3 ms·

The people with high IQ may vote to further the interests of people with high IQ, effectively oppressing the people with low IQ.

cbsks 3y ago
> the interests of people with high IQ What would that be? More library funding? NASA? NSF?
- pard68 3y ago
  Smart people are equally greedy and corruptable.
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    And have greater ability to leverage that in to oppression of others. This entire idea if IQ or "smart" as somehow better has tried and failed repeatedly in history. There is no benevolent ruler, as they will get displaced in short order.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  Let's say for the sake of argument that people with high IQ are more likely to have white-collar jobs which rely on intellectual ability, and people with low IQ are more likely to have jobs consisting mostly of manual labor. I would expect jobs to be distributed this way even in a theoretical society where IQ was a perfect measure of true intelligence, and where manual labor was respected and not necessarily lower-paid. It stands to reason that the white-collar, high IQ voters would be less concerned with policies which affect manual laborers. These could include workplace safety protections, certification requirements, etc.
nemoniac 3y ago
Even with one-person-one-vote voting systems people often vote to further their own interests, sometimes to the detriment of minorities.
sottol 3y ago
Too lazy/tired to work it out in detail but afair IQ is normally distributed so I don't think this linear weighting would bring high IQ much if any advantage vs the average person when weighted by sample count (because there's so many more average people). But the low IQ population would be seriously at a disadvantage vs the average and high IQ populations.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  We're saying the same thing, it just depends on where you put the groupings. The top 50% of the bell curve would have outsized voting power compared to the bottom 50% (which is what I meant by "high" vs "low").

cbsks 3y ago

> the interests of people with high IQ What would that be? More library funding? NASA? NSF?

pard68 3y ago
Smart people are equally greedy and corruptable.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  And have greater ability to leverage that in to oppression of others. This entire idea if IQ or "smart" as somehow better has tried and failed repeatedly in history. There is no benevolent ruler, as they will get displaced in short order.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
Let's say for the sake of argument that people with high IQ are more likely to have white-collar jobs which rely on intellectual ability, and people with low IQ are more likely to have jobs consisting mostly of manual labor. I would expect jobs to be distributed this way even in a theoretical society where IQ was a perfect measure of true intelligence, and where manual labor was respected and not necessarily lower-paid. It stands to reason that the white-collar, high IQ voters would be less concerned with policies which affect manual laborers. These could include workplace safety protections, certification requirements, etc.

nemoniac 3y ago

Even with one-person-one-vote voting systems people often vote to further their own interests, sometimes to the detriment of minorities.

sottol 3y ago

Too lazy/tired to work it out in detail but afair IQ is normally distributed so I don't think this linear weighting would bring high IQ much if any advantage vs the average person when weighted by sample count (because there's so many more average people). But the low IQ population would be seriously at a disadvantage vs the average and high IQ populations.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
We're saying the same thing, it just depends on where you put the groupings. The top 50% of the bell curve would have outsized voting power compared to the bottom 50% (which is what I meant by "high" vs "low").