Does anyone think that if MENSA took political, economic and military control of the entire planet it would improve or not? No more Donald Trump. No more business without a moral compass. No more North exploiting South.
Mensa membership criteria is not that crazy; a large segment of congressmen and other politicians could probably make it in if they wanted to. The problem with the world is not that it's run by stupid people; it's that it's run by smart people who are not working for the common interest.
>choosing your political beliefs based on sound bites from the American main stream media You're going to be the first one in the "delousing" chamber when our malevolent 9,000,00, IQ overlords take over and cleanse the earth of the unintelligent filth, OP.
>>674019 Have you seen the kind of people who hang out at high IQ societies? Most of them are useless losers, that's why they have nothing better to do than obsess over their stupid test score. Some of them weren't even capable of completing their education, let alone holding a job. Those who are worth something are already successful, influential people outside of MENSA. If you want a technocratic government, go recruit the people at the top of their fields, don't bother with their IQ scores.
>>674019 Scoring well on the IQ test in no way prepares you for leadership of a country. The IQ test only measures a limited type of intelligence, and not the kind relevant to leadership or global politics. Anyone who has met someone who was really smart and yet completely socially retarded understands this.
>>674030 >memorization Are you stupid? It's true that IQ tests aren't be all end all measurements of intelligence, but they're meant to measure your ability to solve logical problems. Any test becomes meaningless if you're able to cheat.
>>674388 The people who dominate finance are all people with degrees in maths or physics. I'd say they understand economics far better than most people with degrees in such fields, simply because they're not too retarded to grasp mathematics. Many of them aren't interested in that sort of thing because it bores them, but I'd say that any Caltech Physics PhD could become in absolutely no-time more proficient in economical and political issues than people who focus on that, simply because unlike them he has a working brain.
>>676293 Building new and improved battleship would be better idea but outside of the problem with crew training(the ship has 40's era machinery and 80's era electronics) reactivation is pretty easy thing to do and the power projection and ground support capability of battleships is unmatched.
I could join MENSA when I was 18. I was fucking stupid when I was 18. Any such control will automatically re-appropriate any already existent system, therefore not leading to a huge revamp. Any major changes will lead to protests, neglecting the fact that they would be seen a dictators. What would they do? How would the power structures within MENSA look like?
A major reason to why we have democracy is that it directly translates a lot of basic demands of the population. The fact that Donald Trump is electable proves that his populism strikes a string with people; that string might be fear or whatever, but it is still existent within the population.
It would lead to a systematic collapse due to protests, failed control at most global levels, lead to inner conflicts and ruinous states etc. Basically what we have today except with a new upper class.
>>676337 Aircraft carriers are worse for ground support(less accurate, sortie rate causes battleship to be able to deliver more explosive in given amount of time etc.) and unlike battleships, they're susceptible to cruise missiles.
Soviet fleet considered renovated Iowa class battleships to be more dangerous than any other ship in US Navy and outright said that they can't do shit against them. Quoting Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov:
"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four Battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
>>676340 Op here, what you said was mostly true to be fair, the reason Donald Trump is so "electable" is because Christian republican right wingers believe he's what america needs. New upper class? I do't really see how, I mean politicians today are already that if by "upper class" you mean MENSA becoming rich and stuff
Good policy choice often has as much to do with rationality as it does with with sheer smartness. Most successful predictors are high IQ, but not even MENSA level, let alone quantum physicists. Smart people can, because they are often insulated from awful consequences, be awfully blind to their own irrationality. smart people politics are liberal because that signals good stuff about them more effectively than being conservative I think, more than being able to intercept the world better. Soviet Union, French revolution, examples of this. It's rare to find absolutes in human affairs, but I think it's fair to say nearly every part of human progress has come from forcing people to interact with reality (capitalism, empiricism in science) so they can interpret results in an undeniable way, so disputes can be resolved in a permanent way. Just sheer smartness gets you debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Further, reality is very complex, far beyond the ability of any human, no matter how smart, to really get a handle on. Further, smart people can be wrong in hideous, hideous ways. There's some virtue in sticking roughly to known traditions that 'work' - and approaching change slowly if at all.
That said I do believe that intelligence does matter in terms of designing effective policies, it just doesn't matter enough to outweigh the other obvious downsides to this system.
Cruise missles aren't designed to penetrate armour.
When they hit armoured vessels like everything modern fleets have, they cause damage.
Look up how much armour can whatever missile you want penetrate and you'll get values up to 25mm. Iowa class BB's have 12 inch = 305 mm of armour. You can use shaped charge warhead(none is produced, but you can make it, it's not space edge tech) but then there's a problem with causing actual damage. You'll pierce through that armour - sure but then what? Kill 2 people? Woah. Great. Ammunition, fuel, machinery etc. is stored too deep inside for HEAT warheads to work. You're basically counting on being lucky.
Bombs are less accurate than artillery unless you use terribly expensive guided ones(which due to technology they use are either unable to hit moving target or easy to disrupt). Artillery supported by modern computers(modern, 60's level stuff will do) are far more accurate than unguided bombs, and also cheaper than them(basically to deliver the same amount of explosives 16" gun can you have to spend 10 times more and I'm not even counting fuel and other related costs).
>>676924 Cruise missiles are hardly, if ever, employed in an anti-ship role. That belongs to dedicated anti-ship missiles such as the Harpoon and Exocet. It may take more missiles than usual to take down a battleship than a Ticonderoga class cruiser, but when missiles are essentially spammed to get past CIWS defenses (does the Iowa even have CIWS?) that number is rendered moot. And yes, 16-inch artillery shells may be more accurate than an unguided bomb. But the majority of bombs employed by the US military are guided, in order to maintain unparalleld accuracy, and more importantly, reduce civilian casualties. A barrage of 16 inchers would destroy your target, most likely. But you would also very likely destroy a large portion of the village that surrounded it. Not to mention that this ability would be restricted to within 15-25 miles of the ocean, which is FAR outclassed by the several hundred nautical miles that an F/A-18 can reach. War isn't about who has the biggest guns and armor anymore. It just doesn't make the cut.
The job of holding public office requires more than intelligence. It's best if we could keep democracy but every citizen is intelligent enough ans has some concept of what credentials are necessary and how much each should be weighted in accordance with one's own priorities, and that there should be enough consensus as to what an ideal end point for public policy of a nation should look like.
>>676978 >It may take more missiles than usual to take down a battleship than a Ticonderoga class cruiser It's the equivalent of shooting it with HE rounds anon. Of course you can, theoretically take down battleship by shooting it with HE rounds but it will take... lot's of them, thousands or so. "Modern" warships can be damaged by using recoilless guns as evidenced by Falkland War. Single missile or bomb wrecked a destroyer. That's the price of not having armour. Single torpedo would probably sink USS Nimitz while battleships sank after 17.
Ticonderoga has no armour. Iowa has. Reminder that Russians had Kirovs when Iowas have returned to duty, and their opinion was - we cannot sink Iowa class battleship. Kirovs to this day use one of the heaviest anti-ship missiles around.
>but when missiles are essentially spammed to get past CIWS defenses Find me single instance when CIWS stopped missile. It's about to have armour or not. >does the Iowa even have CIWS Ever since 1983. >But the majority of bombs employed by the US military are guided And cost half-million each while 16" round costs $500. >But you would also very likely destroy a large portion of the village that surrounded it. If you care about it it means you don't have boots on the ground willing to storm in and try to bomb the target into surrender. Which, as evidenced by US military successes in Vietnam and Afghanistan doesn't work. Harris doctrine doesn't work and has never worked. >Not to mention that this ability would be restricted to within 15-25 miles of the ocean 90% of world's population lives in the range of 16" guns. Every target in Libya was in their range as well. Instead of releasing several $500 rounds US military used $2M missiles on them.
Armament industry doesn't want battleships because they are too cheap and it's hard to damage them, that's something we know since WW2. American taxpayer however, SHOULD want Battleship unless he/she is isolationist.
>>677439 You make fair points, but I'm entirely unconvinced that a battleship would be any more capable in a ground strike role than an aircraft carrier. Less expensive, yes, but also vastly less versatile. And of course, if we didn't care about civilian casualties at all we could simply carpet bomb them until there's nothing remaining. But that's simply unacceptable in the modern era, with reporters and the media willing to pounce the second someone thinks of the word, "war crime". And I seriously doubt that a single torpedo would be capable of sinking a carrier, especially considering their highly advanced damage control systems. Also after reaearch, it looks like the CEP of the 16 inchers was within the 200 yard range, while a mk82 dropped from an F-16 has a CEP of around 30 meters, so I'm not sure where you're pulling the idea that the Iowa's guns were more accurate from. I love battleships, they are amazing displays of military might. But the era of the dreadnought is long gone. The aircraft carrier has served us much better than the BB has, even when the Iowa's were still in service.
>>674019 MENSA is full of point blank idiots, women, and political correctness. If you ever want to disprove the validity of IQ tests, visit MENSA. They will kick you out for critical thinking and going against the grain.
All geniuses have a penis—often quite large—and all geniuses are original thinkers. This means they have their own conception of the world that isn't based on their education, which is mostly what MENSA tests for.
>>675317 There wouldn't be a single woman there if that was actually the case. How many women do you see solving problems in real life? They are purely social.
>>676320 Economics is not about high level mathematics. It is sociology and geopolitical context. All of the math faggots get utterly destroyed every time the economy crashes. There are too many variables to predict with math. Common sense and a good eye for world events, human psychology will take you a lot farther.
Thread replies: 52 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 516409
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.