Should IQ tests be mandatory for Presidential candidates?

No on IQ testing because psychometrics is a psuedoscience.

And while I would personally be inclined to agree that it'd be best to have some kind of fitness/morality or philosophy/logic test where we ensure they can at the very least be rational and consistent in their arguments, I feel like it would be hypocritical to the foundation of the democracy/republic idea because it would both artificially deflate the pool of people for which the public could vote for, and establish as a rule that people couldn't vote for X due to their failing an arbitrary test which may not line with your personal reasons for voting for a candidate.

If people want to vote for an idiot who can't rationalize his position on issues, you have to let them. And any time we have a president nobody likes or where we all go "WTF", this is a reflection on our society and how serious we took the process/how smart we actually are as a people.

If we go ahead and scrap parts of the voting pool we might as well scrap voting. And in that case, we'd likely end up back in a monarchy/dictatorship where we select our ruler(s) every generation based on testing. Sort of like an inverse Hunger Games/Battle Royale.

/end rambling

I don't think so. Obama was qualified for Harvard and Columbia when young. I'm not fond of his politics but wouldn't judge his capacity by the color of his skin.

Obama was president of Harvard Law Review my /pol/tarded friend.

He is almost assuredly smarter than you.

>filthy undergrad scum thinks he's better than NEETs
lmao

You don't have to go back to your containment board, but you really have to get out.

>but wouldn't judge his capacity by the color of his skin.
that already makes you better than him.

In democracy's defense, the process that chose Trump was not purely democratic. It's impossible to project what impact scrapping the electoral college would have had in terms of turnout in otherwise safe states, but you can't necessarily place all of the blame on the whims of the people when the popular vote went the other way.

and take your worthless high school 2.0, i mean undergrad degree with you.

Oh look, it's that guy who gets massively butthurt and calls people SJWtards again

>IQ test for president
>not for Congress or the Senate

Interesting view. But if you stop to think about it, aren't people who vote for incompetent presidents harming the well being of themselves and the rest of the population? In this way, democracy itself would be a failed instituition, since it could be manipulated using populism, disrupting the supposed neutrality of the political process.

The sole purpose of politics and official leadership is establishing order and well being for citiziens. Since democracy and freedom of speech have both failed to offer these things, shouldn't we apply censorship and violence against groups we know for certain are dangerous for the functioning of society? Shouldn't we exclude people like Tumblr feminists and /pol/ posters from the political process to prevent societal disasters? If not, what is the solution to the supposedly failed instituition of democratic elections?

don't you have homework to finish for tomorrows lecture, you undergrad parasite?

No, but presidents should never be old enough to be "set in their ways".
The maximum age of a president should be 35.

I like how you didn't deny being that easily-recognizable butthurt faggot, get a real hobby dude.

No but a genuine (non-photoshoped) birth certifcate and a proof that you actually love America would be good. That disqualifies Barry Hussein Obama and Jimmy the whack job Carter for starters. No more terrorists in the white house please.

...

>Obamouga bouga
>harvard meme, muh paper
>i wrote it i swear nigguh
HOL UP
>*smacks lips*
>i'm a poor muslim black man, gimme dat paper
>later whitey

>Rohdam 'cuck my shit' Cuntown
>implying she's doesn't take drugs all day, while raping kids and taking orders
>forgot about her neurodegenerative disorderS
JAIL UP MADAM

>He is almost assuredly smarter than you.
You don't know who you're talking to, D.
Veeky Forums is a blue board.
in terms of pure truth, you have much more quality occurences on /pol/, /po/ and /x/

You are a retarded faggot from /pol/ and probably a NEET and/or high-school dropout. Go away.

Why can't you write normally? Do you feel any difficulty constructing a rational argument because you spend so much time not having to justify your oppinions the ideas you hold are supported in the fabric of your mind by incoherend rambling and the only way you can translate that into words is by using pseudo-humoristic jargon you learned in an anime forum?

...

If we exclude one person we should exclude all of them, regardless of how insane or dangerous their ideas are. It's not truly democratic or representative of the will of the public otherwise. Additionally, how would we test whether or not a person is eligible to vote? Would these rules stay consistent over time? Is this a test of intelligence or morality? How do we decide what's moral? Does the highly intelligent sociopath get to vote while the slightly dumber well meaning person does not? Vice versa, do we allow a bunch of well meaning idiots to decide the course of human history and likely fall prey to populism? What happens if we reach a point in the future where people are mostly dumbed down and focused on memes, social media, etc. and the majority of the population legitimately cannot engage in a proper political discussion or rationalize their views? Does that mean we don't let the majority of the populace vote for their rulers?

Tbh I really, really want to say that I like the idea of a democracy/republic and I love that people are allowed to choose their representatives, but it simply cannot work unless we have a way to control for general intelligence, logic, coherence, and the moral compass of the public, and that's never going to happen. We're currently at a point where it doesn't happen, and we're going to be in an even worse state as a public when we switch to vouchers.

I guess the truth may be that there is no solution. All systems where man rules over men comes fails and all empires crash at some point. Some lucky ones live long, and some super lucky ones get reborn, but they all always come crashing down.

>muh maths
Maths is pure cancer to our planet and species. If you don't understand why now, and if you're over 16, then you're an absolute retard.

>blablahbla no constructive argument/cohesive response
At least I'm right.
People believing Obongo isn't an absolute nigger retard actor have triple digit QE.

RAKE ME UP INSIDE
>CAN'T RAKE UP

>At least I'm right.
How can you know whether or not you are right if your ideas don't pass the sieve of formal logic? The inability to rationalize an opinion represents the impossiblity for this idea to be true.

As for the image: where did you get this data? How do you know the IQ of gorillas if they could never comprehend an IQ test since it requires knowledge of language and abstract problem solving? As for the 62 IQ it makes no sense, this type of number represents mental deficiency/illness never presented in any average group of human beings. Are those factoids/half-truths the type of basis you have to hold your ideas?

>butthurt over easily verifiable facts
you know that gorillas can learn sign language right?
koko.org/sites/default/files/root/pdfs/teok_book.pdf ctrl+f IQ
you know that IQ tests have occurred in pure BLACK countries right?
iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country >inb4 poverty

You know that the CIA released docs on a few esper powers right?
Being right isn't only luck or brain. It's intrinsic talent too

...

Koko the gorilla was a failed pseudo-scientific attempt. Various reports show degrading health and safety conditions on the way the gorilla was raised as well as sexual abuse cases within the animal's enclosure. Numerous former workers reported that Koko was, on the most part, uncapable of comunicating and the published data was a compilation of the few sucessful attempts. No one would consider the project as scientific. It was rather a sensationalist circus show.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#National_IQ_and_QHC_values

they should be for posting on Veeky Forums so shitheads like you with two-digit IQs don't post on here.

it is primarily “doctoring of information”. As the man behind this IQ vs race work is white, he has done his best while “doctoring information” to prove that Northern Euros (his race) has the highest IQs.

I will cite research articles showing much higher IQs among blacks. So, it’s better you read it nicely:-

There are many research articles on Caribbean Blacks showing an IQ of 95–100 as well.

As a matter of fact, there is a research article from the same author “Grantham Mcgregor” that shows an IQ of 94.

This article shows an IQ of 88 on Jamaica.

humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1995-knight-wisc-sickle-cell.pdf

Similarly in UK schools, Black Africans have shown higher academic results than white UK. People had assigned a number of 85 IQ to UK blacks (the same as US blacks). Again, it was just “doctoring of information” that cited low IQ results on blacks in UK, ignoring high IQ results.

gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399005/SFR06_2015_Text.pdf

>Lynn and Vanhanen base their analysis on selected IQ data from studies which covered 113 nations. For another 79 nations, they estimated the mean IQs on the basis of the arithmetic means of the measured IQs of neighboring countries.

This is very unethical and honestly it's amazing that they were allowed to publish.

>Psychometrics
>A psuedoscience

The correlation between IQ, violence, poverty, and crime says otherwise.

(cont)

Page 8: Chinese: 74.1 pc, Indians: 72.9 pc, Whites: 56 pc, Blacks: 56.8 pc

Blacks living all over UK (7.5 million) outperform white peers in schools showing higher IQs (102 IQ range). And this is a national sample covering entire population of kids in UK.
If you look at Canada, blacks have higher scores than whites just like the UK as they were selected for intelligence “smart migration”. That does not mean that blacks are smarter than whites.

As far as average black man is concerned, I have already shown that natives in Trinidad and Tobago have an IQ above Argentina (40 pc whites), Malaysia and Thailand (30–40 Chinese). And also at negligible difference from Russia (100 pc white).
And Trinidad and Tobago does not have a well established educational system as well to compete with Chinese in Thailand or Whites in Russia. They may even outscore these populations in the future.

On IQ reports by Lynn, you will see cherry picked data where Africans in Africa or UK or Caribbean Blacks or everywhere have IQ of 67–80.Remember that whites also scored around 67 IQ in 1900s. There has been no increase in intelligence. It is well known that Chinese (let alone whites) score 67 IQ as well even in 2016 in poor living conditions.

I can also “doctor information” and cite 20 articles and show that average IQ in China is 80 and Africa is 95. Like how I am doing by citing the odd articles listed above.

The highest cited articles are those that show high IQ among whites or Asians, and low IQ among blacks. The research articles that cite low IQ on Asians (and there are 100 such articles) don’t get any citation. IQ data showing low IQ on whites isn’t even available in research world and most probably has been “hidden”.

There is also a correlation between pirate population and historic global temperature.
Doesn't mean it's scientific when I create a statistically sound model which claims global warming removes pirates. Science has less to do with statistics and more to do with reaching logical conclusions and hypothesis testing. Statistics leads you in a direction that can help you form hypotheses, but they never verify a hypothesis. A hypothesis can only be disproven.

>all that bullshit
lmao

Again not one /pol/ argument survived the judgement of formal logic, and once more you are reduced to rambling. Go back to the buzzwords like "cuck" and "nigger". This is the only thing within your limited intellectual capacity.

No, but we could require testing for voters? How can you vote if you can not understand the issues. This would never work tho. Freedom is not about being smart enough to make an educated decision. It is about being autonomous to make your own decision.

I understand that correlation is not causation, but please disprove the hypothesis that the intellectual elite aren't ruling over the mentally inferior.

Please help me understand why Ashkenazi Jews disproportionately win Nobel Prizes despite coming from similar economic backgrounds as your average White.

Why do the children of wealthy whites consistently outscore the children of wealthy blacks on IQ tests?

Why do poor white children that are as disadvantaged as poor black children perform at their racial norm in the face of intense adversity?

I can't see why it's any other way aside from evolution.

Please disprove the hypothesis that this is all inter-related for a reason. How can the immigrants that have escaped from dirt poor countries not be intelligent? Black intelligence exists on a bell curve, and they're fully capable of transcending the white norm.

says the retard posting a bunch of drivel that literally goes against reality. here's a quote directly from the shit pdf you posted.

>Pupils from a black background arethe lowest performing group...53.1% of pupilsfrom a black background achieved at least 5 A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) grades including English and mathematics; this is 3.4 percentage points below the national average (56.6%).

/pol/tards need to fuck off.

Disprove evolution, and we will.

Read this book if you want to see the reality we live in:

lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-bell-curve.pdf

no, you need to fuck off, faggot. this isn't reddit where you will post a bunch of bullshit and people will accept it because it's politically correct.

go home

>please disprove the hypothesis that the intellectual elite aren't ruling over the mentally inferior
The world's best minds typically never held office or ruling positions. Neumann, Einstein, Plato, Netwon, Turing, etc. Clearly there is something larger at play than raw intelligence, otherwise the superiors among the "superiors" would consistently have been rulers.

Furthermore, if other races were indeed inferior for simply being the race that they are then their tendency for failure should scale accordingly. Among African nations and cities and even places like the Americas, the blacker an area is, the more crime ridden, poor, and uneducated it should be. However we see that among predominately black areas that th blacker areas don't always turn out to be the most crime infested, poor, or uneducated. We have numerous instances where degrees of blackness which don't quite correspond to the established model. The same applies to other areas such as degrees of Asianess, and degrees of whiteness, Jewishness, etc.
It only appears the scaling idea works across groups and it doesn't work as well within areas predominately consisting of one group. This means that there has to be other factors at play. Strong factors which create division even among races. Environment, upbringing and social fitness is most assuredly playing a huge role.

If they were, no woman or a nigger would ever be a presidential candidate so yes. They should.

>ITT; white nationalists derail an anti-Trump thread with pseudoscience and aggressive memeing
>aka, science and discourse

its a bit difficult to get cannibals to sit down for a proctored administration of raven's progressive matrices

caltech proves what IQ measurments have shown

The reality that Asians and Jews are smarter?