod, on 16 June 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Countries have tried communism as a way to get equality for all.  These countries among other things abolished institutionalized religion to help accomplish this.  What they found is that at the end of the day, all they accomplished was replacing one small group of people at the top with another small group of people at the top.  The rest felt oppressed - they were already like that, but communism didn't do anything to change that - it just changed who's oppressing them.

Today the name have changed to socialism (communism + electrecity +internet) but the principal technic remains the same:  reducing the entire population to the lowest common denominator

[WilliamW]

karmakazi, on 16 June 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

LOL oh that is what you said! Heh.

To answer:  No one told me that, it came from observation.  Human beings all see things different ways through their own individual experience and perception of the world.  Humans have a tendancy to prefer "feeling" right about something over being open minded and accepting the truth.  So, they would argue over how peace could be achieved and it would probably take a thousand years or more for them to finally agree on a method... if they ever agree.  I personally do not need to argue, I'm fine just doing my thing and my life is fairly peaceful.  But I'm aware of the way most people tend to live and think.




It's not that equal has to do with IQ, it is that people of different IQ's have different views of the world and hold different things as being important.  A person of higher IQ  is like a person standing on a hill in a crowd... they can see farther, see what is up ahead, and have a better idea of what the group is doing.  They can figure out more of a situation than those with a lower IQ.  Comparatively, people with a lower IQ aren't as open minded, are less aware of what is going on around them, and do not understand other people as well.  This again is from observation, I see it every day.  I've seen two people with lower IQ have an argument and neither of them realizes that the other person is talking about a similar but different concept, and that is the reason they are arguing.  When I point this out to them, the argument goes away because they then understand each other, are on the same page, and because they aren't talking about conflicting subjects they then agree about each of the two subjects.  It is things like that which would prevent peace.

People cannot be peacefull if they cannot stop arguing, and they cannot stop arguing if they can't even comprehend what the other person is trying to say.  Honestly, it's just human nature.



Many will say they want peace, they want the world to be peaceful and they want there to be no war or fighting.  That we should all just get along...

But we have peace in the places where there is no war actively going on, and when that happens, the people will fight amongst themselves.  People will fight with their family, their spouse's, or even fight in a competitive sense by trying to be the better at something or claiming their "side" is better, whether its a side of religion, politics, or even their team in a sport.  When there is no drama, people look for it and make it up, starting fights because all they understand is drama and violence.

When things are calm, that personality type panics and doesn't know what to do.  They have a need to either be in a fight or be trying to patch up after a fight.  So when things are calm, they will find something to fight about.  In some cases, people I have known like this, they seem to be uncomfortable in their own thoughts... so there always has to be something going on, that way they are distracted from what's really going on in their head.

How do you make a person like that be peaceful?  Without tranquilizers and years of psychiatric help or having a near-deadly or earth shattering life changing event, it isn't possible.

Yes.  So we can look at this problem and ask 'how'.  but in relation to the imagined thread topic and OP, something has injected itself into the 'program' and given a
challenge.
If as you suggest, people with greater IQ's are a 'atop a hill' then it should be relatively easy for them to work this out and present that workable solution yes?


So why are they not?  Is it because, as you suggest, the world is too full of argumentative individuals of poor IQ and the high IQers don;t know what to do about it or believe that nothing can be done about it?

Or perhaps the high IQers simply see an opportunity to use ignorance to advantage their own agenda?

Another thing...do high IQers avoid participating in stupid argument?

Edited by WilliamW, 17 June 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[WilliamW]

ranrod, on 16 June 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Countries have tried communism as a way to get equality for all.  These countries among other things abolished institutionalized religion to help accomplish this.  What they found is that at the end of the day, all they accomplished was replacing one small group of people at the top with another small group of people at the top.  The rest felt oppressed - they were already like that, but communism didn't do anything to change that - it just changed who's oppressing them.

This is true.  But then it cannot be said that this is a great example of communism.  True communism has never actually been instituted in any major social setting.  The example is more that of capitalism at its worst.

[WilliamW]

I have explained why I used the 'wingless flying/floating objests' because there is a great deal of interest and belief systems built up around these.  UFO.

Partly my question is,, IF these things actually exist, WHY don't they do something simple like the imaginative example I gave to start the topic off?

I did offer a couple of reasons why they might not (should they exist) - I also explained that such a thing happening would 'excite' the 'low IQers' - and give them a reason to consolidate and help make it so - it was said by Paracelse:

Quote

But do you seriously thing UN; US and EU government will change the way things are?

This is interesting.  This tells me that the high IQers - the WIN side of this WIN_LOSE system have a vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are and thus are using the gift of high IQ to manipulate the losers and advantage their own agenda, which smacks of conspiracy, but still...is worth pondering.  Perhaps it IS conspiracy...the thought or belief which Paracelse expressed is rooted in conspiracy and has no bearing on the truth of the situation we all share?
Thus. should these wingless craft appear and send out the message, all that will happen is these Winners will be forced to take off their costumes and masks and show themselves as the utter b******* they really are, high IQs and all.



Indeed, a major part of the problem is that the numbers of losers is extremely higher than the number of winners, and if something like this was to occur, the winners might even lose their influence over those who represent the wall between 'Winners and Losers' - the armed forces which control the losers on behalf of the winners.

This has always been a concern with the winners.  The losers are breeding and while this has been a good thing in respect to the winners having great numbers of losers to enhance and enrich their own agenda, by  controlling through force and other more subtle methods, the losers - and the losers are very, very dangerous.

So far though, the feedback on this thread has been 'it can't be done' and the reasons given are themselves confined to limited ability to think outside the box of the WIN_LOSE system and show that even with higher IQs, those IQs are under suppression and control of the WIN.

Perhaps I therefore need to give my own thoughts on HOW it can be done...and maybe those IQs might re-evaluate and add to the idea - their own input...

Edited by WilliamW, 17 June 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[Paracelse]

WilliamW, on 17 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

This is true.  But then it cannot be said that this is a great example of communism.  True communism has never actually been instituted in any major social setting.  The example is more that of capitalism at its worst.

True capitalism has never been instituted either, only oligarchies at their worst.  True communism can't exist in a true world because, as stated above already it is reductionist.   But attempting to explain this to will be an impossible task. A comedian once wrote:  Capitalism (I'm sure he meant oligarchies) is the oppression of man by man, communism is the opposite.

[karmakazi]

WilliamW, on 17 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Yes.  So we can look at this problem and ask 'how'.  but in relation to the imagined thread topic and OP, something has injected itself into the 'program' and given a
challenge.
If as you suggest, people with greater IQ's are a 'atop a hill' then it should be relatively easy for them to work this out and present that workable solution yes?

If anyone bothered to listen to them, yes.

Quote

So why are they not?  Is it because, as you suggest, the world is too full of argumentative individuals of poor IQ and the high IQers don;t know what to do about it or believe that nothing can be done about it?

Well I wasn't saying that average iq makes a person argumentative, I was saying that it makes them less able to comprehend the source of the argument and solve it.  High IQ people can be just as argumentative.

Anyway...   yes it kind of seems hopeless to get the billions of people in the world to all agree to work together and have peace.  Even with in a country, within a state, within a city, within a block people can't get along, let alone at a global level.

Bottom line is people are far to wrapped up in themselves and their own interests.  People HAVE tried to solve it and to help, and how far has their influence gotten?

For example;

Jesus taught that we should turn the other cheek.  When someone steals your coat, give him also your shoes.  If everyone practiced this one simple idea, there would be peace.
Instead, people are far too busy discussing/arguing the minutia of the various religions or lack of religions and their relation to Christianity.

All it would take would be for every human being to actively practice humility, honesty, patience and compassion for all others.  But getting billions of people to see it that way, and to actively do so in every day life without letting the little stressors get them worked up...not likely to happen.

Quote

Or perhaps the high IQers simply see an opportunity to use ignorance to advantage their own agenda?

Another thing...do high IQers avoid participating in stupid argument?

It depends on the person.  IQ doesn't make someone infalliable, so they have the potential to help or harm others, just like anyone else.

[ranrod]

Paracelse, on 17 June 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

True capitalism has never been instituted either, only oligarchies at their worst.  True communism can't exist in a true world because, as stated above already it is reductionist.   But attempting to explain this to will be an impossible task. A comedian once wrote:  Capitalism (I'm sure he meant oligarchies) is the oppression of man by man, communism is the opposite.

England in the late 1800's came close to true capitalism.  Ended up being a disaster for the populace and government limits were quickly imposed.  True Communism exists in some tribes in Africa (or the last time I checked in the early 90's) - I think it works on a small scale, but not otherwise.

I'll add that inherent difference in human beings make it difficult to create equality.  I assume we're talking about equality under the law, and equality of treatment, as opposed to "make all people the same".  Stronger people will be better at certain things and 'should' have priority for those things, smarter people will be better at certain things, etc.  Equality would create unfair situations.

I think it goes against the grain of our beings.  As humans we think hierarchically about ourselves (this is my speculation).  We strive to get to a better place.  We thrive on it.  It leads to advances in sciences, physical performance, art, etc.  It's a good thing, as long as everyone has a fair shot at "moving up".

I believe changing this would be changing our human nature.  However, I think we can do better in terms of governing ourselves in a fair manner that benefits the populace.

To achieve the request of the OP's aliens, we would need a radical change such as genetic engineering.

[Paracelse]

ranrod, on 17 June 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

England in the late 1800's came close to true capitalism.  Ended up being a disaster for the populace and government limits were quickly imposed.  True Communism exists in some tribes in Africa (or the last time I checked in the early 90's) - I think it works on a small scale, but not otherwise.

I'll add that inherent difference in human beings make it difficult to create equality.  I assume we're talking about equality under the law, and equality of treatment, as opposed to "make all people the same".  Stronger people will be better at certain things and 'should' have priority for those things, smarter people will be better at certain things, etc.  Equality would create unfair situations.

I think it goes against the grain of our beings.  As humans we think hierarchically about ourselves (this is my speculation).  We strive to get to a better place.  We thrive on it.  It leads to advances in sciences, physical performance, art, etc.  It's a good thing, as long as everyone has a fair shot at "moving up".

I believe changing this would be changing our human nature.  However, I think we can do better in terms of governing ourselves in a fair manner that benefits the populace.

To achieve the request of the OP's aliens, we would need a radical change such as genetic engineering.

The American West, California not included, proved that on a small scale Capitalism worked very well also until the bankster showed they ugly faces.  What does it mean?  Time to go back to City States?  Kick UN out?  Sounds tempting.  You would elect your communist community and buy goods from the capitalists' one.. Adam Smith would prolly wake up of joy.

[WilliamW]

Any Value System which is not based upon the basic right of every human being to be provided food clothing shelter and health is a Value System which is corrupt.  No such value system has yet had its chance to prove its worth.

In this day an age – like no other time in human history we have a small window of opportunity in which to instigate a complete change in the way we have been taught to think and to act.

As I write this, the topic thread has had 451 views and those who have made replies have all argued against it based upon failed systems in history, that equality has to be measured by IQ and since the majority of people have low IQs then we cannot be equal, that it would take 1000 years for people to even get on the same page and these number of reasons amount to ‘it can’t be done’.

Argument including ‘making people do something they don’t want to do’  Who would not want to be equal with everyone else?  Only those who are now more equal than everybody else?

Also, ‘religious people would have a problem with it.  Which religious people?  To my knowledge the basic teachings of most if not all religions in general support equality for everyone, so they are unlikely to complain.

Argument that IQs are not equal so therefore we cannot be equal.  Where is the intelligence in such an expression?  IQs are traditionally based on mathematical ability and while everyone does not have the same ‘smarts’ – to believe that we cannot have a true and working system of equality because of this is not smart at all.  It is not even logical.

Another argument.  There are ‘bad’ people and it would not matter how fair a system is for everyone, the ‘bad’ people will stuff it up for the rest and they cannot change the way they behave.
Okay – if you suggested that and are arguing for your own limitations, then this does not imply that we cannot have an equal system because you won’t let that happen – you wont change you behaviour.  If you are arguing another’s limitations – that they are bad an unchangeable, then present the science that supports this to be so…it will be difficult to do because we have never as a specie in our whole history had the opportunity or inclination to make such a system a reality so have no evidence to support such a claim or claims regarding ‘bad’ people.
Here are some facts.

We live on a planet of finite resource but even so there is still at present plenty for everyone to have equal portion of.
We build the infrastructures, the housing, we grow the food, we making the clothing.
We do all of this AND charge ourselves for the right to have these things that we do.
That is insane!

It is also curable.

Certainly as we evolved from small scatted tribal ‘families’ we had to have some kind of systems in place and we know well enough now that certain members of that ‘family’ had the smarts to make good decisions which helped the whole.

The ‘sheeple’ as ‘Paracelse’ referred to those without adequate IQ – they venerated the smart ones and made them ‘leader’ and those leaders – using their smarts found ways of manipulating his/her family and getting a bigger share of the resources…thus corruption.

Historically we know how this particular strategy always works out, and yet the ‘sheeple’ still don’t get it and might never get it.

So how smart is it to take advantage of the disadvantaged?

Is this a moral issue?

Or is it more about using ones smarts to actually help the disadvantaged because ultimately that is the smartest thing the smart can do?

So how easy is it to take candy from a baby?  How smart is it?  Is it a form of theft?

Is it correct to assume that it must be okay to behave this way and that it is not ‘bad’ and even if it was, no one or thing is stopping this from happening so because there is no one to stop the smart people from stealing from their dumb cousins, it is acceptable?
Can such a value system go on indefinitely?

Have we actually even got 1000 years to get on the same page?  Does IQ say so?

Every person on this planet has the right to food clothing shelter and health.  We are told by some that ‘god’ gave us life but then demanded that we pay for it.  Did any such god really say so or is this another story smart people have told their dumb siblings?

Are sceptics guiltless of the same attitude?

As I said – we all create everything and could share it equally if those smart people so choose to do so – because those smart people have wangled their way into positions of control and they are the only ones who can endorse such a system if they so chose to.  Sure, dumb people can dream about such a thing…or assume it could never happen because smart people just wont want to do something which makes them equal with everyone…or they simply believe in the god concepts smart people have created to give them hope that justice will prevail, even if that means superman Jesus has to come and remove the offending controllers so that it can be possible.

And while the dummies continue to believe in that, smart people laugh at such ignorance and get about living off the dreams of the stupid ‘sheeple’.

As to the ‘wingless intelligent craft’ mentioned in the OP and further mentioned as ‘Aliens’ in this thread…that they should be aware that human beings won’t be able to instigate any sort of system of equality and that ‘equality is a myth’ and if they were so knowledgeable they should know this…I am not even sure that this point is smart or relevant.
Why ‘should they know this’?
How do we even know how they themselves might coexist?  Perhaps they know it can be achieved because that is how they do things.

Who are we to say that every species must have to live under a system of ‘smart rule the stupid’?  We might assume that evolution forces this upon all biological beings which have such intelligence etc…but perhaps also if such beings don’t work out that such a thing cannot go on indefinitely – it has a use-by date – and that a fairer system which is impervious (to the corruption of the smart using those who are not so smart to their own advantage) is actually necessary for that species survival…so maybe ‘aliens’ have worked that out and changed their system accordingly.

You do the math brother and sister big IQ.

Is the system you endorse right now, smart enough to preserve itself and eventually reach the stars?

[Paracelse]

WilliamW, on 17 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Any Value System which is not based upon the basic right of every human being to be provided food clothing shelter and health is a Value System which is corrupt.  No such value system has yet had its chance to prove its worth.

Those are not rights they are priviledges and as soon as one goes into this kind of mistakes the systeme becomes flawed as any one will expect things for free.  I can see it everyday in France since I moved there few years back and yesterday's election just proved me right.