Would not the natural outcome of this be: eventually a person morally deficient becomes ruler, then the following strategy is put in place to maintain power: 1) kill all opposition/dissenters w/ the rod 2) sabotage the schools so no one can be educated 3) develop the culture to be uneducated via propganda and promotions of time wasting activities 4) force mandatory mock tests and kill the top scorers 5) ruin the economy/society to make sure that everyone is too stressed/hungry/poor/busy to get smarter 6) become paranoid that people are under achieving the mock tests on purpose and studying in secret so kill all who show interest in taking THE exam 7) isolate the country so that no one foreign can take the test or teach anyone in the country 8) be ruler until you die while the country suffers and regresses in all ways, creating a never endign cycle of even worse copycats
A meritocracy can work wonders, however this particular method of choosing a leader isn't a good one. Knowledge is well and good, but a good leader doesn't need have to have a massive breadth of knowledge or anything like that. Rather, they need to have good judgment, and the ability to sway those under them. Most other skills they'll require can actually be filled through delegation or specialized advisors.
The idea itself isn't bad, but just giving the job to the highest achiever seems a little premature. How about doing this exam on children at different ages and those who achieve the highest results are then trained to be leaders? Thus having both the intelligence and experience necessary. It doesn't even need to take that long if they have the technology for virtual reality where times passes faster in the virtual world. worries about corruption aren't really logical because the top people are replaceable as long others with similar scores come along. and since the robot is the one that sets the criteria then you would assume it has the ability to enforce it, right? Just change it from divine right to right enforced by Skynet, and pound it into the head of the leaders that their powers all come from the robot overlord. I think that will quash any thoughts of corruption for a very long time unless a loophole is discovered.
I think this was highly variable through history. Sort of casually recalling my Chinese history, there were many famous despotic rulers that were widely hated. Some of them were overthrown/assassinated and some weren’t. Even beloved rulers can and will see rebellions and assassination attempts — and I think there are a lot of examples of this in US history. So practically speaking I’m not sure how convinced I am in concluding that being “well liked” keeps your head on your shoulders. At that level of power, everyone has vehement enemies regardless of your personality or political views.
I mean, I think that the came would simply become "get higher than everyone else" rather than "become very smart". I'd sabatoge everyone else first and foremost.
There are many way said individual see their subject. They can see them as slave, as an experimental specimens, as a food, etc. They can be very smart, they can have very high IQ but it doesn't automatically translate into individual that are seeing the best for their subject as their interest. As far as i can tell higher intellect are prone in disassociation with popular mass culture and thought. Which mean there's much higher chances higher intellect to be a sociopath/psychopath or display partly such tendencies.
This test is terrible for finding a leader, but it's good for finding the most knowledgeable person. Why not use the test to find the most knowledgeable person or people, and ask them about what makes a good leader? Then take their answer and compare it to the national average of traits most valued in a person. Take the averages of both scores and find the person who fits that mold. ???. Profit. What would it be like to live in this country? I don't know. I don't live there. Would you rather live in a meritocracy or a monarchy? I'll take the third option. Do you think this kind of country would be effective internationally compared to oligarchies/democracies/monarchies/military dictatorships? I don't know. I am ignorant of government types and history.
What happens if they investigate the leader's death and it was a plot by the second best in order to get the crown (or the third best in order to frame the second best and get the crown)? Or would that count as a desirable dictator trait? Cause I can see how that would lead to mayhem and the changing of leaders every year. I mean, they'd all be ambitious people with high enough IQ. In any case, I don't see a full 10 year term for any of the winners with this kind of absolute power dangling in front of everyone. It would be better to get the people who pass a certain threshold through a few other exams, putting the top rankers as seeds or something. Like have them interact with people and see who gains the most followers. Have them try to command troops and mock battle against each other. Heck, even a battle royale among them will do. Actually more criteria than just intellect and/or good memory. A psychological analysis would prove a good idea as well. Full background info on all of them too. You don't want a psycho on top. After the ten years, can the previous leader still go to the exam and extend their term? I want to answer the rest of the questions, but I gotta go sleep -_-;;
There are two, mob rule and direct democracy (and hiveminds depending on whether you treat hivemind as singular or plural)
a) I think living in this country would be about as good as living in any other dictatorship? I mean, maybe it would work out better and it would be a good place, but I don't think I'd like it. b) The meritocracy is slightly better IMO. People in power would be there due to knowing a variety of stuff instead of because of their blood rights, that's something. c) I think it could be pretty effective when compared to other countries, but I'm pretty sure I'd still prefer to live in a democracy instead of a dictatorship... And as others said, at the end of the day knowing much isn't necessary to be a good ruler... It's much better to just have someone that knows their limits and is humble enough to ask questions to those that know what they're talking about... Oh, and that has good morals, that is important.
Mob rule never involves all people, it involves the minority who are willing and able to use mob rule to get their way, whereas if not really desperate, most people wouldn't go that far. Direct democracy... doing that for every single matter is more or less impossible, so there will be someone deciding on some matters. Unless... they use that method of instant voting which I mentioned, but that would require either much better technology or something like 'spiritual connections' etc. Currently impossible. Hivemind isn't really a rule of government.
Hm alright I do see your point in mob rule that when people become lazy it does become ruled by few outspoken members. By hivemind, yes it is not a form of government but all actions of an hivemind are based on the collective thoughts of the units within it. One consisting of fairly intelligent units would indeed govern actions of its units based on the collective thought of hivemind. Basically for all purposes it does fulfill the governmental duties (taking care of hivemind etc) Direct democracy is quite feasible to get votes on everything if we consider low enough population. Yes it does kinda scale up pretty badly as of now.
What would it be like to live in this country? "The selected dictator would receive a magic wand that can insta-kill" O em gee ! Their political enemies would certainly tremble, and i believe that with this power, the selected dictator could hardly resist the temptation of conquering the world!! In short, it would be a bloody regime. And what's to prevent the dictactor to crack down every test-taker and insta-kill every of them to secure his "throne"? Wait..will the selected dictator have rights to modify the rules set in he "divine orbs" for "the good of the country"? Because if it's a yes, then i expect that the meritocracy wouldn't last that long But all in all, like what Lord Acton said, "Absolute power corrupt absolutely". Nuff said Would you rather live in a meritocracy or a monarchy? It depends on how open the meritocracy/monarchy to public participation when making laws/evaluation. Will the people voice will be heard? But i personally prefer a democratic meritocracy, though
No literally, imagine current direct voting. Then imagine doing that several times a week atleast, if not daily. So either, the population has to be very small or within a small region, or they group up every votes to the weekends, so things don't shut down all the time. But with that amount of necessary voting, you can be assured that it won't be long before people get tired of voting.
I'm actually also roughly of this view. IMO I didn't quite see anything that would cause the country to immediately fall over and collapse; and there are a lot of countries in the world where you wonder how they haven't collapsed already. Examples include Somalia (pirate state), Congo... Sudan... and more... In this sense, I'm actually of the view that a strong dictatorship with a strong grip on power is a better than a violent anarchy. The succession battle also occurs in monarchies -- in some countries (like China), they could get particularly bloodly. You've probably seen the novels where someone becomes king because they killed all their brothers. Realistically speaking, if you were dictator, to secure your position, you just had to imprison the test taker(s) who scored just below you (ideally several, as insurance). Imprisoning them is three-fold. First, it's so that they can't harm you. Second, it's so that people ranked below them can't harm them and rise on the ladder (it's a protective imprisonment!). Third, you have to ensure that they don't suicide or kill themselves -- because it would be a hassle to track down your new competitors. Well, you could, but every time you kill someone, a new "highest ranked scoring" competitor floats up to kill the gap. It's sort of like the issue of assassinating leaders in a democracy. Even if you kill the leader, the country will just elect a new leader. To me it makes more sense to kill your direct competitors ranked directly below you until you reach one that you can control/imprison/ally with you. At that point, it's better to solidify #2's position because unpredictability is dangerous -- and #2 who is your ally is your biggest buttress against a bloody scramble for a succession -- because no one else can take your throne without killing #2 first. I was under the impression that the divine orbs were divine and couldn't be influenced/manipulated from the mortal side. That said, there were multiple comments above where people said they would do things to make the population as a whole dumber or weird nasty stuff before the exam (idk: like pass a law so that everyone except the king needs to enter a sleep deprivation chamber for 3 days and nights before taking the exam to "purify" themselves before going before the holy artifact?" As for making the country dumber as a whole -- personally I'm not particularly sure that's a smart choice. Even as dictator, you need capable subordinates, and a shortage of talent is an enormous problem for a country. Not only are there domestic threats; there are also international threats -- and you will be unable to keep your throne if another country steamrolls over you. As for manipulating the exam conditions, I could see that as a potential avenue. At the same time, though, it seems to be against the spirit of the divine orb: Which implies that the orb is fundamentally egalitarian in nature -- at least with respect to the exam. If you assign enough OP-ness to the orb (and also consider the logistical issue of how it's impossible to schedule a one-by-one long grueling exam in a country of several millions), I think it's also reasonable to think that the orb must have some method of administering the exam massively in parallel. Consequently, I would hand-wave and just say that the divine orb comes to everyone in a dream and administers the exam in an extra-dimensional space massively in parallel -- meaning it such that literally anyone could take the exam regardless of any transportation, financial, or other barriers that would make taking the exam unegalitarian with respect to access. I think people can disagree with me, but personally I don't think the magic wand is particularly that powerful. I think it confers enormous symbolic value, but in a large-scale battle, it's only a slight improvement over a machine gun -- which only results in a tactical advantage of an unassailable fortified position (note: don't charge the trench line, silly! go around!) Furthermore, any capable leader of a country will have an escort of deadly guards/secret service including snipers on rooftops pointed at everybody that is a threat -- although they may not necessarily be visible. Security is something to take seriously, after all.
Sure, that's why I said I thought it would lead to mayhem. Struggling for the throne used to be all kinds of crazy - from intrigues to poisoning to straight out involvement of troops. The imprisonment idea seems like a good enough solution. Not impossible for someone to plot behind bars, but certainly more difficult.