= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on Open Thread: March 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (658)
This may be enough reason to dismiss the proposal. If something like that may exist, it would be better if someone who has at least some chance of being impartial in the election designs the test.
And how exactly do you plan you keep political biases out of the test? According to your point 2, the voters would be questioned about their opinion in a debate about several policy issues. This doesn't look like a good idea.
The correlation between literacy and wealth seems a little problem compared to the probability of abuse which the system has.
And why do you call it a meritocracy?
"And how exactly do you plan you keep political biases out of the test?"
I wouldn't. I said that the book would be authored by the candidates, each one covering each issue from his own POV.
"And why do you call it a meritocracy?"
Because greater weight is given to those who understand whom they're voting for and why. And can read. And care enough to read.
That may be better, I misunderstood you because you said also that the government would write the book.
But still, I have almost no idea how the test could look like. Would you present a sample question from the test, together with rules for evaluation of the answers?
8) What does candidate Roy Biv blame for the failure of the dam in Oregon?
a. Human error
b. Severe weather conditions
c. Terrorist attack
d. Supernatural agents
16) According to the Michels study, quoted on p. 133, what is the probability that coprolalia is causally linked with nanocomputer use? (pick closest match)
a. 0-25%
b. 26-50%
c. 51-75%
d. 76-100%