A Remarkable Number of People Think 'The Martian' Is Based On a True Story (buzzfeed.com)

MarkWhittington writes: The Martian is a smash hit movie that made $100 million worldwide during its first weekend. The science and engineering depicted was, with certain notable exceptions, near perfect. The cinematography and special effects were so well done that one could almost imagine that Ridley Scott sent Matt Damon and a film crew to Mars to shoot the movie. In fact, perhaps the film was a little too good. Buzzfeed took a stroll through social media and discovered that many people think that The Martian is based on a true story.

Comments

People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing new about it.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is happening to Slashdot? I mean Buzzfeed? Examiner? If I wanted stupidity I'd head over to Digg. Where has all the intelligence gone?

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where has all the intelligence gone?

4chan.

Re:People are idiots.

[Shadow of Eternity]

Half of all people are below average intelligence.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of people are below median intelligence. That might not coincide exactly with the mean.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called "monetization of the property" by Dice.

Re:People are idiots.

[arth1]

+1 Unintentionally Informative

This is probably true, to some degree. 4chan attracts the outliers or long tails of the bell curve, i.e. the misfits who don't fit in, from both sides of the curve. This also includes some quite intelligent people.

But a perhaps a more interesting question is where did the wisdom go, and that certainly is not 4chan.

Re:People are idiots.

[Culture20]

Half of all people are below average intelligence.

No. It's a bell curve distribution, not a line with a point at 100. Half of all people being below average would mean that no one was average. The vast majority of people are average because "average" is a small range in the middle of the bell curve. The area under the section under the curve relative to the total area under the whole curve indicates the percentage of the population. Even if you assume IQ 100 and only IQ 100 as average there are still a lot of people in that slot. Also, a very large percentage of the smaller number of people who are below average are not going to see this movie or even think about the trailer to eventually make the fallacious "based on a true story" claim (or do any of the other stupid things that often prompt this meme). Many still aren't allowed in "polite society" or are confined to home or nursing home.
So remember, when you hear about study results that say 40% of "adults on the street" can't point to Africa on a map, they're talking about a smidgeon of below average people, some of the average people, and even some of the above average people. Be happy that they know what Africa is, a map is, and that either can be on the other, but only in different ways. That they point to the wrong part of the map (or believe a movie to be "based on a true story") shows they know something.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely the things buzzfeed picked up on were people from 4chan trolling the media. The real tards here are the reporters.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? So some people pay very little attention to science, doesn't make them stupid. You're obviously a man of science, much like me. We probably appreciate and make it our business to understand what's happening in the world of science. The world is a huge place and one thing I have learned in 50 years of living on this ball of rock, is that as each year passes I become ever more tolerant of other people. How do know what other talents these so called "idiots" as you call them, have? Would you call an autistic person an idiot if their talents lay in the arts and not math or science, knowing full well they simply don't have the capacity to appreciate science through no fault of their own? I'd hope not. Some people simply cannot understand science or they have zero interest, they chose a different path through life.

To you and I it's damned obvious that "The Martian" is simply a story, we've spent our time studying the history of space exploration ( what little we have achieved so far ) but to others who've very little interest it might be one of the first times they've thought about it. Would you scold a child for stating that they thought the story was true? No, of course not. You might chuckle but then you'd explain a potted history of space exploration to them in the hopes of explaining why it's only a story.

Re:People are idiots.

[AmiMoJo]

I'm not sure if he means "where has all the intelligence gone (to)" or "where has all the intelligence gone (from)". Your answer is either very scary or very accurate.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

  George Carlin

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, A girl I work with didn't know that mars was a real planet. She thought it was made up for that nerdy science fiction stuff.
Hell another coworker (Non christian, wasn't raised religious) doesn't believe dinosaurs existed. he is an avid viewer of the O'Reilly factor though.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in america

Re:People are idiots.

[TheCarp]

Of course its not new, but, so is having outlandish tales that started with some kernel of a true story.

There was a Defcon talk I caught on youtube about "the only way to tell the truth is in fiction", which makes the point that a story can be 95% true, as long as nobody who doesn't already know the truth can separate fact from fiction.

If the setting wasn't mars, and the rescuers were not astronauts, why couldn't it be 95% true? Just change the backdrop and take away the technology that comes with it, and people coming toghether to rescue him, and the challenges both face in the mean time..... ok so its set Mars....

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Even with a bell curve, it's still half!

Re:People are idiots.

[NotDrWho]

When you're a smart, well-educated person, it's always easy to forget that the vast majority of people out there aren't. When you leave your downtown yuppie zone or university dorm once and a while and head out into the small towns, you'll find a different world. It wouldn't surprise me if most people think that we have a permanent base on the moon and have no idea that the U.S. doesn't even have the capacity to send humans into LEO anymore (you would have to start by explaining to them that you don't mean Leo DiCaprio). You could tell them that we landed a man on Mars years ago and they would probably just nod like idiots. Just look at all the popular movies where:

a) The Space Shuttle program still exists
b) The Space Shuttle can go ANYWHERE (including to and from the moon, landing and taking off from asteroids, etc.)
c) Human landings and bases on Mars are a fucking breeze.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with a bell curve, it is just a throw-away one liner that doesn't need to be statistically refuted.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets not fall prey to Buzzfeed's idiotic click bait scheme. While the question is a bit idiotic, with all the news that The Martian worked with NASA on the science for the film I could see how a lot of science illiterate people might get confused. There were A LOT of news stories published about how so and so from the film worked with NASA to get various details correct. Kardashian Fan + CNN article = dumb question. Shouldn't strike anyone as that odd. Buzzfeed sensationalizing a non-issue to their audience, that is about (ironically enough) their audience.

Re:People are idiots.

[Culture20]

Sigh. Even with a bell curve, it's still half!

Not unless the bell curve dips suddenly to zero at IQ 100 (meaning no one has IQ 100). Also note that I defined average intelligence as a range (common parlance), not the exact spot of IQ 100. Less than half are below average and less than half are above average because a lot are average (close to 100). And if you do choose to say "no, only IQ 100 is average!" then still less than half are below and less than half are above because some are IQ 100.
I'll feed one apparent troll today.

Re: People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

This assumes that intelligence levels are quantized, not continuous. If intelligence levels are continuous, there would literally be nobody *at* the average level. (Integral of 0 length)

Re:People are idiots.

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. We're not talking about seriously mentally challenged people (e.g. autistic savants, or anyone else who can't take care of themselves) or about children, we're talking about regular adults who have jobs, drive cars to work, etc.

Since we live in a technological society where we have to have some grasp of technology just in order to live and get along (you can't drive a car without knowing a little bit about technology, nor can you use a typical smartphone), excusing people for being completely uneducated about science is ridiculous. This is part of a basic education, stuff that everyone should know about to some extent.

So yes, if someone actually thinks Mars isn't a real planet, or that dinosaurs didn't exist, then that means they flunked 5th-grade science class and are therefore an idiot.

If there's one thing that popular TV has done for us lately, I'd say the show "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" actually is a help because it gives us an idea of where we ALL *should* be educationally; if you're not even as educated as a typical 5th grader, then you're a failure. This isn't a matter of "having different talents", this is a matter of very, very basic education. My talents are definitely not in literature, but I still can read and I know who Shakespeare was, and know of several of his plays. Considering he's probably the most important person in English literature, not knowing anything about him would be inexcusable and a sign of a completely lacking education. My talents aren't in biology either, but I learned about basic biology in high school; everyone else should have as well. I'm definitely not at all talented at art, but I know who Picasso was, again because I managed to graduate 8th grade. Heck, I think I learned about cubism and impressionism in 5th grade.

Not knowing basic science isn't a matter of having different talents or interests, it's a matter of basic elementary school education. If you don't have that, there's something wrong with you, plain and simple.

Re:People are idiots.

[Applehu Akbar]

I think these are all the same people who years ago were quoted as not wanting to see Apollo 13 because "I don't like science fiction."

Re:People are idiots.

[Applehu Akbar]

Isn't 4chan the social site for school shooters? You can send out co-conspirator requests to other people, and invite folks to 'bullet' your 'rage page' on the site.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Half of all people are less intelligent than the other half.

This is true.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of all people are below average intelligence.

No. It's a bell curve distribution, not a line with a point at 100. Half of all people being below average would mean that no one was average. The vast majority of people are average because "average" is a small range in the middle of the bell curve. The area under the section under the curve relative to the total area under the whole curve indicates the percentage of the population. Even if you assume IQ 100 and only IQ 100 as average there are still a lot of people in that slot. Also, a very large percentage of the smaller number of people who are below average are not going to see this movie or even think about the trailer to eventually make the fallacious "based on a true story" claim (or do any of the other stupid things that often prompt this meme). Many still aren't allowed in "polite society" or are confined to home or nursing home.

So remember, when you hear about study results that say 40% of "adults on the street" can't point to Africa on a map, they're talking about a smidgeon of below average people, some of the average people, and even some of the above average people. Be happy that they know what Africa is, a map is, and that either can be on the other, but only in different ways. That they point to the wrong part of the map (or believe a movie to be "based on a true story") shows they know something.

Bell curve is continuous distribution. Average (= median in Gaussian distribution) is a point and not a range and hence "half people below average" is mathematically correct). Now clearly human intelligence sampling will be discrete and you may find lot a people have intelligence = sample average value(not same as average intelligence of humans) but the fitted distribution will be continuous (again using your assumption of "bell curve distribution").

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally and enthusiastically concur!

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be pedantic, you should be right.

Hint: if intelligence follows a continuous probability distribution, exactly 0 people are average.

Re:People are idiots.

[CanadianMacFan]

When the lander touched down on the comet it was on the news and in the newspapers the next day. It was pretty popular in the social media too. The same thing happens if we put a robot on Mars. Remember how much attention Spirit and Opportunity got?

Now imagine how much people will be talking when the first person steps onto Mars. There will be billions of people looking at a live (delayed due to distance) feed. Every TV station will be showing it along with every news website. It will be the trending topic of every social media site. It would be like someone who hadn't heard of the end of WWII or the moon landing (even the deniers have heard of that).

So it's hard to see how someone would think that the movie is based on a true story when such a momentous event would be so widely known.

Re:People are idiots.

[rhazz]

Didn't you know? Slashdot is now an extension of George Takei's facebook feed.

Re:People are idiots.

[Tukz]

Quite sure the "school shooters" also frequented Facebook and McDonalds.

Re:People are idiots.

[LetterRip]

If there's one thing that popular TV has done for us lately, I'd say the show "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" actually is a help because it gives us an idea of where we ALL *should* be educationally

The show is mostly useless trivia, so no it isn't 'where we all should be educationally'. If people never know about the majority of US Presidents, or specific dates of historic events, there would be absolutely no loss to education.

Re: People are idiots.

[Maxo-Texas]

And besides, it's a well known cliched joke/truism that is mostly true still even when quibbling.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course your bias is showing.
You assume that to be well educated one must have a knowledge of or care about the space program, or live in an urban area or university for that matter.
Some of those small town people who you claim are not well educated might feel the same way about someone who has no knowledge of farming techniques, equestrian practices or knowledge of automotive mechanics. Many might feel that a comprehensive knowledge of agricultural knowledge or even practical gardening might be much more useful knowledge to possess.
How much does it really matter whether or not the U.S. has any manned space capability?
For that matter there are scientists who are very conversant with space related subjects who feel that manned space endeavors are a waste of resources that could be better used for robotic exploration.

Re:People are idiots.

[tnk1]

I agree that rote memorization by itself is useless, but it is the basis for further understanding of history. If you want to understand the context of what a US President did, you better know when he was alive and in office. Even relatively minor US Presidents had big things happen during their Presidency.

Consider what would have happened if James Buchanan had taken a stronger line against secession in his lame duck months as president when the Civil War was getting off the ground. What? You didn't know he was the President for the first few months of the Civil War? Yes, you'd have to know when he was President to know that. He was about as minor as they come, but wouldn't it be better if some minor clerk-like executive like him stopped the war instead of needing someone like Lincoln to have to drive the country through years of the bloodiest conflict the world had seen to date?

Dates are important for context and context is necessary for analysis. And if you want to be able to talk about things like that without constantly looking shit up on Wikipedia, you start by knowing contexts of when things happened.

Given the retarded reaction of people to things that keep being resolved in History, only for them to pop up again, I'd think someone would be very interested in making sure most people understood history as best they could.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of all people are below average intelligence.

No. It's a bell curve distribution, not a line with a point at 100. Half of all people being below average would mean that no one was average. The vast majority of people are average because "average" is a small range in the middle of the bell curve. The area under the section under the curve relative to the total area under the whole curve indicates the percentage of the population. Even if you assume IQ 100 and only IQ 100 as average there are still a lot of people in that slot.

Of course, IQ only occurs in nature as a natural number, that's why there is no possibility that the mathematical average (aka line in middle of bell curves) occurs between two natural numbers. Also, apparently all bell curves are symmetrical and the human population is always an odd number...

Re: People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never met an idiot Antarctican.

Re: People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. That sort of information is only useful when a temporal vortex|alien|replicator sends you to the Civil War.

Re:People are idiots.

[tehcyder]

So remember, when you hear about study results that say 40% of "adults on the street" can't point to Africa on a map, they're talking about a smidgeon of below average people, some of the average people, and even some of the above average people. Be happy that they know what Africa is, a map is, and that either can be on the other, but only in different ways. That they point to the wrong part of the map (or believe a movie to be "based on a true story") shows they know something.

"Idiocracy" was supposed to be a warning, not a motivational poster.

Re:People are idiots.

[tehcyder]

Lloyd Christmas: [sees framed newspaper article about moon landing] No, way! That's great.

[chuckles]

Lloyd Christmas: WE'VE LANDED ON THE MOON!

Re:People are idiots.

[Culture20]

Except when you transfer the graph over to real life (half of all people etc), you have to recognize that the area under the curve is separated into exactly the same number of sections as there are people. There are no infinitesimally small or thin points or lines in the real measurements.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mean, median, and mode are all types of averages. I wish people would stop nitpicking this.

Re:People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mean, median, and mode are all types of averages. I wish people would stop nitpicking this.

They are all different things, and some people are more than willing to abuse the "average" persons notion of what average means to persuade them of various things. Unless someone specifically states the mode or median, I automatically assume people are talking about the mean when they say average. Median can usually be assumed to be similar to the mean for large sets but that is not always the case. The mean of the set {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11} is ~5.8, the median is 6. As for the mode... well it isnt even always a single value. In the set above it is both 1 and 10.

Re:People are idiots.

[agm]

Given how many people think there is an imaginary friend in the sky that looks out for them and hears their prayers, this is not surprising.

Re: People are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

The martian in the context of being a true story is obviously some kind of christian prophecy.

Also i would like to point out this. If you are going to call someone an idiot you are better off improving the definition to suite contemporary applications.

Like maths teachers in Cobram forcing students to show working on paper rather than letting the student work on his or her mental temporal-spacial memory, vis a vis the reason why digital education is not as effective as it should be. Blame the previous generations if you are not able to realise computers were not completely controlled since artificial intelligence was not made as useful as it could of been. That being said research into quantum mechanics and how it is applicable to decision making has improved the amount of control a person has when using a computer running on electrons:it can be simply be described as not being fully aware of how microgravity affects the mind.

Thus leading to the movie the martian being made because of mayan philosophy interacting with the whole god debarcle which has disrupted the science of truth and thus causing anomolies in technology of the alien variety leading to suspect there are actually aliens who abduct individuals but in reality it is just some religious idiot who always gets caught abducting people, brainwashing them, implanting false memories, so the person with an IQ below 128 could inevitably act as a sentinel for a monotheistic shadow operative.

Restricted strong artificial intelligence is close ;)

Who is the idiot in the room?

A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who knows anything about space exploration knows that no human has gone past the moon. If people actually think a movie was filmed on Mars, they're morons. Besides, how the hell is this news for nerds, stuff that matters? Surely there's something more relevant or important to post about!

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Dominare]

If you think stories like this aren't important, just remember the fact that each of those people has the same number of votes in our glorious democracy as you do. There is no such thing as 'too much' when it comes to shaming stupidity in public.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

True in general, but there definitely IS such a thing as too much if shaming a specific individual. While that's not the case here, it can't be stressed enough. This public shaming crap has gone WAY WAY to far, to the point that you just have to hope your name never comes up among any significant number of Internet users because they'll either make you a king (e.g. clock boy) or essentially destroy your life and future for some relatively petty and insignificant perceived "wrong," the likes of which we've almost all said or done at some point in our lives.

(see also the book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" Scary stuff.)

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I partially take that back, after going to the extra effort of clicking BOTH links, I see it does name some names. IMHO, it shouldn't. Everyone has their moments, including you and me. If you assert that you've never posted (let alone simply said or done in a relatively private setting) something incredibly stupid at least once or twice, you are LYING.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[righteousness]

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent. People should be asked to take a test and the weight of their individual votes should depend on how well they do on the test.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[ScentCone]

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent.

Does that mean that my vote will count more than yours, because I know the difference between "intelligent" and "intelligence?"

Be careful how you tell other people to measure things.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, how about just adult male property owners! Oh wait...

We have a representative democracy and not a pure democracy for a reason. It's intended to help protect us from the idiots and also prevent the majority from marginalizing and taking away the rights of the minority.

Unfortunately the Internet is the worst of all possible worlds; the loudest or the majority, or the idiots (sometimes all three in the same) immediately pass judgement with no more knowledge than is spoon fed by the partisan media on one side or the other to deliberately provoke "outrage" and get more clicks and hence more ad revenue (i.e. for their own gain). But that's another topic.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[AthanasiusKircher]

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent. People should be asked to take a test and the weight of their individual votes should depend on how well they do on the test.

The problem with proposals like this is that whoever is in power will design the "test" to disenfranchise other people. In case you're unaware, poll "tests" were common in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s: they were widely used to prevent black people from voting in many areas. The "tests" claimed to be about literacy or whatever, but they were made arbitrarily difficult so that blacks couldn't pass. In fact, whites couldn't pass either, but they were literally "grandfathered" in (i.e., if their grandfather who was eligible to vote, they didn't have to take the test... blacks mostly had slaves for grandfathers, so they wouldn't have been eligible to vote -- this is where the phrase comes from).

Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

I think most would agree as long as you don't try to get them to admit a specific example of being stupid.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[righteousness]

If you're more intelligent than I am, then I wouldn't mind if your vote counts more than mine.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[CaptQuark]

I will. I admit it was stupid to read this far down this chain of posts.
--

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.

Maybe add a simple quiz that tests for knowledge of the Constitution. If you support public officials voting based on religious beliefs you are out. If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out. If you believe congress can fund war without declaring it, you are out. If you believe congress or the president can disregard the constitution to fight terrorism, drugs, or "the general welfare" you are out. If you believe courts can't overturn congress your out. If you believe courts can grant themselves the authority to overturn a jury or limit juries to determination of fact without the ability to judge the merit of application of the law on a case by case basis, you are out. And last but not least if you don't understand that individuals is the only group that includes every citizen and therefore any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community", you are out. E.X. The automatic reduction in rights when accused of a wrongdoing by the state in traffic court vs other charges. Don't know that corporations are not people and that everyone with an interest in them is already a person and therefore already has the ability to represent their own rights and interests, you are out.

Note, that is not how things currently work in our process but it is how it's supposed to work and would work if swaying popular opinion couldn't break things.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Kjella]

Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?

And you must realize that political parties immediately get incentive to do this if the voters most likely to be excluded lean a particular way politically. Say party A is strong with the low income families and party B is more of a middle class party and that statistically if you make the test harder more low income families will drop out because they're already working their ass off making ends meet. Now one party has obvious incentive to set the bar higher, the other to set the bar lower. Here in Norway there's a campaign to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, you can compare the youth vote scores with the parties supporting it and it's obvious why. Voters who've mostly never had a real job, never paid taxes and never had to balance a budget because they live at home with mom and dad with an allowance tend to vote quite differently than people who've had to support themselves.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Cyberax]

If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.

If you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" - you're out.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent. People should be asked to take a test and the weight of their individual votes should depend on how well they do on the test.

Great. So under your plan, now all the evil geniuses get to rule the world.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[nospam007]

"Anyone who knows anything about space exploration knows that no human has gone past the moon. If people actually think a movie was filmed on Mars, they're morons."

I bet lots of them are the same people that do not believe the moon-landing was real.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[nospam007]

"IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote."

As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters, I'm glad you won't be able to vote with that system.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Very democratic that, if you don't support certain current political lines of thought, you can't vote. How about, if you want to restrict others right to take part in the democratic process, you're out.

Ooops.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, you don't know the difference between a simple mistake and actual ignorance.

Be careful how you tell other people you are superior to them.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out."

SHOULD BE ABLE? Isn't that an opinion? If you believe constitution should be carved to stone and used like a religious text you are out.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Imrik]

What happens when the stupid majority decides to invert your weighting of votes?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I don't think it need be that complex. To understand issues, a voter must be able to grasp main points--many simple tests exist for this--and have a lower-elementary school math mastery:
establish whether the potential voter grasps larger versus smaller, has the ability to read "big" numbers, can derive general truths/proportions from from a simple pie chart, and can demonstrate an understanding of at least decimal values such as .10, .20, .25, .33, .50, .75.
Wouldn't that cover the essentials?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Megol]

Stupidity isn't the same as ignorance.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[stjobe]

"Remember, half the people you meet are dumber than the average."

While not strictly true, because of median/mean ambiguity, the word "dumber", and that you probably don't meet statistically random samples of people, it's still useful because it makes people think "waitaminute, that can't be right" - and then they have to realize that it's probably not, but IQ is also not some objective measure of dumb/smart. It's probably not really a good measure of anything but the ability to do well on IQ tests.

An IQ score only has meaning in relative terms of the population on which it is measured, as "IQ 100" is by definition just the median test score of a certain population. Each standard deviation up or down is +15/-15 points, so 85-115 should contain about 68.2% of the population, with only 2.1% or so being lower than 70 and another 2.1% being higher than 130.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Eunuchswear]

So you're in favour of making it impossible to modify the constitution -- anyone who would modify it is unable to vote.

But of course the constitution itself includes the mechanisms for amendment, which you want to make impossible to use, so you would not have the right to vote under this system.

Re: A remarkable number of people are idiots

[macsimcon]

The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to overrule Congress, Marbury v. Madison does. Will John Marshall be allowed to vote?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[peragrin]

The problem then becomes the creation of the test itself, and how and by whom it is scored.

Remember the rich will demand special testing for themselves, in special rooms, so that if nessecary bribes can be passed around.

You have to remove the ability to bribe the graders. Then it becomes how has the answers. do you test intelligence or do you test knowledge. memorization is easy to cheat against intelligence is not but requires graders who now the subject.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[TheRaven64]

So under your plan, now all the evil geniuses get to rule the world.

It's hard to say whether this is better or worse than the current plan to allow evil idiots to run the world...

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[lisaparratt]

Except it's an asymmetrical distribution, not normal, i.e. Marilyn vos Savant (with an IQ of 186) does not have a counterpart with an IQ 14, because that doesn't result in a functional human (IQs bottom out somewhere around 48).

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe anyone should be disenfranchaised, and I believe votes should be equal. If you think people's knowledge + intelligence is a problem then that's cause for improving education, not leaving people out.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! Those morons wouldn't understand anyway. For the US, we could just tell them that the weight of their votes is 56 Kg and it would be all over.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[jeremyp]

Anyone who knows anything about space exploration knows that no human has gone past the moon.

Not even Major Tom?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't get smarter when you shame them. Or did you imagine that their IQ increases from public shaming? Perhaps it is you that is stupid and needs to be shamed.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[AmiMoJo]

Being intelligent doesn't mean you aren't an idiot. Look at the Hitchens brothers. Polar opposites, totally different ideas about how to improve the world, both pretty intelligent guys by all accounts.

This reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where they put the smart people in charge.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[fgouget]

IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.

Testing for intelligence would be really stupid. You can be really smart and the worst kind of racist, intolerant bigot, or simply a total self-centered jerk who will not care that his decisions disfranchise everyone as long as he benefits. So if you want to introduce some sort of test it would be much better to test for empathy: someone who cannot put himself in other people's shoes should not be trusted to make decisions for others.

Oh, by the way, you failed the empathy test!

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is incorrect. His test is stupid. But not for the reason you mention. His test was on the constitution as it is constructed now. The answers are matter of fact. That doesn't mean that you can't vote to change it. It just means that you have to pass a test on what it says now. The ability to do that would seem to be a solid prerequisite for a reasonable person to then work to change it anyway. If you don't understand it now, how can you propose effective change?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[angel'o'sphere]

Hm, while you are right in some sense ;D thechnically humans where beyond the moon.
Because they orbited the moon relatively close to the euqator ^-^ hi hi hi!

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[AmiMoJo]

Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.

50% of the population can't vote based on a test that you can easily improve at simply by practising.

If you support public officials voting based on religious beliefs you are out

Some people claim atheism is a religion. Also, not all religions are the same, e.g. Buddhists are not nearly as deluded as Christians, who are not nearly as deluded as Muslims, in general terms.

If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.

If you believe any citizen should be able to own a nuclear ICBM or place land mines in the front yard, you're out.

And last but not least if you don't understand that individuals is the only group that includes every citizen and therefore any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community", you are out.

If you think rights are not a balance between opposing forces, and that include both freedom from interference and freedom to prosper and be happy, you are out.

I don't think this is going to work.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[TheDarkMaster]

It does not help. Here in Brazil we have thousands of white people and from "good families" that would pass the test but still would be unable to make a good choice because they have been brainwashed since childhood (communists are the devil! Free market is the solution for all problems from the world! etc). And those who still have free will deliberately choose options that only favor them at the expense of all others, in a feudal model of society that has not changed since the Middle Ages (many here still act like if they are slave owners and others are obliged to obey them). Only a handful of people around here still have their own will and believes that its decisions should seek the good of everyone.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

But according to the premises of an abundance of stupidity, haven't they already? Haven't they?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[fgouget]

Honestly, I don't think it need be that complex. To understand issues, a voter must be able to grasp main points--many simple tests exist for this--and have a lower-elementary school math mastery: establish whether the potential voter grasps larger versus smaller, has the ability to read "big" numbers, can derive general truths/proportions from from a simple pie chart, and can demonstrate an understanding of at least decimal values such as .10, .20, .25, .33, .50, .75.

Why do you want to test for math when it is such a minor aspect of picking a candidate? Do you need math to know that you don't want to vote for a candidate who said people with your sexual orientations should be sent to reeducation camps? Does elementary math help you decide whether you agree with a candidate's stance on legalizing pot (answer: no, even if you were to read the scientific papers on the subject, elementary math would fall far short for verifying them). Where does math help you when candidates just cherry-pick the statistics that support their point? It does not.

What you really need is fact cross-checking skills and critical thinking. It would also be best if everyone kept the common good in mind when deciding whom to vote for, and had a modicum of empathy (so they ask themselves what a given proposal will do to the people it targets). But good luck testing for that.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[quenda]

IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.

You seem to be in the US, so that will disenfranchise 50% of whites, and 85% of blacks, according to current data.
Oh yes, I can see that one going down real well. Who could possibly object?

Rather than banning people from voting, how about issuing bonus votes to people who voluntarily sit a short test?
You could start at municipal level, and see how it goes.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

No.
And you're a fool.

Self governance includes the possibility that public opinion could shift in favor of religious tests for public office sufficiently enough for an amendment to the constitution to be adopted. Or any of the other foolish libertarian positions you posit, which (if you will note) demonstrate how already you're abusing your power in the hypothetical to disenfranchise anyone who disagrees with your libertarian viewpoints.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

he already disenfranchised anyone who would disagree with him, making it impossible to affect any changes.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Nidi62]

Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?

I've always thought that we should have a test to vote for national/federal elections (president, congress, etc), but for something different. A candidate should have to register specific points of their platform to the FEC. Then while they are campaigning they stress these points. When a person goes in to vote they have to identify a certain number of these platform points before they are allowed to vote for a candidate. This would go a long way to ensuring that we have a more informed voter base and will also reinforce what that politician campaigned on and hopefully allow the voters to remember why they voted for them and realize when campaign promises have been broken.

Re: A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

False.

The power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a statute, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived from Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there are a lot of idiots, but you're also assuming that everyone answering those polls was truthful or carefully read the question before answering.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a FYI -- that phrase comes from many places, and was around (as far as I can tell) long before your instance of a grandfather clause.

One example, is that when people left the UK / Britain to colonize the 'new world' and other British colonies, they were quite concerned that their children would not be British. That, at some point, their offspring would be essentially uncivilized, or not able to claim title to their ancestral heritage.

Quite a massive grandfather clause was created right then and there, when a King proclaimed that your grandchildren, at the very least, would always be British... before your voting booth issues even arose. And, while I have not done enough research (because I only take note of such things as they appear before me, as I'm sure you do too)... I have seen hints that this phrasing and logic was used even deeper in the past.

FYI even now, after all of the changes in Canada's relationship with the UK? As my Grandfather was born in the UK, I can access an ancestry visa. Talk about a grandfather clause!

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Ogive17]

More intelligent by what measure? If you have a higher iq than me, it does not mean you'll come to a better conclusion or make a better decision. I am sure there are some areas you are more knowledgeable than I but other areas I will know more.

How is what you are proposing any different than slaves only being counted as 3/5ths of a person?

What would be nice is our representatives only being on committees where they could prove they were competant on the subject matter.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Pope]

Maybe add a simple quiz that tests for knowledge of the Constitution... (snip)

Can you make this mandatory for the people running for office first?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[ScentCone]

Sadly, you don't know the difference between a simple mistake and actual ignorance.

Be careful how you tell other people you are superior to them.

Wow, you sure know how to duck to make certain the point sails over your head, don't you?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[ScentCone]

What would be nice is our representatives only being on committees where they could prove they were competant on the subject matter.

Prove to who, by what standards? Maybe a legislator should be good at understanding the constitution, the wheels of policy making, the nature of government finance, etc., and then do what committees do ... bring in experts to testify so they'll hear from experts who specialize in the subject matter. An elected representative is supposed to be an expert at being a legislator. Expecting them to be fully formed IT experts or doctorate level virologists or masters of manufacturing processes is completely missing the point.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[JoeMerchant]

Less than 100 IQ is supposed to be 1/2 the population, but it rarely works out that way.

My psychology professor administered a "demonstration" IQ test in class, possible scores ranged from 100 if you got everything wrong to 130 if you got everything right. Actual IQ tests aren't this bad, but they are skewed in this direction.

If you did disenfranchise 1/2 the population, it would likely be the 1/2 of the population that's easily manipulated and motivated to revolt... I like to avoid revolting political systems when I can.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[amiga3D]

I was recently having a casual conversation with a co-worker in my shop. I mentioned something in the news about Fidel Castro and he immediately responded with "who is he?" I thought at first that he was kidding but sadly he was not. A 28 year old who had never once heard that name before. He's never missed an episode of ESPN sportcenter but never watched the nightly news. Thankfully when I asked him if he votes he responded in the negative.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're more intelligent than I am, then I wouldn't mind if your vote counts more than mine.

Intelligence and Wisdom do not always occur together in the same person.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[TimSSG]

Intelligence and Wisdom do not always occur together in the same person.

I strongly agree with the above statement. An intelligent fool in public office will likely be more damaging then a wise person of average intelligence. Tim S.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[TimSSG]

Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?

And you must realize that political parties immediately get incentive to do this if the voters most likely to be excluded lean a particular way politically. Say party A is strong with the low income families and party B is more of a middle class party and that statistically if you make the test harder more low income families will drop out because they're already working their ass off making ends meet. Now one party has obvious incentive to set the bar higher, the other to set the bar lower. Here in Norway there's a campaign to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, you can compare the youth vote scores with the parties supporting it and it's obvious why. Voters who've mostly never had a real job, never paid taxes and never had to balance a budget because they live at home with mom and dad with an allowance tend to vote quite differently than people who've had to support themselves.

What we really need if for each Political Party to support knowledge tests on the candidates that are going to run in the primary and the results to be posted before the primarily is held. This would help to remove the really ignorant and some of the stupid politicians from getting into office. Tim S.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Crowd Computing]

Scoring high in an IQ test doesn't guarantee real world intelligence. It mostly means you're good at detecting visual or numeric patterns quickly. Deciding on political issues doesn't fall into this category of problems.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think stories like this aren't important, just remember the fact that each of those people has the same number of votes in our glorious democracy as you do.

Yes, one utterly meaningless fake vote.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[I'm New Around Here]

That is SO racist! You know what most peoples of colour (I can't believe this is the current PC term now) will score lower and their vote will be more often suppressed.

Why is this comment flagged as Troll? It's a perfectly cromulent point.

Also, to be clear, I did not post that comment.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

a pitch fork and torches party!

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[beh]

So, if I were by far the most intelligent man on the planet, you wouldn't mind me stealing the election and running the country just to benefit my friends and myself?

Don't mistake intelligence alone for an automatically benign and positive thing for everyone else involved - there are seriously smart people you might want in charge, but there are also seriously smart psychopaths you might not want to run the country or even have a bigger say in the decision on who does.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain George Bush?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[goose-incarnated]

"IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote."

As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters, I'm glad you won't be able to vote with that system.

Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[goose-incarnated]

Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.

50% of the population can't vote based on a test that you can easily improve at simply by practising.

It would not be 50%. It would be less than 50%.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[goose-incarnated]

Less than 100 IQ is supposed to be 1/2 the population, but it rarely works out that way.

My psychology professor administered a "demonstration" IQ test in class, possible scores ranged from 100 if you got everything wrong to 130 if you got everything right. Actual IQ tests aren't this bad, but they are skewed in this direction.

If you did disenfranchise 1/2 the population, it would likely be the 1/2 of the population that's easily manipulated and motivated to revolt... I like to avoid revolting political systems when I can.

Good luck - IME all political systems are revolting ;-)

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

empathy ? Thats for women and why give them the vote?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.

That would be "racist" in our retarded world.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[AmiMoJo]

An IQ of 100 is supposed to be the average, so the test scores would have to be adjusted to make that the case.

I'm sure there would be complaints about the test being harder one year than the next, endless re-takes and the like. One day of Adderall does not make you a genius.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[judoguy]

It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?

I propose the MacDonalds test. If someone is too stupid to be able to quickly order something in a drive thru, they're too stupid to be allowed to vote. Seriously, every system can be abused but encouraging stupid, uninformed people to vote promotes the worst in democracy.

Which of course is the whole point concerning things such as mandatory voting, automatic voter registration, not showing an ID at the polls, etc. If someone is too lazy to make even a small effort to vote, they shouldn't.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who knows anything about space exploration knows that no human has gone past the moon. If people actually think a movie was filmed on Mars, they're morons. Besides, how the hell is this news for nerds, stuff that matters? Surely there's something more relevant or important to post about!

Actually, anyone who knows anything about space exploration knows that a number of humans have gone past the moon.
In fact, every person who traveled *to* the moon went past it more than once. (You can't orbit the moon without traveling past it.)

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Who you vote for makes absolutely no difference. The US are ruled by the 200 richest families. Even the WSJ wrote that. Do you really think they care about your or the vote of someone else? They just "buy" the politicians they need. Obama is the best prove for this.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If they've realized communism is evil and the free market is good, that is adequate proof of intelligence for me. Let them vote! Let the fools who believe the reverse be banished from the polls.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Grishnakh]

The problem here is that you're equating "intelligence" with their mastery of the English language. Someone whose first language is not English wouldn't do so well. Of course, based on his full post, he does appear to be a native English speaker, but I could be wrong, but it looks like a simple brain-fart to me.

But this does bring up a good point: the problem with the intelligence test idea is that: who do we trust to design the test? And how exactly will they measure knowledge and intelligence? Which factors would be favored? Pick some random people in the US and you're likely to get a test which tests your knowledge of religious dogma and weights that above all else.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[The-Ixian]

The latent egotism here is really troubling. You are not better than anyone else.

I really don't believe that any person is that much smarter or dumber than anyone else when they are born. I think that factors like opportunity, childhood environment, access to quality education and personal drive / motivation have way more impact on "intelligence" than genetic pre-disposition does.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be nice is our representatives only being on committees where they could prove they were competant on the subject matter.

Prove to who, by what standards? Maybe a legislator should be good at understanding the constitution, the wheels of policy making, the nature of government finance, etc., and then do what committees do ... bring in experts to testify so they'll hear from experts who specialize in the subject matter. An elected representative is supposed to be an expert at being a legislator. Expecting them to be fully formed IT experts or doctorate level virologists or masters of manufacturing processes is completely missing the point.

Ah, but legislators rarely understand the constitution and never finance. Most understand politics. Any "experts" they hear testimony from will most likely be lobyists.

Re: A remarkable number of people are idiots

[jmac_the_man]

He's never missed an episode of ESPN sportcenter but never watched the nightly news.

For all their other failings, at least ESPN covers the fact that Cuban athletes defect to countries that are not Communist hellholes. The actual news is actually less trustworthy on the issue of "Who is Fidel Castro?"

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[TheDarkMaster]

"If they've realized communism is evil and the free market is good, that is adequate proof of intelligence for me. Let them vote! Let the fools who believe the reverse be banished from the polls."

Here, guys. We have a prime example of what I described earlier. A poor brain-washed guy programmed to scour the internet in search of divergent thinking of their masters to eliminate at any cost.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still less than 50% due to the fact the many people will score exactly 100 and will therefore be allowed to vote. As 100 is dead centre of the curve, the group scoring 100 and above will be larger than the group scoring less than 100.

OP specified "less than 100" not "lower half of the population" so it will be less than half, not equal to or more

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a 4-digit user id. I'll take you any day of the week.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[plover]

I know this is off topic, but now I'm curious. Do people who are incapable of taking the test still impact the scores? Does a 100 IQ indicate the median score of the set of "successful" test takers, or of the set of "functional humans", or of the entire population of all humans?

I believe you're saying that IQ 48 is approximately the minimum required level of functionality required to successfully take the test, but there is obviously a set of people who can't achieve that. And while 48 may be the lowest point on the curve that can be measured, the continuation of the curve is still implied below that point. People below 48 will still fall along some spectrum of abilities, but they're not measurable using the current test. So there may very well be someone with an "equivalent IQ" of 14; it's just the current IQ test lacks the resolution needed to identify that person.

And I'm not saying we should expend any effort to alter the test to measure lower IQs. I doubt that would add any value to society, nor would it be likely to benefit the people who can't take the test today. Such people are already identifiable as requiring a certain level of care, and most of the disabilities at that point are so profound you probably couldn't even use the scores to predict the costs of caring for them.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[KGIII]

But we have gone past the moon. Not very far past it but beyond it indeed. We orbited the moon. To orbit it we went around the back side (we didn't orbit it in a perfectly plane facing the planet). So, we've gone past the moon - just not very far past it.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[KGIII]

I think you're all idiots for confusing wisdom and knowledge. But, that's just me. Wisdom is the application of knowledge (how one applies their intelligence would be a good way to put it) and there are lots of smart people who are not wise.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tnk1]

This is wrong headed for a very simple reason.

Democracy is not about making the correct choices. It is about making choices where everyone has participation. It is a vehicle for legitimacy.

One of the problems with democracy is that half of the people are of below average intelligence and wisdom. Democracy is still valuable because it allows the government to function more effectively because you don't get to simply enact things that hurt the greater mass of people without some form of consent from them.

However, turning democracy into a means of generating truth is fatally flawed. That's why the founding fathers were interested so much in making sure we were a republic, and not a full on democracy. They certainly knew how to construct an actual democracy or at least a much closer one than we have today.

I was once in a class where there was an answer that depended on a very simple math question. The class was a history class but dealt with some statistic or something. I answered the question in one way, the rest of the class answered it in another way. The teacher got the same answer as the rest of the class. I refused to concede I was wrong because I knew I was right. It was simple math, not rocket science. When they got exasperated with me, they called in a math teacher to shut me down. He actually shut them all down.

95% polled in that class would have believed in an incorrect answer to a very easily verifiable math question. 95% of them would have been wrong.

Admittedly, this doesn't happen often when things like simple math are involved, but it illustrated the point to me early on that voting on something doesn't make it right. In my opinion, experts should provide the solutions, and the people should vote on if they can accept the consequences of those solutions, laws, or whatever. When presented with a number of properly designed solutions, the people should have the right to accept the one that they feel right about. What they should not be doing is trying to legislate truth.

It helps to have an educated population, because then it becomes more clear that the experts know of which they speak. However, I'd rather have a way to ensure honest experts who present facts and conclusions and options, and people who know enough to take responsibly for the options they pick. What I am tired of are facts generated by polling, and experts who believe they know what is best for everyone else.

You should not have a quiz to be a voter, but perhaps we should have a quiz to be a legislator. Or better, expert bodies where you have to take a whole battery of tests to be admitted for candidacy.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.

If you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" - you're out.

Maybe he is a baseball fan and meant it that way, as in that is your out.

Either way, I herd you're idea's their definately write.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tnk1]

Frankly, either is an unproven assertion.

You want people to not be allowed to monopolize the vote because they disagree with you.

The other person thinks you're wrong and that such a monopolization is not a bad idea.

Neither of you has proven that communism is, or is not, evil.

And either way it is irrelevant. The idea is that the more intelligent people get into office and the polls. If the more intelligent people disagree with you, what does that say?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[TheDarkMaster]

You should really read more carefully what I wrote. Communism is not the question here, period. The real issue here is the fact that even very intelligent people can make (really) stupid decisions by knowing only a distorted version of reality. I can make a IQ160 passionately support genocide if I control from a very young age everything he knows about genocide, think about that.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[KGIII]

Um... Do you mean Mc or Mac?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[genner]

If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.

If you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" - you're out.

Such thing haven't really mattered since the days of yore.

Re: A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Votes on mars would weigh less.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[david_thornley]

It's not as if the current system is selecting Republican candidates the typical Republican wants. (The same is likely to happen with Democrats when their selection process gets into gear.)

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tnk1]

I agree that a distorted sense of reality might be a problem. I just have an issue with what you're suggesting is "a distorted sense of reality".

The biggest problem with the idea of having more "intelligent" people be the voters, or the idea of even the most "wise" people be the voters is not necessarily that they are wrong, but that no one believes that they are right.

You gave a political position which represents anti-communists, or at least free marketeers, as perhaps having a distorted sense of reality. That was your example.

However, what if they are right, despite your most earnest beliefs? I am not saying they are. If you had derided leftists in the same manner, I'd ask you the same question. What if the more intelligent people disagree with you, but you can't see it?

Ultimately, I agree that it is a bad policy to make only intelligent people able to vote, but for a different reason. If you rely on voters to tell you if you're "right" you're going to fail. What you want all of the people in the crowd to tell you is what they are comfortable with. You want the legislators to be right, or at least, willing to listen to people who have a higher chance of being right, like experts. You want the voters to select the option that they can live with.

People are going to believe what they believe. They still should get a vote, because otherwise they revolt and chaos happens. The government needs public support to avoid a revolution. That is why majorities are required, but also why sometimes majorities made up of feeble people fail. You want to have enough support for whatever position you pick to win a fight, should one break out. If a minority is well organized, it might win because the majority is weak.

Democracy cannot work if you use it as a truth-engine. It is a legitimacy engine, nothing more.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure don't want to recognize that there is an actually real problem, as many people do get confused as to the difference between a simple mistake and actual lack of intelligence. This includes those who criticize, and those who are criticized.

Or have you never experienced this yourself, even in observations of others?

If so, to experience it, I suggest playing some online games and carefully paying attention.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe congress can't fund war without declaring it, you've already failed constitutional law 101 so you're out. And if you don't see the basic contradiction between 'any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community"' and 'Less than 100 IQ, can't vote', that sounds suspiciously like someone who's below 100 IQ and should therefore be out by their own rules.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Man just make voting power based on taxes paid (not money made), maybe it will stimulate rich people to pay more taxes...

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove to who, by what standards?

The electorate. That's why we need recall elections across the spectrum.

Of course, we also need actual REPRESENTATION which due to current mechanisms in many places could not be further from the truth. United States of America, I'm looking at you. Very hard. Very hard.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Dr. Evil]

The test could be as low a bar as having to remember and write the candidate's name on the ballot.

If you can't get that far, do you really care if they get elected?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

http://xkcd.com/1576/

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters, I'm glad you won't be able to vote with that system."

Given I never indicated either of those things I believe you'll be left behind.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"It's probably not really a good measure of anything but the ability to do well on IQ tests."

Low IQ (75 and below) has been shown to highly correlate with low achievement and poor academic performance. The lower the score the stronger the correlation. 100 seems like a reasonably low bar for voting and one that is just as but no more likely to exclude the wealthy.

A reasonably intelligent person needs no more than a middle school education to score over 100. The test favors native American English speakers (anyone born here) and education but not to a degree that excludes a clever foreigner or individual with less education. Seems like a reasonable minimum bar to qualify to make important decisions that impact others to me. With an average of 5 out of 10 people making the grade there should be statistically significant representation of every group but the low IQ group.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

What did I say that indicated I didn't know about half the people would be excluded? Average and high IQ hasn't been successfully correlated with high function but low IQ has been shown to strongly correlate with low achievement and performance. The lower the IQ the stronger the correlation. Since about half the voting pool remains you'd still have a statistically significant sample of essentially every group and interest but the low IQ group.

I'd also favor all individuals who want to vote taking a critical thinking and logic course. Perhaps at the middle school, high school, and college levels. I don't care if children making logical arguments and critically assessing what teachers and parents say makes things more challenging.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"if you don't support certain current political lines of thought, you can't vote"

On the contrary, it has little to do with current political thought and a lot to do with requiring things be restored to the constitutional government with its careful separation of powers. For far too long morons have supported government violating the constitution and overreaching their constitutional authority simply because they supported the end used as an excuse. Just because you want Y doesn't mean you shouldn't demand congress, the president, or a court follow the law rather than take a short cut to get Y. Amendments are hard to get for a reason, not the least of which is to offset the disproportional representation of the electoral college.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[goose-incarnated]

What did I say that indicated I didn't know about half the people would be excluded?

I responded to nospam007, not to you. nospam007 said:

As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters,

and I said:

Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.

Nospam007 did not realise that "IQ less than 100" means "less than half the population" and does not mean "half the population".

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"SHOULD BE ABLE? Isn't that an opinion?"

No, it's the law. At present it is the highest law of the land and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you support any branch of federal, state, or local government trying to infringe on it in even the slightest way.

You might think it's a bad law but the idea was that military power would be distributed among volunteer militias, who should be well trained, and assembled into an army only in time of war. The few in power should fear the anger of the many who are not and armed government hands that have no increased chance of being safe, sane, or trustworthy have never been the source of freedom or democracy. Those things have only come to exist where the people were armed. But that part is opinion.

If you disagree you should be pushing for an amendment. But while it is the law we should all be quick to raise a pistol to the head of any government official or judge who declares otherwise. Whatever changes you'd like to see, they aren't worth the damage done when government is allowed to take power it is denied to make them happen. Those limits, checks, and balances are there for a reason.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"His test was on the constitution as it is constructed now. The answers are matter of fact. That doesn't mean that you can't vote to change it. It just means that you have to pass a test on what it says now. The ability to do that would seem to be a solid prerequisite for a reasonable person to then work to change it anyway. If you don't understand it now, how can you propose effective change?"

Bingo. You might not think civilians should have missiles. But the law says they can and neither the president nor congress is empowered to change that. The courts are not empowered to support their illegal actions. Regardless of whether you think that is a good idea or not that is what should happen if you try to walk in a gun store and buy a missile.

That doesn't mean you can't be in favor of an amendment. It means that you should understand this is the law and should be followed until changed. The Constitution provides mechanisms by which it can be changed. You should support those as well as the rest. There is also popular amendment. The Constitution outranks government but the people outrank the Constitution.

Re: A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

True. Note, it does not grant the authority to rule according to personal opinion or political leaning rather than in accordance with the law. There are quite a few examples where the Constitution is clear and the court has blatantly misinterpreted it. The Constitution leaves us no recourse but popular amendment does.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"You can be really smart and the worst kind of racist, intolerant bigot, or simply a total self-centered jerk who will not care that his decisions disfranchise everyone as long as he benefits."

Of course you can. But a 101+ IQ doesn't make you really smart more than 5 out of 10 people are smart enough to score over 100 so racists, jerks, and caring people would all be well represented. The only people excluded would be those with essentially no chance of understanding the decisions they are making and the impact of those decisions.

A high IQ doesn't even mean you are smart, only low IQ's have been shown to indicate performance or success (low performance and lack of success). Having a 150 vs 115 hasn't been poven to matter at all.

An empathy test might be useful to give politicians but not voters. There is no benefit in electing the guy whose wife just died because you feel bad for them. And those voters would be more likely to be duped by politicians trying to sway them with plea to emotion rhetoric. Like making people afraid of terrorists so they will agree to give up freedoms or spreading fear of the dangers of making moonshine so they can keep it illegal, raise tax revenue that lowers the taxes of the wealthy and put lots of red tape in place that makes it difficult for new startups to compete with large established companies.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"50% of the population can't vote based on a test that you can easily improve at simply by practising."

I fail to see a problem with that.

"Some people claim atheism is a religion."

The dictionary says otherwise. We can make up a new word for those who don't follow a religion and keep doing that if you like.

"Also, not all religions are the same, e.g. Buddhists are not nearly as deluded as Christians, who are not nearly as deluded as Muslims, in general terms."

Irrelevant. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, it outranks all public officials at all levels of goverment and mandates a separation of church and state. You check your religion at the door, by law. For the same reason congress lacks the authority to tax churches. Whether a person agrees with the law or not should not be prerequisite to vote, demanding government have absolute obedience to the limits imposed on it by the Constitution should be prerequisite to voting.

If you think representatives should be able to vote in accord with their religion you can both support an amendment to that effect and a firing squad for those who do so before that amendment is made.

Government officials deliberately violating the Constitution and assuming authority not granted to them for any cause is treason.

"If you believe any citizen should be able to own a nuclear ICBM or place land mines in the front yard, you're out."

It's the law. Period. See the above.

Random civilians with widely distributed military power are less likely to be able to affect widespread tyranny than random people in a chain of command that answers to those who might try to seize power from the people. The bigger the weapon the more expensive and the more people it takes to afford them. Nobody should have biological weapons, chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons. But so long as the government has been granted our permission to have nuclear subs we've retained our right as the people to have such weapons to point back at them.

"If you think rights are not a balance between opposing forces, and that include both freedom from interference and freedom to prosper and be happy, you are out."

What I said is not inconsistent with that.

A person in a toll violation case being denied a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden, the right to a court appointed attorney, the right to trial by jury, and being automatically assumed as the driver because the state wrote that it could do so in the statute is a good example. This violates a number of provisions in the Constitution and a body empowered by the Constitution (states and therefore their governments are a constitutional construct) lacks the authority to do so. These provisions exist to bar the government from infringing on the rights of the people, when ANY individual objects to this it is not their personal right vs the state it is the right on 100% of the individuals in the nation vs the small subset who support and benefit from cheaper toll enforcement.

The court is also ultimately empowered by the Constitution and therefore lacks the authority to issue a ruling which violates its provisions.

Again, Constitutional enforcement should be absolute. Believing as much is prerequisite to successful participation in our constitutional democracy. That issues pre-empts anything you disagree with in the specifics. But there is always changing it, either via the mechanisms in the document or popular amendment since the people are not limited by the terms of the Constitution and ca overrule it as jurors or change it by popular vote.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

Who said anything about retakes? Although once every 10 years to maintain doesn't sound terrible. Ever fail and you are done maybe a retake within 30 days or something but not new chances every 10 years.

The bar at 100 is low on purpose. It eliminates only people with little or no chance of understanding the decisions they are making leaves a large enough pool to fairly represent everyone interests. If the primary thing supporters of an agenda have in common is their very low IQ I can't imagine it being a bad thing for it to go away.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

I'm not saying the IQ minimum would solve everything. I'm just saying that there is no benefit in people of such low intelligence being able to vote.

I also think you should get up to 20 votes, never more than 20 never less than one. One per year you've both been a citizen and physically residing in the US. Maybe drop the minimum voting age to 15. Do the same at the state and city level. Maybe that will encourage young people to get involved and they'll stay that way.

Move away and you begun losing one per year after the first year. Allows people to vote for third parties. Plus it reduces the ability of a large flux of immigrants to change the political landscape over night. You get a voice but you need to give it time to understand what life is like in a place before you go changing it to what was familiar back home, you get the loudest voice when you've been somewhere long enough that it is home. Move around a lot? Maybe you shouldn't pick the mayor for a place you just moved to and are leaving in 3 months anyway.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

That is why the target is average and not high. Combine at least average IQ with understanding the Constitution (who you are voting for and what powers you are giving them) and critical thinking/logic skills and you've got someone who has a CHANCE of understanding the choices they are making.

Whether making good or bad choices people of low IQ lack the ability to understand those choices. But the bar is low enough that every political group will still be represented.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"The biggest problem with the idea of having more "intelligent" people be the voters, or the idea of even the most "wise" people be the voters is not necessarily that they are wrong, but that no one believes that they are right."

The idea wasn't to have only the intelligent vote but rather to remove those with such a low IQ they have no chance of really understanding the choices they are making. These individuals are already being told what is right by people more intelligent than them and it is in many cases the persuasiveness of those people rather than reasoned consensus that gets the votes.

By setting the bar near 50% we assure every group and view will remain well represented. So as part of the disqualified group you will still find qualified voters rallying with you.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"You seem to be in the US, so that will disenfranchise 50% of whites, and 85% of blacks, according to current data."

100 is the median of the scale but more than 50% OVERALL score at or above 100. Getting a 100 is perfectly achievable with a middle school level education since the tests are designed to avoid an education requirement. Elementary, middle, and high school are free in the United States. If your "current data" is correct they'll have disenfranchised themselves.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

Do you honestly think the reason the trample it is because they don't know what it says?

They trample on it because it's in their interests to do so the same as every king and every government. That is why the people can nullify their laws in the form of juries and the domestic military power was granted to and distributed among the people in the right to bear arms. They also made ir really hard for the government to give itself power by making amendments difficult.

How are they supposed to make mischief when they can't imprison us, have no federal police force, and there is no standing army for greater than two years in peace time? All they get is the Navy to protect our shores.

Oh wait, you mean people of low IQ have given up every item that gives the people the power to check government in a more meaningful way than asking them to pretty please not screw us?

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"That's why the founding fathers were interested so much in making sure we were a republic, and not a full on democracy. They certainly knew how to construct an actual democracy or at least a much closer one than we have today."

They DID construct something much closer to an actual democracy than what we have today. The founding fathers were wealthy merchants and so cared about government having the power to protect their economic interests. Power beyond that didn't matter.

The founding fathers gave the federal government no standing army, only the navy which could be used to repel foreign invaders and more importantly for them protect merchant vessels from pirates. All military power on land was spread among the people. There has never in history been a nation that closely resembled a democracy where the few did not need to fear the collective might of the angry many. It cannot exist.

Similarly, everyone had a right to trial by jury and any jury could nullify the law on a case-by-case basis for any reason. The federal government could create treaties to protect trade, regulate interstate commerce, and provide means for copyrights and patents.

Congress was configured in such a way that only the illusion of participation by everyone was maintained; it was and is a body by the wealthy, for the wealthy, and of the wealthy.

The problem is that in the information age there are too many people who realize we aren't a democracy or a representative republic and the notion that wealth follows merit has been soundly debunked. Today third party candidates get arrested attempting to attend presidential debates, the NSA gets busted in a horrific conspiracy and the president openly supports them without getting impeached. Congress the passes a bill "legalizing" the unconstitutional actions claiming it fixes the problem. Which is a blatant slap in our collective faces... a pointless one because congress does not have the authority to bypass the constitutional requirement of warrants nor does the supreme court let alone the FISA court. Peaceful protestors in the occupy wallstreet movement are beaten, gassed, arrested by order of the officials they elected and the police who are supposed to be arresting anyone interfering in their protest.

"It is a vehicle for legitimacy."

It is a vehicle for the ILLUSION of legitimacy. The problem is the illusion is dispelled. We no longer believe we have representatives. We live in a world where direct democracy is possible and if we are to have representatives we want representatives we believe will do better than ourselves. So we drop the electoral college and we actually have more intelligent people do the voting.

Our society is built on science and we now want what is correct. In the information age of reason and science aristocratic rule by the wealthy at gunpoint is no longer acceptable.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[shaitand]

"If you believe congress can't fund war without declaring it, you've already failed constitutional law 101 so you're out."

You seem to be confusing the currently practiced bastardization of Constitutional law which has almost nothing to do what the document says with reading and understanding the Constitution. A couple words have changed in common usage ("well regulated" for example) but for the most part the document is written in clear and plain English. Technicalities and loopholes are invalid interpretation.

If your first order of business isn't dismantling the government of today and restoring our Constitutional democracy with all limitations on goverment power put back in place you shouldn't be voting. The shortcuts and power grabs are illegal if they contradict the Costitution, the supreme court is not empowered to deliberately misinterpret the document. For instance, the NSA warrantless surveillance cannot be legalized by an act of congress nor blessing by the supreme court. It would require Constitutional amendment. No doubt you'd point out that they are doing it regardless. I'd point out the victim's inability to stop the rapist doesn't make rape legal.

'And if you don't see the basic contradiction between 'any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community"''

There are 100 people in town X. All have a right that says none can be convicted of a crime without positive identification. 51% voted for rep Bob. A rule is passed by bob which 15% of people support saying there is a $10 fee for turning right on red and that everyone accused will automatically be assumed identified because it would cost too much to prove identity.

Joe is arrested, asserts the prosecution must prove it was him who turned right. In most cases Joe is treated as one guy vs the interests of the entire community. The entire community is 100 people, every one of them is an individual like Joe but only 15% support this law and 49% didn't vote for the guy who made it. The decision made here would apply equally to 100% of them in Joe's spot therefore honoring Joe's rights strengthens and benefits 100% of the community whereas failing to honor it weakens that right for 100%. Even Rep Bob and the 15% who supported the law have their right weakened if it is denied to Joe.

Two people asserting conflicting rights is another story. A community is nothing more than a collection of individuals and is distinct from government not synonymous with it.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

It gives everyone here the chance to feel incredibly superior.

Short of a story about supermodels thinking Linux gurus are the best lovers, I can't think of something better designed to appeal to slashdot readers.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

I think you're all idiots for confusing wisdom and knowledge. But, that's just me. Wisdom is the application of knowledge (how one applies their intelligence would be a good way to put it) and there are lots of smart people who are not wise.

Slashdot is living proof of this. There are clearly a fair number of intelligent people who post here, but there's still an awful lot of stupidity, or however you choose to describe un-wisdom.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

The problem here is that you're equating "intelligence" with their mastery of the English language.

Obviously in reality you would have your voting/intelligent test in the official language of whichever country you were talking about.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote. Maybe add a simple quiz that tests for knowledge of the Constitution. If you support public officials voting based on religious beliefs you are out. If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out. If you believe congress can fund war without declaring it, you are out. If you believe congress or the president can disregard the constitution to fight terrorism, drugs, or "the general welfare" you are out. If you believe courts can't overturn congress your out. If you believe courts can grant themselves the authority to overturn a jury or limit juries to determination of fact without the ability to judge the merit of application of the law on a case by case basis, you are out. And last but not least if you don't understand that individuals is the only group that includes every citizen and therefore any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community", you are out. E.X. The automatic reduction in rights when accused of a wrongdoing by the state in traffic court vs other charges. Don't know that corporations are not people and that everyone with an interest in them is already a person and therefore already has the ability to represent their own rights and interests, you are out. Note, that is not how things currently work in our process but it is how it's supposed to work and would work if swaying popular opinion couldn't break things.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with what you believe is an idiot and ineligible to vote.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

"IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote."

As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters, I'm glad you won't be able to vote with that system.

Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.

To equal it up you could also exclude the people with really high IQs.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

You sound remarkably like hardline Christian or Islamic fundamentalists, who allow no deviation from their strict and quite possibly inaccurate understanding of their sacred texts.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Grishnakh]

The US doesn't have an official language.

Plus, there's lots of people who are pretty good at language skills, but have no math skills and think that dinosaur fossils were planted here by Satan.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

Having a 150 vs 115 hasn't been poven to matter at all.

That's NOT what she said.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

You should really read more carefully what I wrote. Communism is not the question here, period. The real issue here is the fact that even very intelligent people can make (really) stupid decisions by knowing only a distorted version of reality. I can make a IQ160 passionately support genocide if I control from a very young age everything he knows about genocide, think about that.

Exactly. Not all Nazis (or Khmer Rouge, or whoever) were stupid. There is no connection between intelligence and morality.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ludicrous. You're conflating understanding of the constitution with agreeing with it. It's perfectly possible to disagree with parts of the constitution and to attempt to change it via the legal path of a constitutional amendment whilst in the meantime understanding and upholding the current constitution.
Concrete example:
If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.
Unless you want to bar people who disagree with the constitution but will uphold it nonetheless unless or until it is amended, this should read
If you don't believe civilians are (constitutionally) able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out.
(By the way, it's "you're", not "your".)

Also, in many cases what you are saying is that no-one should be able to vote unless they agree with *your* (not "you're" in this case) interpretation of the constitution.

Basically this all pretty much comes down to "only people who think like me should be allowed to vote".

Anyhow, you get disqualified from voting on the basis that you are insufficiently literate. Because I say so.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tehcyder]

You gave a political position which represents anti-communists, or at least free marketeers, as perhaps having a distorted sense of reality. That was your example.

No, his example was to show that people have been conditioned into unthinkingly accepting that anything labelled "communist" is bad and anything "free market" good. Life is not that simple, regardless of the merits or demerits of communism or the free market.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

IQ is a totaly shit metric and has never been shown to measure anything. The only country in the world that bothers with it is the US.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[fgouget]

There is no benefit in electing the guy whose wife just died because you feel bad for them. And those voters would be more likely to be duped by politicians trying to sway them with plea to emotion rhetoric.

You're confusing being emotional with being capable of empathy. The two are quite independent.

emotional: 2. dominated by or prone to emotion <an emotional person>

empathy: 2. the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Like making people afraid of terrorists so they will agree to give up freedoms

Being capable of empathy would lead one to realize that committing a terrorist act comes at a great cost, most of the time the terrorist's life, and thus requires a strong motivation. Then one would wonder what could have given them such strong motivation and/or destroyed their will to live, and try to figure out what can be changed so it does not happen.

But if the person is emotional, their fear could totally prevent them from trying to understand the source of their fear. So far from being the same thing, empathy and being emotional can be in conflict.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[tnk1]

The illusion of legitimacy is legitimacy. There is no measuring stick of legitimacy like there is a mathematically derived unit of measurement. If your people believe that you represent them, then they will support you.

What has happened is that the engine only works under certain circumstances and then it breaks down. I am of the belief that this occurs around the size where voters become voting blocs and people realize that they have zero say in anything anymore because the representatives don't even have to pretend to notice them as individuals any more.

Our society does not appear to be built on science, if it was, we wouldn't have half the debates we have now. Our society is built on what people are comfortable with and their moral viewpoints. And of course, it is owned by people who have a ton of money because they control the media and the discourse. We give lip service to the idea that the rich are not in control, but look at reality. The rich are in control. That's because they have real power and they are smart enough to know how to use it.

Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly think the reason the trample it is because they don't know what it says?

Yes, sometimes. Although I have no handy links, plenty of senators and representatives clearly hold the misconception that, for example, the bill of rights describes a set of rights granted to the people by the government - that is so far off the mark that, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, it's not even wrong. It shouldn't be hard to find a few (mostly if not entirely Republican) legislators who believe that the US is an affirmatively Christian government and reject the concept of separation of church and state. I could go on, but I think it should be clear that at least some of them don't know what it says, or at least do not understand what it means.

Note that none of that precludes anything implied by the rest of your post. Ignorance and malice are not mutually exclusive.

- T

Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[tanveer1979]

What next, funniest moments of astronauts brought to you by scoopwhoop?

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[Mashiki]

No, next article will be: Why men breathing is sexist and rape, courtesy of The Mary Sue. The article after that will be: Why pedophilia is okay, courtesy of Salon(Salon actually did an article on that already).

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[AmiMoJo]

Somehow Buzzfeed seems to be taken seriously in media circles now. Buzzfeed staff appear as talking heads on TV and radio now, as if they are serious journalists whose analysis matters. It's bizarre.

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[Anonymous Coward]

Them, HuffPost, and the gradual replacement of everyone on comedy central with unfunny superPAC spokesmen... politics have ruined our culture.

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[thegarbz]

Actually I think it's media circles which are slowly being taken less seriously by all, including Slashdot.

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[sjames]

Given the general state of decay in journalism, they're as good as any.

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen what passes for "serious journalism" these days?

Buzzfeed most certainly fits right in.

Re:Buzzfeed? Seriously??

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is worse than a Journalist how? Do you even know what you learn to become a Journalist? It is not do analysis that matters that is for sure.

Really?

[geogob]

A post on Slashdot related to the fact that many people lack basic education and/or skills to basic reasoning skills?
And over the top linking/citing a buzzfeed post? Are they now directly feeding their facebook wall on /. now?

I wonder what's worse: A few people believing a film is based on a true story when it obviously can't or the fact that this is posted here. I will ponder on that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had you considered 3rd possibility that those people are time travellers and just a bit confused about what already happened and what is yet to happen?

More so, depending how NASA's 3rd mission to Mars goes may indicate whatever time-travel can change past.

Is this for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this, like, for real? OMG I would like totally like to see another planet but I wouldn't want to, like, be stuck there, like forever!

If I could be the first to be on Mars like before all my BFFs that would be totally awesome!

A lot of people think global warming is real

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are inherently evil.
The government actually cares about them.
Communism/socialism are viable systems of government.
There is a diversity problem in tech.
Everyone needs a stem education.
Open source projects need to be nicer and have codes of conduct.

I am sure they will all have a good laugh at the stupid people who believe "The Martian" is real

Re:A lot of people think global warming is real

[Crashmarik]

Looks like you threw a rock through someones glass house.

Re:A lot of people think global warming is real

[Howitzer86]

No one ever said that. They're said to have a tendency to focus on one thing like a laser and become extremely good at it, which could be useful to a company in situations where specialists are in high demand and social skills aren't necessary.

Re:A lot of people think global warming is real

[Anonymous Coward]

It's far worse that a remarkable amount of people seem to think Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax by the government, despite 10,000+ peer reviewed papers and all major scientific institutions verifying that the evidence is real. As well as many of the REPUBLICAN primary candidates. Time to pull your head out of your arse.

Idiots

[skam240]

Really what the poll was asking was "How many of you people are idiots". I'll give a pass to the elderly and mentally infirm who modern polling disproportionally represents but these numbers are too high to not represent a good number of complete idiots.

Re:Idiots

[skam240]

Alright, I'll be honest. I posted before I RTFA. This poll is garbage although I'll stick to my guns that anyone who thinks the movie is real life is one of my above mentioned catagories

Re:Idiots

[gstoddart]

Unfortunately, in the modern context "mentally infirm" is pretty much a design feature, and people feel they're entitled to believe any old irrational shit and that should be OK.

There's a tremendous amount of people who seem to wear their own self-created ignorance as some kind of badge of honor.

"Complete idiots" now probably covers a good portion of society these days ... and we seem to accept this as a fairly normal thing.

Same with ID4

[mlheur]

The same thing happened when Independence Day came out. Some people have no concept of reality. Nothing to see here, move along.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ID4%20bas...

AI

[Anonymous Coward]

because it takes AI to realize the earth is flat and people are only for tax farming, and need to be compartmentalized

I guess these aren't the same people

[khelms]

who think the moon landings were a hoax.

Re:I guess these aren't the same people

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably are. A little cognitive dissonance is nothing for those people :-).

Re:I guess these aren't the same people

[houghi]

Or perhaps those that believe that movies "based on a true story" are documentaries or hold anything that has to do with the original story,

They could make a movie about chickens crossing the road, and tell it was based on a true story, even if there are no chickens roads or anything crossing anything in it.

Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

After Apollo 13 (based on a true story) and Interstellar (based on a true story) it's no surprise that people would think that The Martian is continuing the trend. Hell, it even stars Matt Damon, from the previous one. How are they supposed to keep it straight?! /satire

Re:Following the Trend

[Lisandro]

Well played, sir. Well played.

Re:Following the Trend

[sosume]

> Interstellar (based on a true story)
[citation needed]

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

> Interstellar (based on a true story) [citation needed]

See "well played" in parent

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's your citation: whoosh!

Re: Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT? The historical documents are not real? What about Gilligan's Island? Those poor people ...

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot when the new Shuttle, ISS and the Chinese space stations were destroyed by that projectile debris storm a few years ago. They captured it live as it happened, in a film called Gravity.

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

http://i.imgur.com/axJmn.gif

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't provide a citation because we're no longer on that timeline.

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more important that between "Saving Private Ryan", "Interstellar" and now "The Martian", America spends way to much money retrieving Matt Damon.

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

"/satire" was the important part.

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it would've made more sense to say Apollo 18.

Re:Following the Trend

[safetyinnumbers]

I'm not falling for that. Apollo 13 had such a stereotypical Hollywood happy ending. And choosing '13' as the unlucky flight number was just too cliche.

Re:Following the Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP is confused. It was "Contact" that was based on a real story. I know, 'cause I read the book!

Wasn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, the Romulans were based on the West's view of the nations behind the Iron Curtain.

Not having seen the movie yet, I wonder if some aspects are based on known rescue attempts, such as Apollo 13, or even Jessica McClure.

Point being: just because people believe this could be "based on" a true story, meaning that there are numerous elements that mirror a true story, doesn't mean that all of these people think that a man named Mark Watney made it to Mars.

Re:Wasn't it?

[roc97007]

There was a lot that was Apollo 13-ish, but what stood out about the story for me is that Watney does a lot more for himself, with his own wits, and with much less support from the brains at home. They even made a point of it about midway through the movie. (You'll know the spot.) The Martian was more Robinson Caruso-ish, if you can imagine Robinson Caruso's island as being extremely hostile towards life as we know it.

Re:Wasn't it?

[Crashmarik]

I mean, the Romulans were based on the West's view of the nations behind the Iron Curtain.

Klingons were originally that.

Romulans were based on some historical imperial culture with a senate, centurions, an emperor..The name of the culture eludes me somehow, it's on the tip of my tongue. Mother wolf ?, The Remus Empire ? Empire of the 7 hills ? The overly complicated empire ? Oh well you get the idea.

The Klingons were originally an expansionist fascist state and later became some sort of generic warlike vikings in space.

Re:Wasn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Robinson Caruso? The famous singing castaway?

He died of Random Pavarotting Syndrome, don't you know, you insensitive clod.

Re:Wasn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Romulans were *originally* based on the West's view of the nations behind the Iron Curtain. Hence the Romulan intelligence agency, the Tal Shiar, was considered to be quite formidable. There were also some things drawn from the Roman Empire or its aftermath. The reference to 7 hills is clearly Christian (Revelation 17:9), which many people have equated to Rome's topology.

Re:Wasn't it?

[perpenso]

The Martian was more Robinson Caruso-ish, if you can imagine Robinson Caruso's island as being extremely hostile towards life as we know it.

FWIW. There is a 1960s movie "Robinson Crusoe on Mars"

Re:Wasn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the nations behind the Iron Curtain were considered to be in a very Roman-like situation. Conquered, forced into an empire, ruled by a foreign dictator and local puppets. The fact that the dictator was in Moscow rather than Rome was a relatively minor thing.

Re:Wasn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

America ? Rome the sequel.

Bunch of morons

[quantaman]

It's obviously fiction, just like Tom Hanks in Apollo 13 (everyone knows you can't put a square peg in a round hole), Neal Armstrong in Apollo XI Landing (dead giveaway, where did they "go"? There are no bathrooms no the moon!), and Steve Coogan in Around the World in 80 Days (the lizard people grab anyone who gets too close to the edge).

Re:Bunch of morons

[khelms]

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/donovan/the+intergalactic+laxative_20282958.html/

Re:Bunch of morons

[drjoe1e6]

Neil Armstrong in Apollo XI Landing (dead giveaway, where did they "go"? There are no bathrooms no the moon!)

That's easy, they chose to boldly "go" where no man had gone before.

Re:Bunch of morons

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obviously fiction, just like Tom Hanks in Apollo 13 (everyone knows you can't put a square peg in a round hole), Neal Armstrong in Apollo XI Landing (dead giveaway, where did they "go"? There are no bathrooms no the moon!), and Steve Coogan in Around the World in 80 Days (the lizard people grab anyone who gets too close to the edge).

Yes and that other one from a few years back that was obviously completely fabricated - there's no way a ship the size of the Titanic could SINK!
Morons!

Remarkable people

[JanneM]

A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy works. A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils, prophets and an afterlife. A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real. A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect. Those remarkable people almost certainly includes myself, and most likely you as well.

Re:Remarkable people

[invictusvoyd]

Not me . dude.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

This post brought to you by magnets.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people think I'm a dude.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps is it remarkable that in 2015, humans are still collectively unable to act rationally and think logically about so many things despite it being the means of our salvation.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

Normal, yes... using the definition of 'normal' that means 'typical' or 'common.'

Healthy? That's a whole other ball of wax. I think there's plenty of evidence that belief in God is a dangerous delusion that is detrimental to individual and societal mental health and to the common good.

Re:Remarkable people

[Eunuchswear]

Because all I'm seeing is that the best way to find out if a civilizations is about to go pear shaped is to do an atheist headcount.

Yes, as the secular government of Syrian Baathism is being replaced by the overtly religious ISIS things are getting much more civilised.

Re:Remarkable people

[drinkypoo]

A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect.

Without ever consciously experiencing any sense of disconnect, you mean.

Those remarkable people

There's nothing remarkable about willful ignorance. It is the normal state for the majority.

Re:Remarkable people

[Zobeid]

I find many people will believe just about anything as long as it doesn't impact their lives directly. They'll believe whatever they find amusing to believe -- and I've been there myself when I was young, with UFOs and other Fortean stuff.

When it comes to something that does impact their daily life -- like anything related to money, for example -- they suddenly become die-hard skeptics and want to see proof of everything.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister in law believes homeopathy cured her daughter, who was dying of a serious brain infection.

The homeopathy was provided while the daughter was receiving 24 hour around the clock intensive care in a modern hospital in a first world country staffed by trained and experienced medical professionals, but apparently it was the homeopathy that saved her.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy works. A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils, prophets and an afterlife. A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real. A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yep, yep.

A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect. Those remarkable people almost certainly includes myself, and most likely you as well.

I was following you until this last paragraph where you went completely off the deep end.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a friend, who is a mechanical engineer, and his wife, a school teacher, who both believe that the moon landing is a fake.

So, education doesn't mean anything when it comes to some things.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

The Roman Empire was *extremely* Christian at its end. I suppose you'll claim that a move from polytheism to monotheism is nearly the same as atheism. After all, Christians only disbelieve in one fewer deity than atheists.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy works. A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils, prophets and an afterlife. A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real. A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect. Those remarkable people almost certainly includes myself, and most likely you as well.

I know right, its a shame we spend so much money on this 'remote sensing', how useless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing

Re:Remarkable people

[kheldan]

I applaud that undying spark of hope for humanity within you that actually believes everything that you just said there -- and I echo it, with regards to Humanity taken as a whole. But the sad fact is that on an individual basis, people can be incredibly dumb, either intrinsically (i.e., incapable of knowing any better), through lack of education, or via wilful ignorance (i.e., "don't know, don't want to know"). I wish that I'd live long enough to see an end to believing in mysticism and superstition, but I know I won't..

Re:Remarkable people

[ravenscar]

Correlation is not causation. You seem to think that the rise in atheism results in the problems. It could just as easily be argued that the rise in atheism in said situations was a natural response to seeing how the theists in power had brought society to a place where uprisings, armed revolts, etc. were the only logical outcomes.

Your statement is somewhat akin to saying : "Every time the leaves change color and fall off the trees it gets cold. Therefore, the leaves falling off the trees cause the change in temperature."

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. It's a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Re:Remarkable people

[Sardaukar86]

There are no atheists in foxholes.

A common misconception. Quite expected though, from an adherent to a class of thinking that considers morality impossible without irrational belief in a vindictive and childish sky-bully and its supposed 'teachings'.

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since one of the Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said "turn the other cheek," one could easily argue that there are no Christians in foxholes either!

Re:Remarkable people

[Sardaukar86]

LOL good point!

Re:Remarkable people

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're a Dudeist, then?

Re:Remarkable people

[agm]

Belief in a god is delusion. Only children, the gullible and the mentally challenged have imaginary friends.

On the other hand,

[invictusvoyd]

Quite a few people know that it was shot in Wadi Rum in Jordan and is based on a novel. Them poor souls . Ignorance is bliss especially when watching a movie.

Re:On the other hand,

[Anonymous Coward]

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the moon landings.

Re:On the other hand,

[Chrisq]

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the moon landings.

Didn't you know that the Moon landing was actually faked by filming on Mars. But when they finished they left one crew member behind .....

Re: On the other hand,

[Anonymous Coward]

Was he a Botanist? I'm pretty sure Habs, Rovers, and other amenities there for him, not to mention plenty of cameras to assist him in documenting his stay, so Hollywood can turn it into a movie one day.

Re:On the other hand,

[Ol Olsoc]

Didn't you know that the Moon landing was actually faked by filming on Mars. But when they finished they left one crew member behind .....

The sick part is that the people who don't believe we went to the moon will believe that.

Re: On the other hand,

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha nice.

Re:On the other hand,

[Anonymous Coward]

The moon landings were real, it's just the filming of them which was fake.

Slashdot... not exactly a bastion of reason

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to bash people for asking if the Martian is real, while people here quickly believe any number of myths and falsehoods. Just because someone else believes things that aren't correct doesn't mean you're much better. Nate Silver makes this point eloquently at the start of his book The Signal and the Noise. He shows that despite advances in technology and information, we're not much better at predicting things or reasoning. In fact, he presents evidence that we might actually be worse. On Slashdot, this rings true as most of the users believe that Linux is better than Windows, is a viable alternative in every way, and that Linux and open source are the answers to every computing need. Just because other people have their own myths and falsehoods they continue to believe in doesn't mean you're any better.

Re:Slashdot... not exactly a bastion of reason

[roc97007]

> In fact, he presents evidence that we might actually be worse.

Oh, I think there's ample evidence that we might be much worse.

Just a disconnect.

[EzInKy]

This is nothing more than a disconnect between real science and the masses. much the same as the disconnect between the 1% and the 99%. Education is the key here.

probably the same percentage

[roc97007]

...who thought Apollo 13 was fiction.

Re:probably the same percentage

[Anonymous Coward]

First 6 minutes: Who's Hitler?

The irony

[ruir]

Some even think this kind of mental masturbation is actually the real slashdot.

Re:The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

/. died years ago. As soon as it became for-profit, it created links to other media outlets to feed each other click-bait and celeb shit. Just thank your lucky stars they've reduced the fixation for opinionated misinformation from bloggers.

Re:The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Some even think this kind of mental masturbation is actually the real slashdot.

It got you posting...

Re:The irony

[drinkypoo]

Some even think this kind of mental masturbation is actually the real slashdot.

At least it's closer than the usual dicevertisement.

Re:The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

did netcraft confirm it?

Re:The irony

[ruir]

Now if you werent a dick, what would you like to be?

ask slashdot section tomorrow

[ruir]

Do you know any adblocker that hides "slashdot" hollywood blatant adverts posing as mental masturbation?

All Praise Lord Xenu!

[Joviex]

Maaaaahhhht Daayyhhhhmon, our new testiment scientologist come home!

As for "The Martian"

[ruir]

The book is a good read 3/4 of it. The end quickly degenerates badly. The book as it whole comes as pretentious, kinda of an IT book written by project managers. For nerds, summing it up, it is the equivalent in literature of the ITIL books.

Re:As for "The Martian"

[drinkypoo]

The book as it whole comes as pretentious, kinda of an IT book written by project managers. For nerds, summing it up, it is the equivalent in literature of the ITIL books.

So like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, except less entertaining?

Re:As for "The Martian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely more entertaining than Robinson's Mars trilogy, which is mostly soap opera with a bit of Mars thrown in. Should have been 1/3 the length.

Re:This haiku is based on a true story

[Anonymous Coward]

A young child posted
an autobiography.
Minus one, flamebait.

Swaying public perception

[Okian Warrior]

I've often wondered how much our media actually sways public perception.

To take an example, consider the TV series "West Wing", which ran from from 2000 - 2007. This was during most of the Bush administration.

In the series, the president (played by Martin Sheen) was powerful, smart, compassionate, and likeable. The character was a Nobel Prize laureate in economics(*), and pretty-much the pinnacle of personal achievement.

For comparison, note that Dennis Kucinich brought 35 articles of impeachment against Bush at the end of his term, including taking the country into war for no just cause.

(I don't bring this up to cast aspersions on the man or party, only to show that there was widespread disapproval with some justification at the time.)

I can't help but wonder if peoples' perception of the president's actions were somehow biased because of the "West Wing" series. It was highly popular, and the character of the president (in the series) was one who garnered a lot of respect.

Would the public have been less tolerant of Bush without "West Wing" running concurrently with his term?

I wonder what other effects that TV and entertainment might have on the population. Does everyone's view of police stem from CSI, Hawaii 5-0, and Hill Street Blues? We see all the time how police risk their lives to protect the innocent, for example... on TV. Do people use their TV viewing as the basis for their assessment of reality?

(*) And in one particular moment during the show, someone asked the president about NAFTA and whether opening up free trade would hurt America, and Martin Sheen (as the president) stated something like "every economist thinks it would be to our benefit".

Re:Swaying public perception

[F.Ultra]

I think that you are absolutely right. Take for example all those who refuse to wear seatbelts because they are afraid to be stuck in a car since they know that cars always explode after a crash. Since movies and tv series display things that most people have no direct experience of (like how it's like to be a president or a police officer) then what you see on the screen probably registers as experience in their brains.

This is also why trends in movies change what people see as authentic. For example in the 70:ties there where a change from authentic looking blood to the massively red colored movie blood that is still used today. That change was done in order to avoid MPAA ratings since the blood looked obviously fake, but now decades later if you shoot a movie with real authentic blood, people will complain in droves that it doesn't look authentic :-)

Re:Swaying public perception

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently watched an anime series called 'Gatchaman Crowds: Insight.' While it at first glance it appeared to be a very innocent (and looking somewhat childish) superhero show, it built up to something very intriguing. It did a really good job of portraying how scary public opinion and atmosphere can really be.

It's just one guy!

[cipher1024]

Seriously, I feel bad for the guy, but there are seven stranded castaways with no light, no motor car, not a single luxury, RIGHT HERE ON EARTH! Can't somebody help those poor people? (dibs on Mary Ann).

Re:It's just one guy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they're willing to vote each other out for my entertainment. #blindside

Re:It's just one guy!

[meglon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I wonder how many people belive both that

[Chrisq]

I wonder how many people believe both that "The Martian" is based on a true story and that the Apollo moon landings were fake. I bet there are a few, some people seem to be serial conspiracy theory/hoax believers.

Re:I wonder how many people belive both that

[Coisiche]

That was what I immediately wondered, but it's no real surprise that many people dismiss reality as false and embrace fiction as reality. It's been happening for a long, long time.

Re:I wonder how many people belive both that

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the film was going to prove that...

Obviously the moon landings were a fake, and the lunar lander accidentally ended up on Mars - where NASA had to go and rescue them from...

See - both stories are "true"... ;-)

Re:I wonder how many people belive both that

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I prefer fiction over reality. But I still know what's actually true, vs. what I would wish to BE true.

I would wish that we were already on Mars, but I know that we are not (maybe the Chinese are, after all, Mars is red, and they could hide such a cunning plan)

remarkable Numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, a remarkable number of people believe that the world is a disc and about 6000 years old. I find this very scary.

No people

[MrKaos]

this is the one they faked, we haven't really been to mars yet.

Re:No people

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so do you mean Capricorn One wasn't a documentary, or it was?

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people are total idiots..

That girl in school is looking just a bit smarter

[istartedi]

I attended a screening of Birth of a Nation at school, which had a panel discussion after the film. One of the questions fielded from the audience was, "Were those actual Civil War battle scenes?". I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing for the rest of the panel.

That girl is looking just a bit smarter now. At least they had still photography during the Civil War, so the possibility of some early, expensive, motion picture system is at least plausible. Not knowing that we've never been anywhere near Mars with humans? I think that's a whole new level.

Re:IN OTHER NEWS

[Rei]

Am I the only one here who, whenever they encounter this pre-teen version of profanity as in the above post, read it literally, as if the person was talking about bundles of wood, literal hats for asses, and donkeys going crazy next to bull shit?

averages

[Tom]

If the average IQ is 100 (and it is, by definition), that means for everyone with a 160 IQ, there has to be someone with a 40 IQ, or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80...

There is an incredible number of stupid, uneducated idiots in this world, right around you. You just don't notice them because our social circles tend to be made up largely so others in it are similar to ourselves.

As the saying goes: Being stupid is a lot like being dead. It's more difficult for people around you than for yourself.

Re:averages

[Eunuchswear]

You're making some possibly unwarranted assumptions about the shape of the distribution curve.

Re:averages

[Tom]

That's what the "or"s outline, yes.

You are welcome to link to any actual research that shows the real distribution curve, of course. I'd be interested.

Re:averages

[Eunuchswear]

The real distribution curve is normal.

Yes, that is ridiculous, but it's how IQ is defined.

just goes to show

[thephydes]

ignorance and stupidity are alive and well

People are just being People

[vinaychittora]

I think The Big Lebowski too.

Re:That girl in school is looking just a bit smart

[F.Ultra]

Could there have been a slight chance that she really meant if the scenes where authentic but didn't phrase the question correctly? Just hoping that people are not that stupid...

One could almost imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

"The cinematography and special effects were so well done that one could almost imagine that Ridley Scott sent Matt Damon and a film crew to Mars to shoot the movie."

Not if you know anything at all about Mars.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

a remarkable number of Americans think "The Martian" is based on a true story.

Let's mess with the conspiracy theorists...

[Feral Nerd]

A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy works. A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils, prophets and an afterlife. A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real. A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A remarkable number of people are intelligent, well-adjusted and successful in their lives, and still manage to hold one or several of the beliefs above without ever experiencing any sense of disconnect. Those remarkable people almost certainly includes myself, and most likely you as well.

Why don't we turn the "NASA faked the moon landings" conspiracy theory on it's head and convince the tinfoil-hat community NASA has secretly sent astronauts to Mars? I'm challenging all Slashdot users to discreetly spread rumours and manifestly fake and/or weak evidence that NASA has secretly gone to Mars and that this film is a reenactment documentary based on revelations by a mysterious unidentified NASA whistle blower thus fanning the flames of this simple misconception among a few uninformed people into a full blown conspiracy theory. If people believe NASA faked the moon landings even though you can see the astronaut's footprints on the moon to this day they'll swallow this story hook line and sinker since the believability of a conspiracy theory seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence proving that it is a big steaming pile of bullshit.

Re:Let's mess with the conspiracy theorists...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why don't we turn the "NASA faked the moon landings" conspiracy theory on it's head and convince the tinfoil-hat community NASA has secretly sent astronauts to Mars?

Too late.

Re:Let's mess with the conspiracy theorists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we turn the "NASA faked the moon landings" conspiracy theory on it's head and convince the tinfoil-hat community NASA has secretly sent astronauts to Mars?

It's vitally important that we keep the successful mission to Mars a secret!

Castle Frankesntein

[clickety6]

There's a Castle Frankenstein in Hesse, Germany. If you read the online reviews for it (e.g. TripAdvisor) , it's amazing how many people seem to think that it's the historical residence of a certain Dr. Frankenstein...

Re:Castle Frankesntein

[quenda]

There's a Castle Frankenstein in Hesse, Germany. If you read the online reviews for it (e.g. TripAdvisor) , it's amazing how many people seem to think that it's the historical residence of a certain Dr. Frankenstein...

The _really_ dumb people think Frankenstein was the name of the monster, rather than the Doktor :)

Re:Castle Frankesntein

[cmdr_klarg]

There's a Castle Frankenstein in Hesse, Germany. If you read the online reviews for it (e.g. TripAdvisor) , it's amazing how many people seem to think that it's the historical residence of a certain Dr. Frankenstein...

That's pronounced "Frahn-ken-steen"!

I'm just glad

[sproketboy]

I'm just glad you're main link goes here rather than buzzfeed.

But it is.

[Eunuchswear]

Or, rather it's based on a story that's based on a true story.

Robinson Crusoe.

Damn, but they knew how to do spoilers back then, the original was published as:

The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pyrates.

Nope. Doesn't work like that.

[denzacar]

If the average IQ is 100 (and it is, by definition), that means for everyone with a 160 IQ, there has to be someone with a 40 IQ, or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80...

There is an incredible number of stupid, uneducated idiots in this world, right around you.

IQ curve is a normalized bell curve. Equal on both sides, reaching into infinity on both sides.
BUT... There is neither infinite IQ nor 0 intelligence. Neither of those would be a living human being.
So right there, the curve itself is a broken representation. If taken in such a simplistic "or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80" way.

Back in reality, those numbers actually mean something.
Anything in the 71 - 84 range is considered "Borderline Intellectual Functioning".
These are people with difficulties learning to read, write, do math or solve complex problems.
People who don't get "When is a door not a door? When it's ajar." jokes.
70 and below is Mental Retardation.
At 50 - 70 range - reading, writing and basic math is an accomplishment, while communicating is a difficulty.

Do you REALLY see many people like that around you? Cause those are only about 2% of population.
And nobody is including their opinions in pols as they are incapable of understanding such complex questions or formulating meaningful answers.

Meanwhile, that curve represents ALL HUMANS. Including kids and babies. And senile old people.
So, a lot of those low IQ numbers are actually AGAIN people unable to understand or answer such questions.

At the same time, that right part of the curve are actual people too. 100+ IQ, and going up to 160 and more...
Major difference being that THOSE people really ARE intellectually functional.
Some of them MAY lack education or they may have prejudices and biases preventing them in reaching accurate or logical conclusions - but IQ is there.
Present and accountable.

And then there is a part where those IQ numbers actually have a +/- error built in due to the nature of the test.
And when the test favors those with higher IQ, who can breeze through the test faster, scoring more points, making less errors... guess which group gets penalized the most from pondering about the solution a bit longer?
Hint: It ain't the IQ 85 and below crowd. They hit their ceiling early on. Never get to the point where seconds mean additional IQ points.

Again, curve is a broken representation.
In reality, it is a lot flatter in the middle and steeper on the left side.
Cause while those standard deviations are rather arbitrary (representation of a measuring tool - not the measured value) - there IS a real cut off line below which it is obvious that people have problems with intellectual functioning.

Your view is distorted by the fact that you are probably standing a bit low (indicating higher IQ) on the right side of the curve, looking up-curve at all those people below you and going "OMG! There are SO MANY of them."
So you don't see that in actuality, most of those people are actually on your side of the curve. Closer to you, than to those below IQ 85.

Education on the other hand... that's a different matter.
And so are biases and prejudices and simply faulty information and reasoning.
No one is immune to that. Just remember Linus Pauling, his double Nobels and his ideas about vitamin C.
Or any person still believing in the dude in the sky, working in mysterious ways while murdering babies in Africa.
Those people can't be all below average. There are simply too many of them for that. And the curve is broken.

Re:Nope. Doesn't work like that.

[Alumoi]

BUT... There is neither infinite IQ nor 0 intelligence.

Did you look at the politicians, marketing people and (most) TV hosts?
Yeah, I thought so.

Re:Nope. Doesn't work like that.

[Tom]

Do you REALLY see many people like that around you? Cause those are only about 2% of population.

As are the 160 IQ people.

Those people can't be all below average. There are simply too many of them for that. And the curve is broken.

It's not a perfect curve, that's for sure. But the point is not about numbers and math. The point is what you said here:

Your view is distorted by the fact that you are probably standing a bit low (indicating higher IQ) on the right side of the curve, looking up-curve at all those people below you and going "OMG! There are SO MANY of them."
So you don't see that in actuality, most of those people are actually on your side of the curve. Closer to you, than to those below IQ 85.

Most of us here are on the above-average side, as a self-selected group of people interested in stuff that's not very simple. So from our perspective, things that seem incomprehensible stupid would seem less so from the average persons POV.

I personally can't wrap my head around the concept of religion at all and while I can write an article about the psychological needs and cultural circumstances that contribute to the formation of religious ideas, I cannot personally "feel" how it is to be religious. And I can feel myself into many other things.

But from statistics I see, being religious is still pretty much normal.

So in short: Never make a conclusion about what's normal from your own personal experience.

Re:IN OTHER NEWS

[invictusvoyd]

No.

It's based on Apollo 13, very loosely.

[Ihlosi]

An accident during a space mission, and only science, quick thinking and creative ad-hoc engineering saves the crew.

Hearsay is not evidence

[EmagGeek]

So they found a bunch of tweets where someone said they heard someone say that their third cousin's step-brother's ex-wife's kid from a former marriage asked the guy at the Quik-E-Mart if The Martian was a true story...

Yeah, that's a reliable polling method.

No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people thought Obama would be a good president... twice...

Those same people are now swooning over Clinton..

I know... you can't fix stupid... but maybe it's time to let Darwinism work it's magic.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people thought Obama would be a good president... twice...

They were right. It's a shame, though, about the uselessness of Congress, especially since the Republicans took over.

Re:That girl in school is looking just a bit smart

[tomhath]

That movie was made in 1915, about 50 years after the Civil War ended. Her question wasn't really that absurd - she was just off a few decades on when the first movies were made.

Apollo 13

[Zobeid]

This is like the reverse of what we had with Apollo 13. I watched it with a friend who was *astonished* to learn it was based on a true story. And yet, even I -- somewhat of a space nut myself -- had barely heard of the Apollo 13 mission when I was growing up. Nobody talked about it. There were no documentaries about it. I was vaguely aware that there was one Apollo mission that had some kind of malfunction and was aborted, but that was all. I had no idea there was any sort of *drama* associated with that.

When the Apollo 13 mission happened, I presume it was all over the news. I don't remember because I was four years old. Maybe all these people who think The Martian was real are just assuming it was before their time???

yea

[Anonymous Coward]

People will believe anything if they fear it is true, or want it to be true. This is why we have groups insisting 9/11 was an inside job, why people think climate change is real, and why people think this movie is based on a true story.

Bah tautology Merkins dont think

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them have trouble just breathing and eating at the same time.

well

[Torvac]

A Remarkable Number of People is fucking stupid. anyways, probably all made up because buzzfeed is shit.

Re:A remarkable numbere of people are idiots

[Type44Q]

By "votes" I trust you are referring to the number of greenbacks in their wallets? Rest assured that they will soon, as the song goes, go separate ways. ;)

"virtually certain"

[sacrilicious]

The linked examiner article says:

Had NASA been given the funding and direction, it is virtually certain that humans could have walked on Mars by the mid-1980s.

Whoever wrote that has not a fucking clue in the world.

Remarkable Number? How many is a remarkable number

[n2hightech]

It's not remarkable at all. People believe professional wrestling is real, homeopathy is real, ghosts, devils and gods are real. So what makes belief in a well made movie depicting mostly good science less believable than all that other hogwash. People are programmed to believe. Being skeptical is hard and a vastly smaller number of people ever question anything they are told or shown even if it not presented as the truth.

...number of adults who believe angels are real

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people think 'The Bible' is based on a true story, too.

I'm betting the intersection between those two groups is pretty high.

It's all the same no ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well link that to those who still think they have an invisible friend up in the sky....
Humans seem to relish believing in nonsense to avoid reality.

A True Story ... From the Future ?

[gakn8r]

Why are people assuming this is a true story from the past? Maybe it happens in the future and we are just now hearing about it.

Re:Remarkable people (By Neruos)

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people believe homeopathy (allowing the human body to work itself out has proven to work in some cases) works.
A remarkable number of people believe in gods, devils (unexplained beings or creatures yet to be discovered), prophets (um, anyone can be a prophet) and an afterlife (if afterlife is energy moving on to something else and passing on your genes can contain not only trait information but possible memory as well, then yes you are living on after death).
A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real (because forecast prediction isn't something used by everyone in the world today).
A remarkable number of people firmly believe various economic, political or social "truths" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary(when a large group of people conflict with a large group of people, the only truth is that of the winner, unless it can be scientifically replicated or at largely formulated, people are entitled to their ignorance).

Let me fix that for you and you can see how faith has merits, ever how small, in some reality.

Fixed the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

"A remarkable number of people think the endless 'adverticles' for the Martian are real content"

Not even the moon, much less Mars!

[chubs]

The comments here are boring. I was hoping for a conspiracy theorist that would point out that it's unfathomable for us to have been to Mars, since even our moon landing took place in a studio on Earth. On a side note, this is my favorite argument against the faked-moon-landing theory: https://xkcd.com/1074/

Re:Remarkable Number? How many is a remarkable num

[Anonymous Coward]

A remarkable number of people believe in free will also. That has been scientifically proven to be impossible. Even the concept of randomness is an illusion

Democrat thought we landed on Mars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee thought we landed on mars. Seriously, this liberal wacko really is so shallow in her ability to think, she believed we landed on Mars. She also thought we won the Vietnam war. Liberals and Democrats... comedy gold when they vocalize their thoughts.

Re:Democrat thought we landed on Mars...

[Anonymous Coward]

She's from Texas, give her a break.

idiots in most disciplines

[peter303]

Politics, geography, etc. as well as science. School is just a grabbag of facts temproarily learned and forgotten. TV man-on-the-street humor has exploited this lack of knowledge.

I hope that there are others out there...

[Erbo]

...who wish that The Martian was based on a true story.

Because the world as depicted in The Martian is a world that still gives a shit about space and the space program. And that's the kind of world I, for one, want to live in.

I see your point.

[mschaffer]

OK. I see your point.
People are IGNORANT idiots.

And others believe that...

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 was a hoax, or was a secret government operation, or was aliens
God exists
They saw bigfoot, aliens, the lochness monster, or ghosts
Women are evil, or Men are evil
We live in a patriarchy
Everything is sexist
No level of radiation is safe
The patriot act is a good thing
Their holy book is the best book ever written and was directly inspired by God
Morality is purely subjective
The mood landing was a hoax
The earth is flat
They can predict the end of the world
They are psychic

So yes, I can totally understand how some people may believe 'The Martian' was based on a true story. People on average are idiots, especially in the US.

Re:Remarkable people (By Neruos)

[Anonymous Coward]

> A remarkable number of people believe scrying, remote sensing, dousing or fortune telling is real

Fortune telling IS real!

Accurate fortune telling is a little harder to come by...

Uhuh

[dd22qq]

A lot of those who might actually have said it would only have done so in jest. It's a common enough type of joke many of us have made. "This is based on a true story, right guys? (hehe)". But that won't stop people using the opportunity to take the intellectual high ground for the sense of superiority it affords. Kinda like the thinks-Africa-is-a-country one that seems to come up every now and again with celebrities and politicians (Sarah Palin (ugh, but still), Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Rick Ross et al). Almost certainly more a case of their having been a little sloppy in their wording rather than being based on an actual belief system. But not nearly so juicy to report.

It is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to call everyone out but it can be proven that this was shot on Mars. Matt Damon grew a beard from his 4 year journey back to earth. Wait that's fucking retarded. Wait Americans are retarded. Oh I see why people would think this. Now I'm afraid to see the future. I'm going to blast my head off

it is BASED on a true story

[fsagx]

Alexander Selkirk.

Spoilers

[Anonymous Coward]

Before posting a story like this you should warn us.

facts / beliefs

[swell]

Teachers and parents instill 'facts' into children.

Literal facts are often greatly simplified for the convenience of the teacher and the level of a child's supposed understanding. Why does the light go on when you flip the switch? -- Because there is electricity. That answer will tide the child over for a while, after which a similar pablum will be offered. Questions about sex and thoughtless answers can be crippling to future adults.

Teachers and parents rarely have real facts, but they feel the need to impress the child nevertheless so they pretend to know. They don't understand electricity, or automobile mechanics or current nutritional discoveries or ANYTHING. They fake it. They lie. The child who is slow to realize that faces a lifetime of ignorance.

Perhaps worse is the oppression of beliefs paraded as facts

From Aesop's fables to legends about Hercules, Moses, Jesus, Tesla and Batman the minds of children are filled with a strange brew. Facts are hard to separate from beliefs. As children grow older, many develop a more sophisticated view of at least some of these 'facts'. But even (especially?) into old age many people believe what they hear from conservative hate mongers, persuasive preachers, advertising fantasies and other questionable sources.

The final problem along these lines is the binary solution to any issue.

A thing is either: true or false; up or down; on or off; left or right... Shades of grey, as one of our regulars likes to say, are not tolerated. Sadly, many polarized opinions on Slashdot indicate the insidious penetration of this concept into the highest realms of intellectual intercourse.(?)

It is supremely difficult for a parent or teacher to say:
"I don't know. Let's see if we can find the best answer to that question."
Every child suffers as a result.

Uninformed != Idiot

[grumpyman]

It is the wrong assumption but when I was 6 or 7 and I learnt that no human has reached beyond moon, I thought wow, we really sucked.

Lemme fix that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

"A Number of Remarkably Dumb People Think 'The Martian' Is Based On a True Story"

Your welcome.

Stupid Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a movie... make believe. If your brains weighed one tenth as much as your fat asses, you would realize this.

Dumb overmedicated country.

Re:Remarkable Number? How many is a remarkable num

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I missed the paper that demonstrated free will is impossible. Did they somehow prove we live in a fully deterministic universe?

Alt 3 - Already been to Mars in 50's

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we turn the "NASA faked the moon landings" conspiracy theory on it's head and convince the tinfoil-hat community NASA has secretly sent astronauts to Mars? I'm challenging all Slashdot users to discreetly spread rumours and manifestly fake and/or weak evidence that NASA has secretly gone to Mars and that this film is a reenactment documentary based on revelations by a mysterious unidentified NASA whistle blower thus fanning the flames of this simple misconception among a few uninformed people into a full blown conspiracy theory. If people believe NASA faked the moon landings even though you can see the astronaut's footprints on the moon to this day they'll swallow this story hook line and sinker since the believability of a conspiracy theory seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence proving that it is a big steaming pile of bullshit.

No need to make a new conspiracy theory about it. We sent people over there, including a cameraman, in 1956 in a captured ufo. There is a video clip of it on the net somewhere. Search Alt3. I might be remembering the date wrong as I don't have the video handy atm, but someone in the craft says the date as or after they land. -- Also; right after they land, the camera that was put up to the port hole, catches movement near one of the landing struts. Looks like something disturbed by the landing rushes away from the craft under the surface of the sand. And just like most of the newer nasa pics of Mars you see a nice blue sky out the port hole with the rest of the terrain looking like expected for Mars.

Not surprising.

[Stubbyfingers]

And conversely, a huge number of people thought Apollo 13 was implausible. Wonder if there are any crossover idiots?

Just wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

The think the Martian is real but the moon landing are not.

It makes perfect sense

[Lord Bitman]

Think of the alternative: That by 2015, we haven't ever gone to mars? That's would be absurd.