So you want builders, checkout workers, farmers etc to be MPs?
James Blunt Chris Bryant MP Row
- Thread starter The Dread Pirate
- Start date
So you want builders, checkout workers, farmers etc to be MPs?
Why not?
They will certainly have more knowledge of what the everyday person wants and needs than those in power currently.
Provided they have the mental aptitude then really, why not?
We currently have people in positions dictating to others how to act, how to work and how to live when they have no knowledge of that themselves.
Take the education secretary. She's a bloody lawyer. What the hell does a lawyer know about teaching?
Why not? we have a person with a degree in politics charge of business/healthcare etc.
Wouldn't we better served with a time served doctor/ nhs manager in charge of healthcare or say a senior businessman in charge of the economy. etc
People from an industry running that sector of the government isn't going to end well in a lot of cases. Also, as much as everyone loves to believe that its super simple to fix huge issues like education or the NHS, its not. Saying that the education system needs reform is like saying we should abolish war. Its a nice idea but there are so many factors that affect what you can do, how you do it, how you gain support from people that matter etc.
Everyone is free to run for local government and there are people from all walks of life in there but to artificially try and include more people from "trades" is just a stupid headline grabbing idea that makes idiots say "yeah I like the idea of more people like me running things, I wouldn't let x happen".
Its not that simple. Like controlling the banking sector, it sounds really simple to implement ideas that stop rampant bonuses but thats not the whole issue and there are always many factors that make these things harder than they appear.
To be fair to Nicky Morgan her brief is to keep quiet and not upset anymore people like Gove did.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Intelligence is mostly genetic. Intelligent people tend to do better in life than less intelligent people. People who do well want their kids to do well and send them to public school.
Am I meant to be surprised that the people at the top tend to be from public school backgrounds?
Rather than **** on those already at the top, how about we work on giving better opportunity to those who are smart enough to get there. Eg Grammar schools.
Am I meant to be surprised that the people at the top tend to be from public school backgrounds?
Rather than **** on those already at the top, how about we work on giving better opportunity to those who are smart enough to get there. Eg Grammar schools.
Intelligence is mostly genetic. Intelligent people tend to do better in life than less intelligent people. People who do well want their kids to do well and send them to public school.
Am I meant to be surprised that the people at the top tend to be from public school backgrounds?
Rather than **** on those already at the top, how about we work on giving better opportunity to those who are smart enough to get there. Eg Grammar schools.
What a load of complete and utter tripe, genetics has no bearing on intelligence, there are plenty of people from poor backgrounds that can wipe the floor with private school children. Hell wasnt Albert Einsteins father a salesmen not exactly landed gentry.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
I agree. Whilst Blunts comments are funny, and I'm not a supporter of Chris or the Labour Party, he does make a very valid point.
The number of people from privileged backgrounds in the music industry is stark. Even the number of artist who try to promote a "street" personar who went to public school is very surprising.
Radio 1 (BBC in general tbh), has to take some responsibly for the problem IMO. It's very influential, and they seem to have a phobia of working class people.
This is also true. When the Labour Party's more edgy firebrands are public school, Oxbridge educated, it sums up the scale of the problem.
Last edited:
You don't think we inherit certain traits/qualities from our parents?
Granted I don't think we live in a particularly meritocratic society and we're probably going backwards in that respect - but there does seem to be an inheritable aspect of intelligence or at least of IQ.
Intelligence is situational, an IQ test only able to measure intelligence in one partition of its aspect.
if intelligence was only ever inherited, the majority of humanity would have been separated into a higher class and a lower class forever but during great upheavals in such as in the industrial revolution where people from simple backgrounds have shown greater intelligence than the richer land owners. Some examples of this are:
- Edmund Cartwright - father was a ironmonger, owned large mills and created a socialist utopia for his workers and the co-op
- George Stephenson - father was illiterate and he never went to school yet invented the steam locomotive
Parent's cannot pass on intelligence, they can teach certain traits. If a child came out the womb with inherit traits from the womb, they wouldn't have the whole learning stage which is part of childhood.
The best you can do for a child is get them interested in a certain subject, then assist them as much as possible.
At the moment we have mediocre people getting important jobs in power because of parents and race/gender, which is a retarded way of picking people for leadership. The leaderships roles should go to people that are best for the job.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
There is broad agreement that intelligence is inherited, its just the degree to which its inherited that is debated. Did you even consider hitting Google before responding?
Obviously the issue is far more complicated than that. Socio-economic factors, education, nutrition and so forth all plays a part. But the fact remains, smart people make smarter kids.
The fact Einstein's father wasn't rich or recognised as especially intelligent doesn't refute this. Having the genetic basis for high intelligence does not mean you'll become highly intelligent. You might also have the genetics for alcoholism or laziness for example, which would curtail your potential a great deal.
But the yes, the fact is, people at the top are usually there for a reason. The myth that we're all born equal is just tripe. Which is why its important we find those kids who have the right genetics but not the right background and push them upwards.
Spook187 said:
Has someone just discovered they are shooting inferior DNA?
Last edited:
You have no idea, people like you are called planks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I think the technical term is 'bull'.
nope
you've misunderstood that pointing out there is an inheritable element to IQ doesn't necessarily mean that that is the only factor
intelligence != knowledge
intelligence, or at least IQ - would seem to have a link to both to your genes inherited from parents and your upbringing
if it was just environmental you'd not see the correlation present in identical twins who've been raised separately