 |
14 May 2003, 23:13
|
#1
|
|
Gubbish
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: #FoW
Posts: 2,323
|
Average IQ of governments
It just struk me, the democratically elected governments probably ends up at the bottom of a list of average IQs of governments. Also, the more direct the officials have been elected, the lower the IQ. I'm right, ain't I?
__________________
Gubble gubble gubble gubble
|
|
|
|
14 May 2003, 23:15
|
#2
|
|
Dirte
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,573
|
Probably, but then again, you seem like a kinda smart fellow.
|
|
|
|
|
14 May 2003, 23:16
|
#3
|
|
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sept 2057
Posts: 1,813
|
Charisma and public gullibility win votes, not IQ.
__________________
in my sig i write down all my previous co-ords and alliance positions as if they matter because I'm not important enough to be remembered by nickname alone.
|
|
|
|
|
14 May 2003, 23:23
|
#4
|
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
What's IQ got to do with anything?
Anyway, in non-democratic regimes, most people are promoted via either brown-nosing or blind obedience. The original cadre were probably smart(ish), but their sucessors generally decline in intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
14 May 2003, 23:28
|
#5
|
|
Gubbish
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: #FoW
Posts: 2,323
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What's IQ got to do with anything?
Anyway, in non-democratic regimes, most people are promoted via either brown-nosing or blind obedience. The original cadre were probably smart(ish), but their sucessors generally decline in intelligence.
|
If they do, how do they stay sucessors instead of turning into yett another predecessor?
__________________
Gubble gubble gubble gubble
|
|
|
|
|
14 May 2003, 23:33
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
I assume you have to be fairly cunning and manipulative to succeed under democracy (or anything really), dunno how that correlates with IQ though.
|
|
|
|
|
14 May 2003, 23:35
|
#7
|
|
Look over there!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 704
|
Anyone who has met student politicians would agree with W
|
|
|
|
|
15 May 2003, 00:01
|
#8
|
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What's IQ got to do with anything?
Anyway, in non-democratic regimes, most people are promoted via either brown-nosing or blind obedience. The original cadre were probably smart(ish), but their sucessors generally decline in intelligence.
|
the soviet union politiburo was rather different from how you describe.
only the best 'got in the club' and had to prove themselves.
however you had to be the best and also be 'connected'.
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
|
|
15 May 2003, 00:37
|
#9
|
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
W for President of Earth!
|
|
|
|
|
15 May 2003, 09:13
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
|
Not sure how well that - initially logical-sounding - idea stands up if you factor in the whole family connections business.
Everyone in the top echelons of Hussein's regime was a member of his family; for this reason people have compared his (ex) government to the Mafia. There would be no shortage of stock; in a manner typical of Middle-Eastern rulers, Saddam has hundreds of children. He just picked out the few who combined b*stardness and intelligence in the right quantity.
But then again, Iraq probably isn't (wasn't) typical, because its governmental emphasis on family ties was so massive. I think that, by and large, you must be right - I think your model would have stood up fairly well in Soviet Russia, and might do in North Korea today.
Its probably why tinpot dictatorships are able to hang on: a mix of democratic uncertainty (the people must be with the leaders), and the fact that, in the cut-throat hierarchies of dictatorships, only the most intelligent get to the top, while in the democracies opposing them the workings are far more lenient. We know how practiced Hussein got at bullsh*tting western governments and taking advantage of their indecisiveness to act.
Still, in terms of the actual leadership I'm not sure there's a big enough sample base to take averages, to try and support your theory one way or the other.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)
*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me
<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"
|
|
|
|
|
15 May 2003, 13:23
|
#11
|
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Quote:
Originally posted by JammyJim
the soviet union politiburo was rather different from how you describe.
only the best 'got in the club' and had to prove themselves.
|
It's quite obvious that the people at the top are going to be the "the best". The question is what they are best at. The best person at the Commission for Racial Equality is going to be quite a bit different to the best person in the Klu Klux Klan (obviously).
Compare Lenin or Trotsky to some of the banalities in the later politburo's and you'll see what I mean...
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47.
| |
Linear Mode
