IQ and psychometric testing...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=110673
Printed Date: April 28 2024 at 01:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: IQ and psychometric testing...
Posted By: Blacksword
Subject: IQ and psychometric testing...
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 03:40
|
There are those who believe that Donald Trump is not intellectually capable of being president. Some believed that Hillary was too much of a self serving psychopath to do the job. Should all nominees, or at least those who end up being chosen by their respective parties, then undergo an IQ test and personality profiling to make sure they are not as thick as pig sh*t, and/or dangerously psychotic? It's often said that the beauty of the US system is that technically speaking 'anyone can be president' Recent events have perhaps suggested this is indeed the case. But is this right, or is it stuck up and elitist to believe that only people capable of doing the job should be allowed to do it? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Replies:
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 04:50
|
That would make the election process even more of joke than it is now. Why not just put every willing citizen into such a test and pick the one who scores the highest? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 09:04
|
I would like to see the most rational in office, and would like systems that encourage more rationality and far less ignorance in voters. Although it would be rife for terrible abuse, in the past I have favoured tests to determine eligibility to vote. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 09:23
|
IQ test and psychometric testing are a load of old bollocks and should never be used to assess anyone for anything. I would happily throw both these charlatans on the dung heap of pseudo-scientific bullsh*t along with astrology, alchemy and philosophy. The OT and poll is based upon the premise that Trump and Clinton (or Blair and Thatcher come to that) would fail one or other (or both) of these assessment tests, and I'm not so sure that they would. ------------- What? |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 09:45
|
As a voting citizen, I would be glad if the next French president could be mentally stable and not being eaten by his/her own ambition and some weird and dangerous ideas. On the other hand, Macron looks like he's intelligent and mentally stable, but... who wants to vote for "my perfect cousin"? In fact, if our leaders were surrounded by competent, intelligent, honest people, I wouldn't mind having a president a bit "excentric" (as long as we don't find him making dirty jokes such as the story of the snake and the cowgirl in front of the UNO). When I look back at the Sarkoy era, I see a dishonest, authoritarian and megalomaniac president surrounded by ambitious, opportunistic and treacherous fools, with some of them being clearly incompetent: some laws had been rejected by the Constitutional Court, just because of major defaults in the writing of these said laws! Not to talk about the fact that Sarkozy messed up the French intelligence services when he tried to reorganize it with his usual subtlety... He may have been intelligent, but only used his intelligence to be the Boss, like any good little Wall Street "wolf" could have done it... |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 10:34
|
probs ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 10:35
|
Rater than IQ and psychometric testing, perhaps there could be other tests to qualify for the presidency. Just as I would rather like knowledge tests for potential voters (though the biases of such tests could be very problematic and rife for abuse), perhaps for someone to qualify for running for president/ Prime Minister etc. they should pass exams. I would also like some sort of internship/ residency for those interested in the position. You can't practice medicine without passing your medical exams, earning your degree, going through residency and becoming licensed. Maybe we should expect as much rigour in preparing for politics. If we must have politicians, I think I'd rather the political leader come from the civil servants/ bureaucracy. If we could ensure that good, sane, and knowledgeable people surrounded the President then it wouldn't matter so much. The system of checks and balances is not working well enough. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 10:56
|
Anyone with a PPE degree should automatically be disqualified from holding a governmental post. Hell, I'm not sure I'd want anyone with that qualification in any position of responsibility or having anything to to with handling money (so that includes anything in retail, even flipping burgers in Micky-Ds). The world always needs bog-cleaners, though even that may be too good for such wastrels. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 11:08
|
I'd rather a PPE Oxford graduate running America than Trump with his economics degree. It's time to make America British again. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 11:24
|
Perhaps I should have said, anyone with a Philosophy, Politics or Economics degree, or combinations thereof as I don't see any of them as being ideal qualifications for running a country... but especially anyone who thought a PPE degree was the best meal-ticket for a career in politics and have never had a "proper job". ------------- What? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 03 2017 at 11:49
|
To be Platonic, but only Philosopher Kings can understand truth and the greater good. ;) I usually associate politicians with law degrees, but In England the PPE degrees (especially from Oxford) are considered to be fast tickets to political office. I loved studying Philosophy, but ideally the arts should be studied in tandem with the sciences. I'd like to see more mathematicians and physicists in office. EDIT: I think law and engineering are two of the best academic backgrounds for office. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 04 2017 at 11:32
|
many of those who are elected as priminister in Norway either has economic degress or law, very few with higher then five years of completed education ( master) or even three year (bachelor), Gro Harlem who were our priminister in the 90s had a PhD in medicine i think. Our current pope has a master degree in chemistry... more qulified then current president of US accademicly. -------------  
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 04 2017 at 11:34
|
Would a candidate with master degree in political science be good qualified as head of state? -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 04 2017 at 12:03
|
Any person who has even been the star of a reality TV show should be automatically disqualified. We would lose a few candidates. Any person who believes Jesus rode a dinosaur should be automatically disqualified. Over 40% of people couldn't be candidates then. ------------- 
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 04 2017 at 13:49
 The sad thing is that there are plenty of people who believe such religious nonsense. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
The T wrote:Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 04 2017 at 23:15
I'd automatically disqualify anyone who believed stories of taking snakes & bushes and/or who worshipped a zombie, so that's 70% of the population. Which means you're gonna be ruled by buddhists, atheists and hindus but those three tend to play nice together so maybe that's a good thing. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 04 2017 at 23:16
Nope. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 05 2017 at 01:33
I guess my utter contempt for philosophers (and by inference philosophy) is well known here. Just as the academic study of history is an adequate qualification for observing and commenting upon past historical events, but a piss-poor one for creating new historical events, the study of philosophy, which I'm sure it is enormous fun, is an adequate qualification for observing and commenting on the activities of politicians and governments but it is wholly inadequate for being one. I regard the academic study of politics and/or economics in exactly the same way. Terrific if you want to be a journalist but of no value if you want to run a country. [If anyone thinks that they'd like to be governed by an economist probably hasn't worked for company run by an accountant.]
Not sure. Margaret Hilda Thatcher was a Chemist (afaik, the closest we ever got to having an engineer as PM), Theresa Mary May has a BA in Geography (so I presume she can name the other 27 countries of the EU at least) and the last lawyer to be PM was Anthony Charles Lynton Blair... so not the greatest track record there then. There is an adage that engineers don't make good managers because they are more interested in engineering than they are in management which makes them too goal-driven, and that is partly true. As an ex-engineering manager I was a "player-manager" and have been told by those who worked for me that I did okay as a manager even though I actually didn't like managing people. If asked to choose a CEO from list of candidates that included an engineer, an accountant and a salesman I'd probably pick the salesman first, then the engineer. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 05 2017 at 02:59
|
There are many forms of intellect. Just because the prez is nifty with numbers doesn't necessarily mean he understands the emotional turmoil of a bleeding vagina once a month. It also doesn't qualify her as someone who can discuss quantum physics and X factor gossip with equal elegance. One of out most beloved physicist here in Denmark is named Holger Bech Nielsen. The man is an absolute genius when it comes to math, physics and how the universe works. He can dance with the best of em and he is furthermore a brilliant conveyor of knowledge - making complex theories appear simple to laymen such as myself. He knows all of this 'stuff' yet can't for the life of him tie his own shoelaces. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 05 2017 at 04:43
|
Ok, ok...so there's no winning formula for the perfect politico. Maybe the best bet is merely for a good diplomat to surround him or herself with good accountants, lawyers, engineers and military strategists and then hope for the best. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 05 2017 at 05:51
|
I have known people who were engineers who I thought to be great managers (say as COOs). I'm biased of course, but my wife, who is a chemical engineer, I thought was an excellent manager/director, but I can't infer too much based on my limited experience and inherent biases. A good manager should be widely respected and respectable, and a lot of that has to do with being seen to be fair. It depends on the person. CEOs often require salesmanship because sales is an important part, and to appeal to shareholders. There are good salespeople and those who are bullsh*t artists. Politicians tend to be salespeople, despite what they formally studied, but I harbor some disdain for salespeople including politicians. There is no one type of academic background that makes one great for office, though I would think that someone who has a great deal of general knowledge and a general love of learning including re-evaluating and scrutinising their opinions as well as those of the party is more likely to do good for the country, I think. I would like a so-called Renaissance man or woman in office, and someone with integrity and compassion who is not just self-serving. It is indeed important for the leader to be surrounded by knowledgeable people, and the person should be receptive to a wide range of opinions. It requires a pretty open-minded politician who is interested in the pursuit of truth, for one thing. Someone like Trump is not. He seems anti-science for one thing, and doesn't try to appeal to the most rational of people, and chooses people based on his own biases, agenda, personality traits etc. Trump is an egotistical bullsh*t artist. As for my philosophical interests, the people who I find that I tend to turn to most to satisfy those interests of mine are often primarily psychologists. Philosophy is a very wide "non-discipline" and intersects with many planes of studies. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 05 2017 at 07:33
Alas, and per actual surveys, in the US people would first elect an actual murderer before an atheist.  -------------
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: April 22 2017 at 12:46
|
Atheism is why the west is in such a mess right now |
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: April 23 2017 at 01:08
|
^How so? ------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 23 2017 at 02:00
|
^ by not being muslims & xtians probably. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 23 2017 at 02:04
| ^^ Do you even have to ask? The Saracen are invading Europe and atheists aren't going to stop them. |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 23 2017 at 02:15
| ........no bother........ |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 23 2017 at 06:22
if you weren't known as a troll... that might beg for an explanation... I'd tend to say runaway materialism and Capitalism has done far more to create the mess and economic and social decline here than a bunch of bible beaters taking their religion and trying to legislate their beliefs and their morality on others has. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 24 2017 at 12:57
1. What 2. Why do you say it's a "mess"? As compared to, what, the 1800s? The 1900s? The 60s? 3. What -------------
|