YOUR TRUTH: What would you change about the world?

[BXM]

What is one thing you would alter about the world/society for the better?

I would get rid of capitalism in the U.S. or change it to something else; capitalism is a philosophy created by people sitting in a circle- why can't this ideology be altered for the better or what exactly is better? Does the common goal have to be primarily about money?- BXM

​

 

[Cait Takara]

After binge watching I Survived A Serial Killer last Saturday, I would revamp the death penalty nationwide.

 

[Matty]

I'd Carrington Event everything back to the pre-electronics age.

 

[Wyote]

I'd give smart people more emotion and dumb people less emotion.
Similarly I'd give dumb people more straight forward logic to follow and smart people more complex emotional issues to solve.

Something along those lines, if not just throw Earth in the trash.

 

[BXM]

I agree- especially when learning about the reality of heinous crimes around the country.

When it comes to the criminal justice system and states without the death penalty, how is there justice/closure for the victims? What kind of justice is that? This is one of the many flaws of this system.

 

[Wyote]

I'd Carrington Event everything back to the pre-electronics age.

Don't worry, it's on its way

 

[Cait Takara]

if not just throw Earth in the trash.

 

[BXM]

Me too, so that we can all talk to each other again and be civil. Technology has changed things for the better and for the worse...

 

[BXM]

Unfortunately there are many narrowminded people in this world, even in high positions- which sucks.

 

[Cait Takara]

how is there justice/closure for the victims?

When those survivors described that moment they really believed they were going to die and the flashbacks of all the things they lived for, their loved ones..man I lost it Every. Time.

 

[Matty]

Don't worry, it's on its way

A few months ago I read something about ice core research which suggested Carrington type events occur on average about every 150 years.

It will be catastrophic in most ways, but in terms of resetting many aspects of society and life which have become bizzare, it would certainly refocus many priorities.

 

[John K]

Maybe change is the problem - we have too much of it, all happening too quickly and chaotically. Because of that neither we nor the world around us can adjust to it, so we and the whole Earth are in a constant and ever-changing crisis.

So perhaps I’d stop all change for 3 generations - it would give everything time to catch up with itself.

 

[aeon]

I wouldnʼt change anything beyond what I work to change already...myself.

But if I have to pick something, Iʼd move the median IQ four deviations to the right.

Thatʼs Enough,
Ian

 

[Lady Jolanda]

But if I have to pick something, Iʼd move the median IQ four deviations to the right.

Thatʼs Enough,

Oh, only 60 points? That's enough?

Lmao.

Imagine a world where the average IQ is 160. That would mean 1 in 2 people would have that IQ. Currently that's 1 in 30-thousand or so? (It's the 99.99683'th percentile. That would mean that in that world, an IQ of 220 is as rare as an IQ of 160 now. You can check the calculation using the cdf of the normal distribution. Have fun.)

Plenty of intelligent people here, but I doubt a single person on this forum has an IQ of 160, let alone 220. It's dizzying to even consider.

 

[BXM]

Maybe change is the problem - we have too much of it, all happening too quickly and chaotically. Because of that neither we nor the world around us can adjust to it, so we and the whole Earth are in a constant and ever-changing crisis.

Very true- we never have time to catch up which can cause conflict. I honestly wish we could have a restart button, learn form our mistakes and make the world more peaceful.​

 

[Elis]

Oh, only 60 points? That's enough?

Lmao.

Imagine a world where the average IQ is 160. That would mean 1 in 2 people would have that IQ. Currently that's 1 in 30-thousand or so? (It's the 99.99683'th percentile. That would mean that in that world, an IQ of 220 is as rare as an IQ of 160 now. You can check the calculation using the cdf of the normal distribution. Have fun.)

Plenty of intelligent people here, but I doubt a single person on this forum has an IQ of 160, let alone 220. It's dizzying to even consider.

I don't quite understand your point. Unless you want to magically squish the distribution, you'll always have these outliers, wherever the median lies. He said move it a few deviations to the right and that will be plenty, not that everyone has to have super villain intelligence.

 

[BXM]

I wouldnʼt change anything beyond what I work to change already...myself.

But if I have to pick something, Iʼd move the median IQ four deviations to the right

I like the self-improvement point- that's what is really important in the end.


And interesting when you mention higher IQs in the world, I wonder what it would be like out there.

 

[BXM]

Unless you want to magically squish the distribution, you'll always have these outliers, wherever the median lies. He said move it a few deviations to the right and that will be plenty, not that everyone has to have super villain intelligence.

I like it. We love some math- even though I'm terrible at it.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I don't quite understand your point. Unless you want to magically squish the distribution, you'll always have these outliers, wherever the median lies. He said move it a few deviations to the right and that will be plenty, not that everyone has to have super villain intelligence.

Clearly.

You'd even have outliers with a 'squished' distribution. The only time you don't is with an sd of 0, then all your values are the same, and that's just an infinite line upwards. But none of this is relevant.

My point was that if you moved the distribution a few deviations to the right, the average person would be a super genius, and that it's hard to imagine what such a world would look like. It's no small change. The calculation was merely to illustrate that point.
Perhaps it's clearer if I say that 95% of the population will have an IQ between 131 and 189? (Rounded.) So yes, "everyone" would be a genius.

 

[John K]

Clearly.

You'd even have outliers with a 'squished' distribution. The only time you don't is with an sd of 0, then all your values are the same, and that's just an infinite line upwards. But none of this is relevant.

My point was that if you moved the distribution a few deviations to the right, the average person would be a super genius, and that it's hard to imagine what such a world would look like. It's no small change. The calculation was merely to illustrate that point.
Perhaps it's clearer if I say that 95% of the population will have an IQ between 131 and 189? (Rounded.) So yes, "everyone" would be a genius.

Just thinking about this since @aeon posted it - I wonder if raising everyone's IQ like this could well be nightmarish. The trouble is that cleverness is not the same as wisdom, and having a lot of genius level but unwise folks would be .... interesting. I've come across quite a few very clever people in my time who lacked the parallel emotional ability to wield it well. Now if that were raised to the same extent as well, we could see a much better world.