What is the problem with democracy? Well put most simply, this...



Since in democratic systems vote determines decisions, decisions will always reflect the mean intelligence at the middle of the bell-curve. If any problem encountered by such a system is difficult to grasp without a high IQ then chances are the system will not be able to solve it. You might have wondered why democracies tend to wrestle with the same problems over and over again. This is part of the reason; solving many of those problems requires intelligence and intelligence is not reflected in a system ruled by the majority.

Of course, one might argue that few vote controlled polities are truly democratic. Instead they are Republican and rule through elected representatives. But such systems face the same problem in different ways. If there is an intelligent candidate who can actually solve some problems then the majority will be too stupid to appreciate his or her solutions. Instead, they will cast their vote for people with ideas they can easily understand and which have catchy names like 999. Another problem with Republican forms is the increased effectiveness of propaganda on stupid people. Since the majority of the vote comes from those of low to moderate intelligence one can reason that the vote will be largely a function of the information the media and other propaganda centers disseminate.

I am of course not the first to point this out. Socrates criticized the Athenian democracy on similar grounds and this was one of the reasons the Athenians had him executed. People react strongly to any critique of democracy because they associate democracy with freedom, however, that freedom is an illusion. All democracy does is put the middle of the bell curve in charge. But are the dummies even really in charge? As I mentioned previously, those of low intelligence are easily manipulated. An intelligent person can see the fallacies in a piece of propaganda, but as IQ decreases so does the chance of recognizing such baloney. As a result one can safely assume that any democratic institution will likely be run by those with the resources to disseminate propaganda and influence the middle of the bell curve in their favor. Although I am not intimately familiar with other countries this is assuredly the case in America where the government and its policies entirely a reflect the desires of large corporations and other vested financial interests.

One thing my critics will attack is IQ and many such critiques are valid. IQ is certainly not a perfect predictor of intelligence. For example, Richard Feynman's IQ is lower than mine despite the fact that he was a genius and I, most likely, am not. However, the flaws in IQ as a measurement are irrelevant to my argument. Regardless of such flaws there still exists a human faculty called intelligence that allows us to grasp complex ideas and see through bull shit. Unless that attribute is different from every other human faculty and nearly everything we measure in nature, then it lies along a bell curve and all my conclusions remain valid. We don't need a complete understanding of what intelligence is to safely assume that the majority of the population lacks it in any high degree.

When all other critiques run dry, one can always criticize me for not having a solution. Of course, the fact that I don't have a good replacement for democracy invalidates nothing mentioned above. Although I would love to have a solution, they are hard to come by in this area. One can not impose some draconian IQ law for voting and many other nondemocratic systems have resulted in consequences far worse than any stemming from democracies. The only system I can think of which may be an improvement on democracy is a radical confederacy. Such a system would allow a diversity of polities and in such a setting of diversity a better system than Republican democracy might arise. Unfortunately a confederated state is very unlikely to evolve considering the tendency of most states to move toward higher and higher degrees of central control.

tldr: democracy = tyranny of the derp
inb4: OP just thinks this because he thinks he is smart: My own intelligence is entirely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my thesis. For example, were I to perform a frontal lobotomy on myself, one could see that the observations made above remain entirely unaffected despite my loss of intellectual faculty.

Scumbag_Brain wrote:If any problem encountered by such a system is difficult to grasp without a high IQ then chances are the system will not be able to solve it.

This requires further demonstration. Whatever IQ scores measure (and, my understanding is that IQ is a good predictor of academic performance, but not much beyond that), the tests are standardized such that an average member of a given society scores around 100. If everyone on the planet was twice as effective at solving IQ test questions, the average IQ would still be defined at 100.

Besides which, I would not have any problem calling every conscious human intelligent, regardless of IQ, Compared to most living beings, they are. Is 100 IQ too dumb to vote? Prove it.

Another problem with Republican forms is the increased effectiveness of propaganda on stupid people.

This statement, too, requires proof. For instance, con-artists are skilled at manipulating even so-called "intelligent" individuals into doing ridiculous things.

An IQ test does not directly measure gullibility. If it does so indirectly, show me the evidence.

Socrates criticized the Athenian democracy on similar grounds and this was one of the reasons the Athenians had him executed.

A bit nitpicky, but it was Plato who wrote "The Republic", well after Socrates was killed. He never forgave the democracy for its judicial murder of his mentor. Socrates was charged with atheism and corrupting the youth, and was basically a scapegoat for Athens' wartime defeat.

Unlike the earlier works of Plato, Socrates was purely fictionalized by the time of "The Republic".

Of course, one might argue that few vote controlled polities are truly democratic.

Most are aristocracies, plain and simple. In America it's blatant. You make a decision between essentially two members of the priveleged elite class -- and often the final winner is the rich and well-connected [person] who has the most funding. Large corporations have the power to fire a politician who doesn't exclusively do what they want. How else would you describe withholding campaign funds?

All choices are equally poor. If we were in a society composed exclusively of of super-geniuses (relative to us), I don't see how it would change anything. If there were actually some real differences between the parties, only then would votes matter in the first place.

To...put a little spin on the words used in the original post and this topic:

The flaw of Democracy is that wisdom is sacrificed by the fame the system requires to provide any beneficial act.

Many individuals with significant intelligence or wisdom could understand the truth which is referenced by the original post of this thread. However, as noted above, I do not believe that the Intelligence Quotient is the proper method to do so. A better method would be to examine history and the troubles which confronted democratic nations. How those nations chose to solve their problems, by vote, would be a better indication of how a democracy performs when confronted with some kind of difficulty or obstacle.

However, the government of the United States of America is not only democratic. The system of electing representatives is a democratic one, but the representatives themselves fill positions in a republican lattice of authority. ...and changing this paradigm is not a decision which I am in favor of.

Perhaps if our entire nation were some tiny back-water village which was ruled by the wisest and strongest leaders of our tribe then certain decisions and acts might be better and wiser in all ways for our nation. However, such a system would also mean that the issuance of a bill would be to family members, rather than elected officials. Personal family politics brings its own form of trouble into political arenas.

Also, we should not forget that our elected leaders are human beings. If they read their mail, and we are polite, encouraging them to do what we, or they, feel is right and wise should not be so...impossible of a task.

Don't take this as a sign that I didn't read the entire post;

democracy = tyranny of the derp

That made me chuckle, and after an eighteen hour work shift that's hard to do for me.

Anyway with all that in mind, democracy is not functionally faulty by default, there is a serious factor of scale involved. If we were to calculate a z-score for the data set of the bell curve and find tabulated rejection zones for the model, we would find that as the sample population decreases the rejection zones recede. This can be represented as an increased level of accountability on the part of the citizens. It statistically concurrent with your evidence, Scumbag_Brain, that as population decreases a republican form of democracy increases in effectiveness provided they maintain proper institutions.

Now, in my personal opinion(this is philosophy I'm about to drop, so it's all opinion at this point), where a democracy of any kind fails are the very ideas upon which democracy is based. The Lockian concepts of 'natural rights' and the 'social contract' are fallacious theories that are based upon some rosy idea that humanity is somehow above the power of nature to harm it, hell, above nature itself. The fact is that at a natural level, neither the rest of the world nor humanity cares to think about this concept of 'natural rights'. Nature is about survival, necessity and the establishment of governments and nation-states is a means for ensuring humanity's survival. Therefore, the rights every citizen enjoys belong to the state, not to the individual. As soon as those social and legal protections are removed, any given former citizen will find themselves naked at the mercy of a hostile world.

The people have no clue what is good for them. In general they want to satisfy their own desires or are not interested enough to make an informed decision. They are fickle and prone to jump on cults of personality catering to that exact desire for self gratification. Tea has the right idea. It's not intelligence that is beneficial, but wisdom when making decisions which have far reaching impact on a society. You need intelligent people to solve the problem, but it's people with the wisdom to implement the right solution that we lack.

dealing with it wrote:

Scumbag_Brain wrote:If any problem encountered by such a system is difficult to grasp without a high IQ then chances are the system will not be able to solve it.

This requires further demonstration. Whatever IQ scores measure (and, my understanding is that IQ is a good predictor of academic performance, but not much beyond that), the tests are standardized such that an average member of a given society scores around 100. If everyone on the planet was twice as effective at solving IQ test questions, the average IQ would still be defined at 100.

Besides which, I would not have any problem calling every conscious human intelligent, regardless of IQ, Compared to most living beings, they are. Is 100 IQ too dumb to vote? Prove it.

Another problem with Republican forms is the increased effectiveness of propaganda on stupid people.

This statement, too, requires proof. For instance, con-artists are skilled at manipulating even so-called "intelligent" individuals into doing ridiculous things.

An IQ test does not directly measure gullibility. If it does so indirectly, show me the evidence.

Socrates criticized the Athenian democracy on similar grounds and this was one of the reasons the Athenians had him executed.

A bit nitpicky, but it was Plato who wrote "The Republic", well after Socrates was killed. He never forgave the democracy for its judicial murder of his mentor. Socrates was charged with atheism and corrupting the youth, and was basically a scapegoat for Athens' wartime defeat.

Unlike the earlier works of Plato, Socrates was purely fictionalized by the time of "The Republic".

Of course, one might argue that few vote controlled polities are truly democratic.

Most are aristocracies, plain and simple. In America it's blatant. You make a decision between essentially two members of the priveleged elite class -- and often the final winner is the rich and well-connected [person] who has the most funding. Large corporations have the power to fire a politician who doesn't exclusively do what they want. How else would you describe withholding campaign funds?

All choices are equally poor. If we were in a society composed exclusively of of super-geniuses (relative to us), I don't see how it would change anything. If there were actually some real differences between the parties, only then would votes matter in the first place.

I always find the dissection style of response to contain some indefinable rudeness and often also some more definable and obvious rudeness. But I digress. For starters I answered your first critique in my post. Flaws in IQ do not matter so long as you believe there is some varying faculty called intelligence which is useful in solving problems and in critical thinking. I use the term IQ mainly as a placeholder for a faculty of human beings we all recognize as real. As for your incessant demand for proof, since you are asking me to believe that the quality we call intelligence in no way impacts problem solving and critical thinking (the very processes used to identify fallacies in say... a piece of propaganda), the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders for you are tacitly claiming that all the qualities we associate with intelligence are wrong. If you are right we need to redefine the entire concept of intelligence or perhaps strike it from the dictionary all together.

You propose that a civilization of super geniuses would be in no way different and here again the burden of proof is on you for such a statement since IQ can be linked to many qualitative and quantitative factors not the least of which are success in cognitively demanding fields such as physics and mathematics. Just that one factor alone, a more scientifically educated population, would radically change our society.

Oh and Socrates. I referenced Socrates and not Plato because there honestly isn't much of a difference. In all liklihood Socrates in the sources we have is just an allegorical device used by Plato. And yes you were being nitpicky, but I expect this type of argument whenever I see a post in dissection format.

Despite the fact that I think viper45, Tea, Hadespwr, and Lukisod took this conversation in more interesting directions by broadening its scope and driving it away from the topic of IQ's, I'll reply.

Scumbag_Brain wrote:I always find the dissection style of response to contain some indefinable rudeness and often also some more definable and obvious rudeness.

Not to be rude, but I actively disagree with you that drawing attention to specific claims is rude. It's incredibly convenient to write in this style, and it has the further advantage of being the easiest for an audience to follow, particularly in long debates.

I use the term IQ mainly as a placeholder for a faculty of human beings we all recognize as real.

You should have said this in your original post, because there is literally no way I could have figured this out. And even though you've said this, I still have no idea what concept you are really driving at. All I know for certain is that it's some quality that makes, once people have it, democracies work better. I can't agree that it's real without knowing first what it is you are talking about. I also can't know in what way this "democratic ability" is related to other kinds of smarts.

IQ is a specific thing. I recall one book I read where ten different specialists gave ten different answers to "what does an IQ test measure?" One reply was "an IQ test measures whatever it is that the IQ test measures." I considered that the best answer.

As for your incessant demand for proof, since you are asking me to believe that the quality we call intelligence in no way impacts problem solving and critical thinking (the very processes used to identify fallacies in say... a piece of propaganda), the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders for you are tacitly claiming that all the qualities we associate with intelligence are wrong.

What? Now you're going to have to find me some evidence that burden of proof rests on the person doubting the existential claim. (I denied the existence of a relationship between IQ and how trusting a person is.)

Problem solving, for instance the ability to figure out the solution to a mathematical riddle, doesn't strike me as something that would protect you from a con-man. And on that note, why are you annoyed by my "incessant demand for proof"? I thought you'd consider gullibility stupid. Would you rather I believed everything you said without evidence?

If you are right we need to redefine the entire concept of intelligence or perhaps strike it from the dictionary all together.

Allow me to wave my hand in the direction of the entire discipline of Artificial intelligence. If you think that intelligence has ever been adequately defined, you are mistaken. Is a computer that can beat a grand master in chess intelligent? What about one that wins a game of Jeopardy? Or do we have to wait until it stands victorious at Go before it's intelligent enough to vote?

You propose that a civilization of super geniuses would be in no way different and here again the burden of proof is on you for such a statement since IQ can be linked to many qualitative and quantitative factors not the least of which are success in cognitively demanding fields such as physics and mathematics. Just that one factor alone, a more scientifically educated population, would radically change our society.

Do physicists and mathematicians vote differently than non-physicists and non-mathematicians? Show me the evidence. And then, show me that by voting differently, they also vote better.

Do you know what scientism is?

As completely informal and unscientific as what I plan to present into this thread will be, I think that it might be fun. Ready? To wit:

"Smart people can make very stupid decisions. They can do so at a rate greater than their smarts."

Having read a little more deeply into this thread I have discovered that a fallacious presumption has been adopted. It may have appeared in the opening post and then been excused by the body of participants in this thread, but as the claim has been repeated I have noticed it and must address it has been included in the topic at hand. That presumption is that intelligence will automatically ensure a better voting habit among voters in a democracy. It may, but it is not predictable with any consistent demonstratability. Mountains of paper documents in police departments, justice departments, criminal rehabilitation centers, and all manner of law enforcement agencies provide a wealth of evidence that Intelligence alone does not produce a Good Choice. Even if there were a system of accurately measuring the intelligence of a person that measurement has only minor bearing on their personal life-style or their personal out-look regarding Society and Government. A very intelligent individual could also be an extremely selfish one.

Thus, "Intelligence is not the only ingredient from which a voter chooses to vote. Therefore intelligence alone is an inadequate measurement of a populace's voting acumen."

Our fathers believed in it. I believe in it.

Not to put you down Edwinfirefox, but that's a horrible reason to believe in anything. Believe in something for it's merits. Not because some aggrandized historical figures did. If you think it's a good idea. And you've weighed some of the options and still found it acceptable, then that is a much better reason to put faith into a system.

...there is a certain...mood with Edwin's comment which strikes a chord with me. Perhaps it speaks to the spirit by which the Declaration of Independence was written. That document, though not whole with the current law, serves as a thematic source for the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I am reminded by the comment that there are other forms of government much more susceptible to corruption than Democratic Republics.

Just because, "My daddy said so," may not be the best reason to believe in something, many humans yet know that their ancestors were wiser than they. Therefore this sentiment is not completely void of all merit. It serves well the purpose of discussion, rather than debate. However, I might like to see a little more content along with such a post, important as it may have been.