Geniocracy as a system or theory of organizing our society says we should promote the geniuses of higher intelligence to be a part of Geniocratic Planetary Government (GPG). Rael (a pioneer of this idea) in his book Geniocracy says we should measure the Intelligence (for many people it is IQ, I suppose) and this would be the way how to find the people suitable for this role of "rulers" or nicely to say, the scientific supervisors responsible for making big planetary decisions. This GPG should consist of geniuses from all over the world, from each province a few ones, depending on how many provinces we will have on our planet. Presumably, there will be also some local governments (for the local areas which would like to be ruled by themselves alone - but keeping the global principles of geniocracy on their territory), and this would include more than a few hundreds of geniuses involved into the thing of ruling our planet, because lets say, if there will be a need of 700 geniuses for the GPG (for instance 7 from each province), then it would require another few thousands (lets say 10000) geniuses, that means in each province 100, in a local parliament. Geniocracy tells us it should be then a person with IQ at least 150 (50% above the average score), determined by the IQ conversion. So those 10 000 geniuses would then be people of IQ 150 and more. But that is completely a NONSENSE. Firstly, many of these people would be busy of doing something what they like, making art, devoting their time to science, maybe just hanging around and relax, and for their parliamentary job they hardly could be able to find a free time. Then some people simply will not be interested in this. Then some people of high IQ simply cannot be members of the geniocratic parliament (GPG), because even if they have a high IQ, they are negative ones, violent ones, and Rael prefers the good-hearted people, people with compassion and love, then also what to do if a person is IQ 148, well, all those tests testing IQ and limiting people that way are (in a way) wrong! Why? Lets mention the American leader in a WAR, "mr. Blackhead", with his IQ 170. Is this a person who we want to rule the nice and peaceful world? Surely not. We do not need well trained negative soldier to be our leader whatever his IQ is. There were also nazi criminals who were before the trial for their crimes against humanity tested on IQ Wechsler tests - they were quite high IQ-ed, two of them had over 140 (0,33 % of population), another seven of them between IQ 130 -138 (2% - 0.5%), then some 8 of them having IQ 120-129, which is higher, not too high, but surely within top 10% of people (129 is 2.7%). Those people, even having IQ 143, were not suitable for the Geniocratic government at all, yes, because Rael says we should let be involved only to people with IQ 150 (he says "with people with intelligence higher than 50% in average, thus 100+50% of 100), but those people also with IQ over 150 might be negative and agressive, and there are people with IQ 125 who can be completely non-violent, very creative, wise, full of emotional intelligence called LOVE, and thus might be able to have a decisional quality and ability. Thus IQ tests results contradict to true intelligence potential lying inside of a human brain. Not what a speed of brain you have makes you intelligent (even if this element is quite important), but more precisely what a "SOFTWARE" you have, that makes you intelligent - that is to say - what a person you are, what you builded from yourself by yourlself via experiences during your lifetime, what a choices you are willing to make.... Todays test are testing only the rational speed and quick reactions, which might be caused (in some cases) by very good ability to perform under the stress in a fast speed, to stay calm and relaxed, but this is not the intelligence, this is only a quality of psychological balance, not intelligence and wisdom. Maybe it gives only 10 points deviation (+-), but thats a lot, if we use the hard line IQ 150 necessary for being elected. So quickly to organize yourself among those triangles and cubes is important, yes, but it is a nonsense to consider this to be the central factor of intelligence, cos the problems being on shoulders of geniuses will be practical - mainly social and psychological, and will require creativity and deeper emotionality, and not only ability to detect the system behind a problem quickly in seconds, cos it does not matter if a genius is able to find a solution in a problem in 25 seconds or in 40, what counts is, if it is an innovating solving, respecting all the parts, all the people, and whether this solution brings the fruit in practical life. More more creativity and innovating requires more time. Some types of geniuses need 10-15 seconds more for each hard question just because their paradigma or approach to a problem has a different form, way, shape, choices, simply the "geometry of their brain" is altered.... etc. :) The 15 seconds makes no difference in practical life, but in the testing if you lose only 15 seconds on the last 10 hardest questions each, then you lose 150 seconds, which is 2 and half minutes, which might make you to lose 3-4 question, which is a loss of 9-12 points (approx.), and thus this factor is making you to lose opportunity to become a member of GPG, because you score "only" IQ 138-141, or eventually 149. And vice versa, some people can use very sophisticated way of "brainwork" among those tasks set by IQ tests, using methods of eliminations etc, which makes them very fast, they score over 150, and truly can have their intelligence the same as the people with 140... (and similar situations),
and if this would be connected with a negative personality, non respecting human rights, we can expect from him or her to quickly to organize our destruction!!!! That is why IQ tests are not enough. What about the geniuses with IQ 145 or 138, there were many mathematicians and high leveled scientists with IQ just lower than 150, and yet they were extremely creative, like Feynmann, who socred just IQ 125, its not low IQ at all, but not enough for our GPG, but his rational decisions might bring a rich fruit... (its just as an example). Lets mention Garry Kasparov, whos IQ is 135 (not 185-190 as it is circulated via internet), and he is the best chess player of all times so far... . He wins the chess games while using more time, but during that time he creates much sophisticated moves and suprises his opponent. It's not those few seconds which makes the difference in intelligence, but the creativity and the innovations. As we see, the most famous bodybuilder of all times, Arnie, has IQ 135, which is the same, and surely by far is not as intelligent as Kasparov, I would even say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is pretty stupid! Have you seen his speech during the elctions? lol.. The blood flows only one way, and nurtures either the muscles or the brain, but never both! :)))
This example with the chess thing reminds me that there are two different types of geniality - ANALYTICAL and FLEXIBLE.
The first (ANALYTICAL) is used in classic chess, where you have 90 minutes for the game (its just an example; it may be under a different rule 80 mins (for the first 40 moves) +30 mins (for the rest of the game), or 75 mins for opening and then 30 mins for the rest of the game, it depends...). The FLEXIBLE intelect is used while playing Blitz Rapid Chess, or the fast chess, where you get 3-5 minutes for the whole game, with added 3-10 seconds after each move you make. This is a chess where you cannot analyse so much and you must flexibly quickly "feel" where will be the next opponent's move, thus HERE you do not use so many combinations of moves, so you don't use your short-term memory and imagination as much as in the analytical game (where you need to remember many moves and to plan your action and imagine it - the imagination and analysis being the core of the intelligence!), so here, in the rapid type of chess, you need more your IQ speed, a timing taken into account, thus your flexibility. In the analytical classic chess game you use besides your IQ speed also the part of intelligence called the short-term memory and especially visualization, cos yes, you are limited in time too, but also you can plan your action more cos having longer duration of the game, the 90 minutes for the whole game. It seems then, that there exist many types of intellectual faculties (analytical, flexible, intuitive... short-term memory, mind-processor, imagination), which are some more but some less incorporated in the IQ tests nowadays, just the similar way as in the chess, the flexible intelligence - which takes a timing into account in a proportional ratio much more than the analytical intelligence - which itself requires more time to analyse cos its deeper, thus in the tests strictly limited in time can't be used so well, but its deeper and more imaginative, comparing to the flexible one, which is more adapting quickly and fastly organized. That is then why the classic chess and rapid chess have different champions, but it happens also that the Blitz chess champ wins the Classic or vice versa, and thus also people with IQ 135 can beat those with 160 in chess if they get a few minutes more for their game, or in the Classic chess too, and also it means that simply, there are more types of thinking, and we should fully understand that today's psychology cannot detect the complete human intelligence by making available and proper tests for testing the human intelect absolutely and precisely. It is also obvious, that people with IQ 120 can be truly MORE INTELLIGENT than those with 138, or those with 138 more intelligent that those with IQ150, just because the tests are now adapted only to the certain types of intelligence and the other types not.
Then something about myself. I am a member of Mensa - I almost always score above 130 (btw, I do not pay the membership lol, so they probably cancelled me), but my IQ is ranging 20 points up and down. (I am not too happy to say my quotient number, to avoid people looking at me an altered approach...), but if my IQ changes in almost the same type of tests (Raven's Matrices) and in the same type of IQ scale (Wechsler or Stanford-Binet, which is only 2 points different), then what should I think of these tests of IQ, if my points are always different?! Sometimes I am losing 2 questions, which is 2-4 points for each question, so I lose 4-8 points just because I am in a hurry and I count 2+3=6 or 2*3=5 etc. :)) Very often I miss a question just because I do not notice a little triangle in the corner or so, thus I am losing my points due to the bad concentration (which for me, a chaotic individual, is never 100%), sometimes I lose points because the question has a double answer, it means there are two correct answers, it sometimes happens, and in every test is at least one question like this, I really found a few questions where on 100% was a double answer, or at least at the first sight a double answer, which makes you to lose a lot of seconds, thus also the points. So sometimes you can only guess what they asked you to answer. If they prefered a subtracting system or an eliminating, derivating or dividing, linear or geometric, simply, sometimes (rarely, but sometimes yes) is impossible to say what they really ask, if the both systems or even more are in the hidden principle behind that. We must still remember that the system behind is created and hidden by subjective people thinking, thus is not 100% objecitve, not even if educated psychologists are in the work, because they also are just limited people as for their intelligence, and this includes also geniuses with IQ 165 who also hide the system which suits ONLY to them and to their subjectivity, but not necessarily to generally everyone, because as a scientific fact indirectly says "the more intelligent person is, the more specialized or 'concrete' his intelligence is". That is why many geniuses are then considered fools :) - it is not that they are truly "fools", they only are far divergent comparing to each other, and even more divergent to general public.. and this is also the reason why the IQ test given BY them to any IQ organizations testing people inevitably show this problem of - their subjectivity while composing/preparing them.
Then also, another issue, some people go quicklier using a method of elimination, simply they do not check the question completely, they only check the answers rougly, and then they find in a second the two options which are more likely the right answer and then quickly choose one which is the correct one, some people check all the question and only THEN they choose the right answer (this is specially the method for the more complicated answers), so these two approaches have a different duration when answering. That makes some people to lose their time, even in 3-7 minutes in a 30-minute test. That is too much to be precise. Then some people get tired after 20 minutes and they need a break, but some people can concentrate more than 30 minutes, which is not a part of intelligence but more a part of being able to stay calm and relaxed, or being able to better master their stress level, thus the score more points without beingn more intelligent not even on a rational mathematic-geometric level (which these IQ tests are testing). Then, some tests are testing your words composition or comparation skills, your dictionary level etc, which is far away from being objective, cos we all have a different dictionary, and we express differently, and that is also for the mathematic level, where we count, derivate or integrate elements differently, and this makes a different duration for each type of calculating operations for each person... Then also, when Raven's matrices are testing people, they check how fastly you are able to get the system hidden behind the scheme, BUT, some people get the first system wrong, the second system they detect also is wrong, and only the third one is correct, which takes them to find for instance 1 minute, whilst the other person has a different type of thinking and integrating, so they fisrtly detect the third system, and they quickly know the answer, but those rest two systems they would find only later, cos ... simply... they think vice versa... :) That takes them 20 seconds then. So we can clearly see how unobjective are the tests, and sometimes reduced only for an accidental guessing and that is also probably why sometimes I have IQ 130 and sometimes much more. It is impossible to make a objective test of intelligence until we still do not "see" into human's brain, to be able to make a test for each person different, that is to say to be adapted for each individual personality. Simply I know people around me with IQ 130-150 and they can't understand me, having approximately the same IQ like me, and there are people with IQ 103 who are very well adapted to be able to understand more complicated problems, and to operate on higher level, using their INTUITION, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EQ, about which I am going to write more some day later), using their ARTISTICAL INTELLIGENCE, CREATIVITY, SENSITIVITY, ABILITY TO ADAPT TO RELATIONSHIPS AND CONTACTS WITH PEOPLE etc, which is also a part of human intelligence. Some could say that its more only an experience stuff, which is not inherited but only built during their lifetime, but wait a moment, is not ability to manage stress or concentrate only obtained by lifetime experiences, is it not the ability to quickly choose the proper answer by method of elimination only gained in schools when making tests from maths? etc... How come that black people in USA have average IQ 100 but in Africa it is only 70? Isn't it because people in Africa have no education and this way they haven't acquired the ability quickly to adapt to be tested, which might be a matter of school habit, etc etc. Everything which can be improved in mind is only a matter of psychological training! Is IQ testing not? A child who is set into an environment where he/she makes a Math test everyday and is trying with his/her maximum effort, is this child not trained for IQ tests where he/she can score a bit points more just because being trained? Lets say only 5-10 points, but its still a LOT! If you lose 2-3 minutes in testing, you can lose 10 points! The 2-3 minutes of loss might be spent by some 30 seconds of non-concentration - the concentration discontinued by some involuntary outside or inside reasons (a movement of neighbour's paper or own memory accidental off) lets say it is only twice for 30 seconds, then again twice for 30 seconds by a little blocking in a short term memory thus forgetting an element, etc, simply, we are people and some of us have no hundred percent concentration all the time and are more susceptible to a disturbing effect. If losing just 3 minutes makes you to lose only 9 points, plus if someone is well trained and educated at aschool making tests every day, it gives him just 5-10 points, it is obvious we can make a difference 15-20 points in a two the same quality tests. Myself I had 125 and also 151 in the same quality tests, even from the same author, both Raven's Matrices, thus testing the same thing in my mind, and both using the same scale, the Wechsler scale. Is that logical? I can't say I usually score some number of points, cos it is always a lottery. I usually go over 130 (90% of cases), but higher it is always a lottery. I've had IQ 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135 twice, 136 (Mensa Czech), 137 (Mensa Denmark), 138 twice, 140, 141, 143 (Wechsler scale)... with a few extremes on 147 (Mensa Spain) and 151 and then also when making heaps of mistakes on level IQ 123 (an internet test)... so choose :)))) It means I go from 123 to 151. So where? Each test I have done only once, and the tests were the famous Raven's Matrices or that kind, and all of them used the same scale system when resulting... I "felt" sometimes being less clear in my mind, less concentrated, disturbed, or hard thinking, but the other time I was being very "in" it, very fast, it worked as a skiing on sharp snow, I had no doubts about anything....etc. So choose then your intelligent quotient....? So this way, I think, the IQ tests of any kind are inappropriate and very disproportional.
(read this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_K._Hoeflin - under the paragraph "Intelligence tests" - For over sixty years psychologists have suggested that people with extremely high IQs are radically different from the general population. Other psychologists such as David Feldman have a contrary view. Identifying such people would require IQ tests with reliability not currently available for extreme ranges of IQ.
Also: Hoeflin claims an IQ of 164, admitting his scores have ranged from 125 to 175, depending upon the cognitive abilities tapped into.
Some of the people have a slow perception but much faster executing the perceived elements bringing the results or answers on questions, but some vice versa. That means, they fastly absorb the elements necessary for getting the question INTO mind, but are quite slowly working with the elements and finding the right answer on the particular question, but the other ones are slow in perceiving, absorbing, but much faster in finding the answers, thus the latter ones have the higher inteligence, BUT the duration will be the same for both, and thus IQ score might be the same one or close. (there are many examples on that). That means, we cannot test with the same test a two different types of intelligences. With time, more an artificial intelligence will be involved in testing the human intelect. Scanning the brain of an individual, download his mind, analyze it, and prepare for him/her an adequate test.
But for now, we must use better tests. OK, we can use also a classical IQ tests, but this should be only 10-15% of the final score, shich would then contain also scores from EQ tests (emotional intelligence), creativity tests, intuition tests (both rational and also emotional intuition), many other performances, but especially we have to SEE what people have achieved in their lifetime and this use as a proof of their intelligence. I'm not talking about an education - even if informations and especially theories used in theoretical preparations during individual's lifetime are valuable, these can be replaced by google (lol), which itself helps us to find the right information on time, much faster than any professor from any leveled University can offer. Thus the creativity quotient (CQ) will be more watched and appreciated - like a artist-painter who have painted a lot of fantastic paintings, a creative one, and very well prepared philosophically, compassionately, with an IQ 130 can offer more for the geniocratic government than someone educated or someone with IQ 145 who is a fascist for example, or an old conservative and selfish economist with lets say IQ 160 who is (for instance) unable to absorb any new progressive and logical idea to his old and closed brain etc. Thus we can say that IQ in testing for political decisional Geniocracy is almost completely useless!
We need to find people with THE RIGHT IDEAS. But here comes the logical theory of subjectivity - who is considered to be RIGHT? We do not know who is truly closer to objectivity and who is more right than someone else. It is matter of subjective truths, sure. We can only say that truly some people are clsoer to objectivity, even if the math cannot prove it nowadays who is the one, cos the problems on Earth are compilation of theoretical solutions with practical techniques, also and especially there are huge percentage of emotional and love troubles. Everyone should know that the life itself brings complicated situations which you cannot resolve using neither DNA tests nor rational IQ tests, that sings to us that the Applied Practical Psychology must come into the work, but Psychology is a "soft science", a subjective science, or definitely less objecitve than Math. It will take a long time for us to find out the right answers in various situations, it is matter of right justice and right analysis, love, understanding the opposite ones etc, and connection of all of this, but truly we are heading towards a better future if a truly human Genius of Love and Genius of Mind will be in power. It takes a time to find a right answer. To let live is better than to kill, to eat is better than to starve hungry, so... let's continue in this development and we'll find the OBJECTIVE TRUTH with time.
But now we cannot compare the human intelect. We hardly can compare two lemons without tasting them. And you do not see into human mind, you cannot "taste" it completely, thus you cannot evaluate it. These tests we have now are here only for some orientative informations, theoretical, especially are suitable or applicable for to getting rid off those people who are really really obviously just dumb but they think they are clever and want to decide in elections who would be the next president, and by this immature thinking they are truly able to vote for a new Hitler or a new Stalin.
But the time for Geniocracy inevitably has come!
I am sure of it ;) That is probably the only think I am sure being objectively right.