my personal political philosophy

Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.

Redemism:

What is Redemism:

Redemism (pronounced red-em-izm) is a restricted form of democracy (the word ‘redem’ comes from the first few letters of the words ‘restricted democracy &rsquo😉 where every political candidate, prior to any election, must perform a special intelligence test called a ‘redem test’. The redem test is to be a scientifically devised test that tests how ‘reasonable’ the person is. What is meant by ‘reasonable’ in this context is the combination of two different mental attributes; how ‘rational’ a person can think; and how capable the person is of empathy and sympathy. The latter would require a brain scan to measure the electrical activity of the ‘prefrontal lobs’ of the brain as this part of the brain has been scientifically demonstrated to be important for empathy and sympathy. The part of the test that tests how ‘rational’ a person thinks is called the ‘rationality test’ and the part of the test that tests how capable the person is of empathy and sympathy is called the ‘kindness test’ as the real gaol of that part of the test is to give some kind of measure of the persons capability of kindness. The political candidate that is to perform the test must be given ample time to prepare and practice for the ‘rationality test’ part of the redem test and then, after he has done the redem test, the results of such a redem test must then be made public prior to the election so that voters are given the opportunity to make a more rational decision on who to vote for by taking into account the test results of this redem test.

But, obviously, there is nothing stopping the less rational voters from simply ignoring the results of such a test. To counter this, not only must the political candidates perform this test but all voters should also perform this redem test, including the brain scan, prior to the election. The value of each voter’s vote would then be proportional to the score each voter achieved in the redem test. So, the more marks you get on the redem test, the greater the power of your vote. This is essentially what redemism is.

A democratic state that uses this redem test in this way may be called a ‘redem state’.
The science on how to do well in the redem test and what makes one person more or less ‘reasonable’ (which means both ‘rational’ and ‘kind’ ) than another may be called ‘redemology’. A person who generally supports redemism may be called a ‘redemist’.

In practice, especially in poor countries, it may not be practical or be too costly to give all people a brain scan. Where this is the case, then a ‘reduced’ form of redemism (simply called ‘reduced redemism&rsquo😉 may be implemented with a ‘reduced’ redem test that only tests for how rational a person thinks and not how empathetic and sympathetic they are capable of as the later would require a brain scan. A compromise would be to only give political candidates the complete rem test with a test for empathy and sympathy while the voters would only do the reduced redem test that only tests to see how rationally they think.

The purpose of redemism:

It is easy to make the sweeping assumption that the more democracy the better and the more democratic a state is the better. While I believe that this is generally true, I believe that this assumption is too simplistic for there is at least one exception to this generalisation; where and when it can be scientifically demonstrated that voters or politicians are making an irrational decision. The purpose of redemism is too restrict democracy in such a way so to reduce the number of instances of these irrational decisions being implemented.

There are a good number of historical examples of such irrational political decisions being made by both voters and politicians. I will only give one such example below:

On march 23 year 1983, the U.S. president Ronald Reagan proposed the ‘star wars’ program that, included amongst other things, developing and then putting laser weapons into space to fire and destroy approaching enemy warheads in space. At the time, not only did he think that this was a good idea but many U.S. voters also thought so. Billions of dollars where spent on star wars and yet very little was achieved to show for it.

Many people like myself who have understanding of basic science and technology predicted this failure of the star wars program and would say “I told you so”. The star wars program was doomed from the start because although it was theoretically possible to do all the things proposed in star wars program, as anyone with basic understanding of science and technology like myself would tell you, it was very unlikely to be made physically practical within a politically meaningful time span. What Ronald Reagan proposed was really a pure delusional fantasy based on the rather childish science fiction film ‘star wars’. Thus millions of dollars were wasted on the doomed star wars program that could have been spent on better things such as reducing (or perhaps even ending?) world poverty or perhaps investing those millions of dollars into developing cheep economically viable solar power or giving free good quality health care for all U.S. citizens etc.

Unfortunately, because both Ronald Reagan and many voters lacked even the very basic understanding of science and technology, they supported this terrible (and I would say irrational) decision to implement the star wars program. What I propose to prevent a similar terrible decision being implemented again is to implement redemism and to make sure the redem test tests for, amongst other things, very basic understanding (and only very basic understanding as this is really all that is necessary) of science and technology. The redem test should, for example, test to see if the person understands that lasers normally can only cut or damage things by the heating effect of light absorption. This would mean that if a reflecting surface, such as a mirror, reflects all the laser light, then the laser cannot cut or damage such a surface. Perhaps if Ronald Reagan and all the voters understood this, they would seen one of the obvious flaws of the idea of firing lasers at approaching enemy warheads in space to destroy them as this would beg the obvious question; what is stopping the enemy making their warheads immune from damage from the laser weapons simply by putting mirrors on the warheads so as to reflect all the laser light away? This idea was researched and was judged to be a cheap and practical countermeasure an enemy could make.

Another reason for having redemism is to prevent the possibility of a complete lunatic being voted into power. This is because the redem tests would, at the very least, test for how rationally a politician thinks and, at best, would also test for ability to sympathise with others. I speculate that, if redemism had been implemented in Germany before world war two, the redem test may have shown that Hitler had some kind of prefrontal lobe dysfunction and then he probably would not have not been supported by so many voters and then he would have had less opportunity to gain power and world war two may not have happened. Even if Hitler only preformed the ‘reduced’ redem test that tests for only how rationally a person thinks, the redem test should have exposed Hitler as a highly irrational person. This is because he clearly was prone to irrational and absurd beliefs such as the absurd belief that all black people are inferior. I see no reason why redemism couldn’t prevent at least some future wars because as at least some wars are started because of irrational paranoia, hatreds, prejudices, delusional beliefs and various irrational ways of thinking.

Another reason for having redemism is for the basic principle that, just as you should not employ a doctor that has no understanding of basic human anatomy or a maths teacher that cannot count, you should not employ a politician to be a politician if he has no ability to make rational decisions as this is exactly what politicians are employed to do. So, just as a doctor must pass an exam to be considered to be a qualified doctor, a politician should only be considered to be a qualified politician if he does the redem test and gets a high score. Most types of professionals require qualifications to be allowed to do their profession. So, in this respect, why should politicians be treated any different from other types of professionals such as doctors, teachers etc?

Exactly what the redem test tests for:

The first thing the redem test tests for is how ‘rationally’ you think. But thinking ‘rationally’ can mean different things to different people and so we must make it clear exactly what is mean by ‘rationally’ in this context. What is meant by ‘rational’ in this context is a combination of two things that need to be tested for separately:

1, how rationally a person forms beliefs. The part of the redem test that tests for this must test for two things:

(a) the person’s level of understanding of scientific method as a means of acquiring new knowledge. This test should not really be a test for actual scientific knowledge itself -only a test for understanding how such knowledge is required. This part of the test must include a test to see how well the person really understands such things as what is meant by the ‘placebo effect’ and the reason for the ‘control’ in scientific experiments as well as the ‘double blind test’.

(b) the person’s proneness to form delusional beliefs such as absurd superstitious beliefs that are based on either flimsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.

Redemism:

What is Redemism:

Redemism (pronounced re ...[text shortened]... limsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...

I've started my own political party: The Hemocrats. Our motto: In order to get things done, you've got to spill a little blood! We believe in capital punishment, in other words, everyone in the Capital needs to be punished!

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I've started my own political party: The Hemocrats. Our motto: In order to get things done, you've got to spill a little blood! We believe in capital punishment, in other words, everyone in the Capital needs to be punished!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.

Redemism:

What is Redemism:

Redemism (pronounced re ...[text shortened]... limsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.

Redemism:

What is Redemism:

Redemism (pronounced re ...[text shortened]... limsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.

Redemism:

What is Redemism:

Redemism (pronounced re ...[text shortened]... limsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...

Originally posted by shavixmir
The obvious flaw for the redem-test is that rationality is a comparison to the situation an individual finds himself in.

You could do the test and be the most rational being in the whole wide world, but panic completely at the sight of a spider.

The most empathic of people can turn quite nasty if you rape their sister in front of them.

Etc. etc

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Who administers the 'redem' tests?

Who makes sure that the test administrators are actually giving reasonable tests?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
My best guess here (and this is just a guess) is that that the people who would administers the 'redem' tests would probably be the same people that normally administer A-level exams and other types of academic exams but with at least some guidance from psychologists and neurologists. And, the people that make sure that the test administrators are actually giving reasonable tests would be mainly the same psychologists and neurologists.🙂

Originally posted by Jigtie
I think with the late advances in science (monkey brains connected to
robot arms and such) we should put in place a computarised system that
can control these things. You'd put the silly hat on and the computer will
capture your exact thoughts at the moment you're exposed to a set of
images. You see a picture of children starving and what happens in y ...[text shortened]...
Oh, and who are you really?

And I'm not really trying to make fun of your idea here. 😕

Originally posted by shavixmir
HAL?

This thread is a gag, right? "Brain scans" to determine if a candidate can run for office? Orwell couldn't have written the first post here any better himself. Our great nation would no longer be great if it ever implements tests to see who can vote and who can run for office. This thread is either a hoax or very, very scary to me. At some point, only the genetically superior "supermen" will be able to vote.

I have just noticed that my first post only send half of my article on redemism because it contains too many words. I have sent the next half below. I really wish I had noticed that earlier:

...(b) the person’s proneness to form delusional beliefs such as absurd superstitious beliefs that are based on either flimsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you form irrational beliefs then you may make decisions based on those irrational beliefs. For example, if you are the head of a superpower and you have the irrational belief that global nuclear war is inevitable within your lifetime then you may decide it wouldn’t be a crime if you were the one to start it because you will belief that if you don’t then somebody else will anyway. From there it would be a small step for you to decide to do just that.

2, how rationally a person forms decisions (assuming that those decisions are based on rational beliefs). There has been a great deal of research on this very subject so it should be possible to make a good test to test peoples ability to make good decisions.

In addition to the above, the redem test should also test the person’s level of understanding of Darwinian evolution! This may not seem to have much to do with thinking rationally but actually it would be a very good test for rationality because, judging from my own observations, nearly everyone who doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution does not believe it because they have misunderstood it and thus are not thinking rationally about it. However, having said that, the redem test should not test whether you actually believe the theory of Darwinian evolution. The redem test should only test for your level of understanding of what the theory actually says.

Although this is not to do with thinking ‘rationally’, the redem test should also test for the ability to empathize as well as sympathise with other people. It has been scientifically demonstrated that the part of the human brain called the prefrontal lobes is responsible for the ability to empathize as well as sympathise with other people although it has various other functions such as face recognition. At the very least, this part of the redem test should test for what psychiatrists call ‘prefrontal lobe dysfunction’ which can cause a person to be a psychopath. This part of the test would probably either mainly or entirely consist of a brain scan to examine the electrical activity in the brain.

The redem test will never be a perfectly accurate test nor a fool-proof test for how ‘reasonable’ a person is no mater how well developed it is. One reason for this is because the redem test can generally only test for some of the minimum requirements that a person must have to be capable of thinking rationally and kindly. But, just because a person is capable of thinking rationally and kindly does not mean that that person does think rationally and kindly in his everyday life. This does not mean that redemism is flawed because it is better to be able to apply a moderately inaccurate test for how ‘reasonable’ voters and politicians are than to apply absolutely no such test at all. However, as science of psychology becomes more and more advanced, the redem test should continually be evolve and improve to take fully into account of the new knowledge of psychology so that it becomes ever more accurate at measuring peoples rationality and kindness and becomes ever more foolproof with time.

I would leave the fine details of how the redem test should be designed to psychologists that would know a lot more about psychology than I do.

The political bias of redemism:

There is no doubt that redemism would inadvertently favour some political views over others and thus would be inadvertently politically biased. This is because the redem test would favour those beliefs that are generally made by the more rational minds than those beliefs that are generally made by the less rational minds. The redem test should not deliberately be made to be politically biased but would still inevitably be inadvertently politically biased. ‘Politically bias’ is generally regarded as a bad thing but I would argue that, in this narrow context, it is actually a good thing because it is meant to be bias for the beliefs that are generally formed by the more rational way of thinking. ‘Politically bias’ in a democracy generally means ‘less democratic’ and ‘less democratic’ is also generally regarded as a bad thing but, again, I would argue that, in this narrow context, it is actually a good thing because it restricts democracy so that only the more rationally based decisions are more likely to be implemented.

Having said that, there is no special reason why redemism would, say, favour rightwing views over leftwing views or visa versa. I see no logical inconsistency for a rightwing person being a redemist and also a leftwing socialists being a redemist. However, whether the redem test, for subtle reasons, would inadvertently favour one over the other remains to be seen.

However, there is no doubt that redemism would inadvertently strongly favour atheistic views over religious views. One reason for this is because, generally, people who are religious are less likely to be rational. This is because religion, just like any other superstition, is belief without logic nor evidence as its premise. This makes religious beliefs absurd beliefs and irrational beliefs. If you believe in one absurd belief then you are more likely to have other absurd beliefs and you are more likely to be a person who is generally prone to forming such absurd beliefs. Although the redem test should not ask what your beliefs are, one thing the redem test should test for is proneness for forming absurd or delusional or irrational beliefs. Since religious fanatics are more likely to fail such a test, the test would be inadvertently biased in favour of atheists. Such a test would probably work much less against those that are merely ‘privately’ religious or ‘slightly’ religious than those that are ‘strongly’ religious.

Another reason why redemism would inadvertently favour atheistic views over religious views is because one thing the redem test should test for, as part of the test for basic understanding of science, is understanding of the theory of evolution. It should not test whether or not you actually believe in the theory of evolution; only how well you understand it. However, sense the non-belief in the theory of evolution usually comes from a complete misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually says, the test for the understanding of evolution would inevitably be biases against those who don’t believe it. And those who don’t believe it are more likely to be religious.

Laws to prevent corruption in a redem state:

The redem test should not, by law, be allowed to be designed by politicians else there would be the possibility of corruption because a politician could design the redem test to be politically biased to favour his own political views. The redem test should be designed by the most qualified psychologists and, in the case of the part of the test that requires a brain scan, neurologists.

Although there would inevitably be some inadvertent politically bias in the redem test, the law should clearly state that, for a redem test to be valid, the redem test must not be designed to have deliberately politically biased and, in particular, the redem test must not ask the person being tested what either his political nor religious beliefs are.

To prevent any possibility of either conscious or unconscious bias from the people that mark the completed redem tests, measures should be made to ensure that when a person marks a completed redem test, he is given as little clue as possible to the name, identity, age, sex, ethnic origin, religion, or political beliefs of the person that completed the test (incidentally, I think this principle should also be applied to the marking of virtually all kinds of academic exams and written tests). Also, for a redem test result to be considered to be valid, the person that has done the test must not have given any information nor deliberate clues in what he/she has written in the answers to his/hers name, identity, age, sex, ethnic origin, religion, or political beliefs else he/she should be disqualified from voting or being a political candidate.

Special prevision should be made for those who either have difficulty reading or simply cannot read by, for example, offering the redem test in a purely verbal non-written form etc else the redem test would by unfairly biased against those with reading difficulties. There must be ample time allowed for the redem test so that, for the vast majority of people, the time limit put on the test will not limit the number of questions they answer nor make them have to rush to answer the questions. After all, the redem test is not meant to test to see how quickly you can read, write and think but how rationally you think!

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
This thread is a gag, right? "Brain scans" to determine if a candidate can run for office? Orwell couldn't have written the first post here any better himself. Our great nation would no longer be great if it ever implements tests to see who can vote and who can run for office. This thread is either a hoax or very, very scary to me. At some point, only the genetically superior "supermen" will be able to vote.