Selecting geniuses to lead us...

Post Reply New Topic

With all the talk in the air about systemic collapse, I was thinking about the Roman Empire. Rome's best days were when the Five Good Emperors reigned. A quirk in Roman law allowed an emperor who had no sons to select anybody he so wished to take his place upon his death. Rome lucked out in that the first time this happened, the emperor was pretty smart, and decided to institute a large search for the smartest Roman in the empire, and make him emperor. So the pattern was set. The smartest Roman became emperor, and had no sons, so he selected the smartest Roman of the next generation to replace him. When Marcus Aurelius had a son, the system broke down. Even worse, Junior was the George W. Bush of emperors. After that, Rome never recovered, and it was pretty much downhill skiing from there.

So, what does that mean for us? We've selected world leaders based on appearance and rhetoric for quite sometime now, and the system has failed. We obviously need a new way of doing things. Meanwhile, 20% of high school dropouts in the US test above average in IQ, and some are real bona fide geniuses. What a waste!

So we need a system to identify the smartest people, groom them for leadership, then hand the reins over to them. The next smartest can be like a House of Lords and advise the smartest. The rabble would still elect idiots, but the Idiot Council would only be advisory, the Lords and the top guns could discard their stupid advice at whim (after saying good doggie, of course). The Lords would have much more say. Instead of Idiocracy we'd have Geniusocracy.

The problem is, how do we select the geniuses? IQ testing is good, but it has flaws. Probably several types of tests would need to be done, then a weighted score given. And we should do this around age 13 or 14, by which time intelligence is pretty much set. Then the smartest would lead us. Also, we'd have to convince the idiots to give up power, which is never easy. There's a risk that the idiots would corrupt the process. But it's a starting point. Why mess with the human genome when we have genius going to waste right now?

No thanks, I'm not interested in the job.

The guys in charge of the major financial institutions were very well paid and very smart. But their motivations were not in line with the welfare of the entire community. Intelligence isn't the only criteria for wisdom.

Interesting...can you cite that? I've noticed that a lot of the smart people in the working class can't get through high school, but I'd love to see some actual evidence to back it up.

Gee, and if only 20% of high school dropouts have above average IQ, that means they are, on average, dumber than high school grads after all.

Right, but the question is whether it's interesting that such a large number of above average people are dropping out of highschool in the first place. I mean, it takes, *roughly* the brains of a very talented possum to get through highschool. I mean, no one is going to contend that highschool dropouts will be disproportionately made out of dumber people, but that doesn't mean there aren't more interesting things going on amongst their ranks.

It's from the Time magazine article "Are we failing our geniuses?" from 2007. If you search for the Davidson Academy of Nevada, which is a school for genius kids, they have the Time link on their webpage. The article focused on kids who attend that school. I don't know where Time got that statistic, however. The article makes for some interesting reading, especially how one girl from Texas couldn't find any school willing to teach her above "grade level", meaning that she'd get dumbed down work deemed appropriate for average 13 year olds, but she has a genius IQ. She eventually enrolled in Davidson. A boy went from Australia to England, where he was beaten by other boys, and finally to the US.

Why have Head of States in the first place? It seems a bit stupid to give so much power to one man.

I think that sums it up in a nutshell... there are plenty of people who are smart enough to do the job well who have no interest, simply because of all the BS that goes along with the job...

Have you seen the before and after pictures of presidents, and how much they age over 4 years on the job? What sane person would want that?

so the job goes to the one who can convince the most people he's the best guy for the job, a skill which has nothing to do with the skills needed to run the country...

I've quoted it before, but I'll do it again. I really think Douglas Adams summed it up the best:

"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

This is an interesting concept, but I have only known two bonafide geniuses, and although they were both wonderful people and devoted friends, neither of them seemed to be able to run their own life much less anything else.

The ability to lead a country depends on a lot more than merely being intelligent. You need charisma, you need cunning, you need a sense of justice, you need charisma. And most importantly, you need charisma.

To cite someone who would have turned the job down flat:

"The job of President is not to weild power, but to draw attention away from it..."