Quote from: BADecker on May 06, 2018, 08:37:26 PM

Quote from: Astargath on May 06, 2018, 11:47:27 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on May 06, 2018, 11:37:22 AM

Quote from: CoinCube on May 06, 2018, 07:18:55 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on May 06, 2018, 05:02:13 AM

Re 2) That is where my (and I suspect any other) moral standard faces challenges. Like I said before most people are stupid and don't think before they act. That is why in most civilized countries we have secular legal frameworks to deal with those who break the law. However the law is vague on many moral actions or does not cover them at all so it is a problem. The issue is that the law is legislated by the most popular idiots not the most intelligent elements of our societies. But that is how our democracies are structured. If I had my way I would introduce some sort of stringent licensing requirements for politicians so that we can elect the most intelligent, morally capable people to run the government. You need to have a way to filter out the psychopaths.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/

Quote

A recent study by an undergraduate student at the University of Huddersfield has posited that up to 3% of people in senior management positions may be High IQ psychopaths. The study suggested that people who display Factor One psychopathic tendencies and higher IQs were much more likely to be able to fake their emotional responses in tests giving them free reign to climb the corporate ladder and access senior management positions.
...
higher IQ psychopaths are smart enough to know and recognize what they are, and are able to tone down the responses.

As a superior alternative I would suggest the establishment of voluntary institutions throughout society focused generally on the importance of moral behavior. These could be costly in terms of membership perhaps requiring time consuming weekly meetings and monetary donations as a demonstration of commitment.

Individuals with psychopathic tendencies would have difficulty consistently participating in costly membership rituals dedicated to a premise they find pointless. Consequently they would be less likely to participate in them especially on a sustained basis over multiple years.

High IQ people drawn from these institutions on average would be more morally capable then equally high IQ people drawn from society at large due to this self selection effect. Society would learn via trial and error that better results are obtained from selecting qualified leaders with long histories of membership in one of these institutions.

Quote from: af_newbie on May 06, 2018, 05:02:13 AM

I guess I don't have the 'religious' gene in me.

If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

I know that most high iq types are psychopaths. That is why I said "most morally capable".

Psychologists developed tests that can detect if a person is a psychopath. From what we know most CEO's and politicians are psychopaths. They manage to hide their psychopathic tendencies and become very successful.

It is a problem that needs to be solved regardless if we believe in the supernatural or not.

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.

Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

Cool

Yet we don't find anything new thanks to religion.

And that's why you have thousands of different religions with different gods and meanings. They bypass science and jump to conclusions without evidence. This is the big difference between religion and science. The theory of evolution or gravity are the accepted theories, scientists don't believe in thousands of theories for the same concept. They accept the best one. You can't say the same for religious people, otherwise they would all believe in the same religion and that's clearly not the case.