Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...(haydenplanetarium.org)
haydenplanetarium.org
Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president
15 comments
obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama)
I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y.
X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy
Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$ sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their problems and so does everyone else.
Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S. government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even. The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.
X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy
Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$ sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their problems and so does everyone else.
Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S. government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even. The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.
I think you're wrong; it is by no means "obvious that the primary issue is economy". Do you mean that improving the economy would solve healthcare problems? Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment, and no amount of economic growth will provide healthcare for the unemployed without healthcare reform (although conversely, the number of people waiting until they're eligible for medicare to start businesses suggests healthcare reform ought to improve the economy).
Or are you simply claiming that it's more important? Economies go up and down, and on the whole the president seems to have very little influence on them. Introducing a proper healthcare system will, we know from other countries, be a major long-term improvement.
So I'm not seeing obsession in Obama's focus on healthcare. I'm seeing sense.
Or are you simply claiming that it's more important? Economies go up and down, and on the whole the president seems to have very little influence on them. Introducing a proper healthcare system will, we know from other countries, be a major long-term improvement.
So I'm not seeing obsession in Obama's focus on healthcare. I'm seeing sense.
"Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment"
What is the basis of this statement?
What is the basis of this statement?
I was under the impression it was generally accepted; from a brief look e.g. Friedman's NAIRU concept. Are you arguing that it's practical to have full employment under capitalism?
Health reform and the economy are not orthogonal. The less you have to worry about the paying for potential catastrophic health care events, the more freedom you have to make other financial and employment decisions.
> so let's call it even
Uh, let's not. Your single anecdote does not refute the statistical correlation between education and liberalism.
> so let's call it even
Uh, let's not. Your single anecdote does not refute the statistical correlation between education and liberalism.
Whether or not on average that is true on average, here you can see results that in 2012 those with only high-school/GED favored Obama in higher numbers than those with a bachelor's degree:
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/10/e...
also, from 2008: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-zogby-poll-of-512-obama-v...
I understand that "let's call it even" implies average (50/50), but my point was that there are enough uneducated voters from both sides to call it a draw, imo.
also, from 2008: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-zogby-poll-of-512-obama-v...
I understand that "let's call it even" implies average (50/50), but my point was that there are enough uneducated voters from both sides to call it a draw, imo.
Oh good lord --
The question was, "If I were president..." If he'd answered the question straight instead of the way he did, I doubt we'd see his answer as arrogant. The context matters quite a bit.
The question was, "If I were president..." If he'd answered the question straight instead of the way he did, I doubt we'd see his answer as arrogant. The context matters quite a bit.
* As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.*
I think it is easy to do this at the local and state level. These populations are small enough that variations in general political leaning are small (e.g. Californians are a more unified electorate than the US as a whole). It is also easier because some polarizing issues are out of states' hands (e.g. defense spending, immigration, abortion). It is harder to get a whole country to agree on one leader
I think it is easy to do this at the local and state level. These populations are small enough that variations in general political leaning are small (e.g. Californians are a more unified electorate than the US as a whole). It is also easier because some polarizing issues are out of states' hands (e.g. defense spending, immigration, abortion). It is harder to get a whole country to agree on one leader
The Long Now Foundation hosted a talk by Benjamin Barber called “If Mayors Ruled the World”. Barber discusses the major influence that mayors and city governments have to make positive change to global problems, sidestepping political gridlock at the national or international level.
Notes and audio (and non-free video) are available here:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jun/05/if-mayors-ruled-wor...
Notes and audio (and non-free video) are available here:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jun/05/if-mayors-ruled-wor...
It's been my experience that activist mayors that do so (flaunt regulations & selectively adhere to the law) really are more interested in seeking higher office. Best mayors are ones that realize their job is to keep the streets safe, the garbage hauled, and the sewer working.
I do agree that county and state legislatures are much more effective places for real change if only our federal judiciary would quit hamstring their efforts.
I do agree that county and state legislatures are much more effective places for real change if only our federal judiciary would quit hamstring their efforts.
This old comment from rayiner felt very relevant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4658565
> It is harder to get a whole country to agree on one leader
The point isn't for the whole country to agree. The point is to raise the lowest common denominator, so to speak.
The point isn't for the whole country to agree. The point is to raise the lowest common denominator, so to speak.
> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant.
No.
If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant.
No.
If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships. That's how it's supposed to be.
As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "brilliant in their own way" is a cop out, a platitude that's no better than saying nothing at all. Intellectual curiousity, love of learning and scientific rigor are real things, and a large number of the humans on this planet don't possess them. If you object to the idea that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is more brilliant than most, then you're in danger of losing touch with reality.
If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature. You can teach people how to think, but you can't make them like it.
A laughably small number of americans vote in presidential, much less local elections. And many of those voters have only the shallowest understanding of the issues being decided upon. deGrasse Tyson has a point...education may be democracy's only hope.
ASIDE: I'm noticing rampant selection bias on hn. It's important to remember that most of the people on this planet are nothing like us. Working at tech companies and hanging out at tech events it's easy to believe that everyone is as intelligent, reasonable and hard working as our family and coworkers. Most people just don't have the same love of learning and/or hacking that we do. While we value knowledge and intelligence above all, most humans don't and there's nothing wrong with that.
As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "brilliant in their own way" is a cop out, a platitude that's no better than saying nothing at all. Intellectual curiousity, love of learning and scientific rigor are real things, and a large number of the humans on this planet don't possess them. If you object to the idea that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is more brilliant than most, then you're in danger of losing touch with reality.
If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature. You can teach people how to think, but you can't make them like it.
A laughably small number of americans vote in presidential, much less local elections. And many of those voters have only the shallowest understanding of the issues being decided upon. deGrasse Tyson has a point...education may be democracy's only hope.
ASIDE: I'm noticing rampant selection bias on hn. It's important to remember that most of the people on this planet are nothing like us. Working at tech companies and hanging out at tech events it's easy to believe that everyone is as intelligent, reasonable and hard working as our family and coworkers. Most people just don't have the same love of learning and/or hacking that we do. While we value knowledge and intelligence above all, most humans don't and there's nothing wrong with that.
If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature.
If this were true, then Jews as a demographic wouldn't have a reputation for being well-educated and literate. What you're talking about is as much cultural as it is inherent, if not moreso. And if it's cultural, then education can change it.
If this were true, then Jews as a demographic wouldn't have a reputation for being well-educated and literate. What you're talking about is as much cultural as it is inherent, if not moreso. And if it's cultural, then education can change it.
I think you're right. You are probably always going to have a normal distribution, or close to it, but how tight that distribution is and where it is centred is I think something that can be changed with some effort.
Certainly it is possible to make the population as a whole dumber (just stop public education for instance), so it makes sense that, unless we happen to be doing everything brilliantly right now, we can do better as well.
Certainly it is possible to make the population as a whole dumber (just stop public education for instance), so it makes sense that, unless we happen to be doing everything brilliantly right now, we can do better as well.
> I'm noticing rampant selection bias on hn. It's important to remember that most of the people on this planet are nothing like us.
And there's the crux. There is a forum just like this one somewhere on the Internet that is entirely devoted to Justin Bieber. It probably has more users than HN.
To you and Mr. Tyson, they're ignorant twits because ...
> They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships.
To me? It's just a conflict of interest. They're different. Apples and oranges.
Are apples better than oranges? In some cases, but not in all. Anyway, I don't want to live in a world filled with only apples. Variety is the spice of life. Go spend some time with an orange.
And there's the crux. There is a forum just like this one somewhere on the Internet that is entirely devoted to Justin Bieber. It probably has more users than HN.
To you and Mr. Tyson, they're ignorant twits because ...
> They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships.
To me? It's just a conflict of interest. They're different. Apples and oranges.
Are apples better than oranges? In some cases, but not in all. Anyway, I don't want to live in a world filled with only apples. Variety is the spice of life. Go spend some time with an orange.
1. To be fair, (I assume) most of the posts on Justin Bieber forums are from people that are not of voting age.
2. People think of them as 'ignorant twits' because they don't realize that by ignoring such things decisions that affect them are being made for them. It's too easy to find yourself in a situation you don't like because you were too busy ignoring what was going on to realize what was happening. E.g.:
2. People think of them as 'ignorant twits' because they don't realize that by ignoring such things decisions that affect them are being made for them. It's too easy to find yourself in a situation you don't like because you were too busy ignoring what was going on to realize what was happening. E.g.:
“There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All
the planning charts and demolition orders have been on
display in your local planning department on Alpha Centauri
for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time
to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to
start making a fuss about it now.”I agree.
The problem isn't lack of access to information or the motivation to exercise your freedoms, it is the rampant apathy of the masses.
I do not believe I am better than anyone or that I care more for the welfare of the world, but I just try to learn and contribute as much as I can.
I am saddened by the fact that most people do not realize how long it took for life to emerge and how much longer for liberty to be considered a birthright.
We really need a perspective shift on our planet if real change is going to happen from within the populace. It is also discouraging that most people put the burden on the shoulders of a few to lead and fix the world and get angry when they find out they have little or no say in the direction of society. It's a double-edged sword.
There is definitely a selection bias on HN, exactly why this is one of my top five news sources. I strive to get a 360-degree perspective on the happenings of the world.
The problem isn't lack of access to information or the motivation to exercise your freedoms, it is the rampant apathy of the masses.
I do not believe I am better than anyone or that I care more for the welfare of the world, but I just try to learn and contribute as much as I can.
I am saddened by the fact that most people do not realize how long it took for life to emerge and how much longer for liberty to be considered a birthright.
We really need a perspective shift on our planet if real change is going to happen from within the populace. It is also discouraging that most people put the burden on the shoulders of a few to lead and fix the world and get angry when they find out they have little or no say in the direction of society. It's a double-edged sword.
There is definitely a selection bias on HN, exactly why this is one of my top five news sources. I strive to get a 360-degree perspective on the happenings of the world.
A laughably small number of americans vote in presidential
I'm sorry but it's not logical to waste time with something which has no impact. If there was any incentive, people would come. Like $5 or tax reductions, I don't know. It's not rocket science to increase the participation. But I guess the vote of the pragmatic is not desired. Actually the fact there is no incentive at all shows they want as few people to vote as possible, globally.
Maybe it's because opposition mobilizing themselves more is what allows the country to alternate leadership easily instead of being stuck in the same ideology forever, at the expense of the other 48%. Or maybe the alternate leadership is like our beating heart, a constant source of ideological thought, instead of the slumbering effect of an eternal monolithic party like in China. Be careful what you wish for.
Anyway when the choice you have is Blue or Red, "educating the masses" has little impact. But maybe masses having little impact is actually perfection...
I'm sorry but it's not logical to waste time with something which has no impact. If there was any incentive, people would come. Like $5 or tax reductions, I don't know. It's not rocket science to increase the participation. But I guess the vote of the pragmatic is not desired. Actually the fact there is no incentive at all shows they want as few people to vote as possible, globally.
Maybe it's because opposition mobilizing themselves more is what allows the country to alternate leadership easily instead of being stuck in the same ideology forever, at the expense of the other 48%. Or maybe the alternate leadership is like our beating heart, a constant source of ideological thought, instead of the slumbering effect of an eternal monolithic party like in China. Be careful what you wish for.
Anyway when the choice you have is Blue or Red, "educating the masses" has little impact. But maybe masses having little impact is actually perfection...
> If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature. You can teach people how to think, but you can't make them like it.
I don't disagree with you here, per se, but I think a lot can be done with education. Maybe not "change the basics of human nature", but we can probably get them to enjoy thinking and we can probably raise the level of public discourse by a significant degree.
I'm not saying it would be easy or quick, but I think that it's possible. Indeed, it seems to me to be the arc of history, to paraphrase a bit, even if it is irritatingly long.
I don't disagree with you here, per se, but I think a lot can be done with education. Maybe not "change the basics of human nature", but we can probably get them to enjoy thinking and we can probably raise the level of public discourse by a significant degree.
I'm not saying it would be easy or quick, but I think that it's possible. Indeed, it seems to me to be the arc of history, to paraphrase a bit, even if it is irritatingly long.
> no amount of education can change the basics of human nature
When was the last time you saw someone nail a cat's tail to the ground and pelt it with rocks? Back... oh, not that long ago, evolutionarily speaking, that was just the height of entertainment. The absolute limit.
Now, only a few generations of First Worlders not having seven kids and getting to keep two, a few generations of public education and most people knowing how to read, a few generations of not starving because of locusts or drought or Act of Monarch, we have a population of people even the /b/-tards of which will step in to defend a cat.
It takes a long time. It is a long, slow, agonizing crawl. But we are making it.
When was the last time you saw someone nail a cat's tail to the ground and pelt it with rocks? Back... oh, not that long ago, evolutionarily speaking, that was just the height of entertainment. The absolute limit.
Now, only a few generations of First Worlders not having seven kids and getting to keep two, a few generations of public education and most people knowing how to read, a few generations of not starving because of locusts or drought or Act of Monarch, we have a population of people even the /b/-tards of which will step in to defend a cat.
It takes a long time. It is a long, slow, agonizing crawl. But we are making it.
I definitely agree with your broader point, but when was pelting cats with rocks ever a form of entertainment, much less the height of it?
We have politicians who think all geologists are lying about the age of the earth and actually believe in a sort of divine manifest destiny.
There comes a point where merely learning to resolve our differences is (although necessary) not sufficient. Some things (such as, for example, Democracy imho) require a baseline education and scientific literacy.
You put crap into a democracy, you are going to get crap out. The process works pretty well for executing the will of the people, but it really does next to nothing as far as data sanitation goes; it simply was not designed to do that.
(On the other hand, the constitution itself was designed to be a crap-filter of sorts. Instead of just putting every single issue to a vote, the constitutions makes some things unusually hard to push through. The first amendment is basically a filter to prevent the "will of the people" from being executing if it violates certain principles (of course a strong enough "will of the people" can remove these filters).)
There comes a point where merely learning to resolve our differences is (although necessary) not sufficient. Some things (such as, for example, Democracy imho) require a baseline education and scientific literacy.
You put crap into a democracy, you are going to get crap out. The process works pretty well for executing the will of the people, but it really does next to nothing as far as data sanitation goes; it simply was not designed to do that.
(On the other hand, the constitution itself was designed to be a crap-filter of sorts. Instead of just putting every single issue to a vote, the constitutions makes some things unusually hard to push through. The first amendment is basically a filter to prevent the "will of the people" from being executing if it violates certain principles (of course a strong enough "will of the people" can remove these filters).)
There's a question to my mind as to how much of the posturing on evolution, anthropogenic global warming, resource depletion, age of the earth, etc., is based on true belief and how much is tactical stupidity. I could go either way on that. Many people are highly self-delusional.
I would agree, if we were just talking self-identified phone surveys or something. But we're talking about people saying their children shouldn't learn about those things. I can't imagine purposefully making your children grow up thinking something is so wrong, you are an immoral person to consider it, unless they genuinely believed it as well.
So to call it tactical stupidity is messed up on a scale I'm not prepared to level at such a large number of my fellow citizens (as an American), or anyone really. I'd rather think someone willfully ignorant than that willfully mean.
So to call it tactical stupidity is messed up on a scale I'm not prepared to level at such a large number of my fellow citizens (as an American), or anyone really. I'd rather think someone willfully ignorant than that willfully mean.
Tactical stupidity is knowing the truth but being unable or unwilling to admit it. In an extreme case, you might call wilful ignorance (including depriving yourself of information) to be an extension of this.
Depriving others (particularly your own children) of factual information starts sliding into the "true belief" side, so far as I'm concerned.
It may be messed up, but it's also fundamental human nature. As Heinlein observed: man not a rational animal, he's a rationalizing animal.
Depriving others (particularly your own children) of factual information starts sliding into the "true belief" side, so far as I'm concerned.
It may be messed up, but it's also fundamental human nature. As Heinlein observed: man not a rational animal, he's a rationalizing animal.
True. Some of these politicians may be "playing dumb" for political reasons.
Though really that just makes it a question of if the politicians and their constituents are in need of a better education, or just their constituents.
Whichever is the case, I think an increased emphasis on science education is important.
Though really that just makes it a question of if the politicians and their constituents are in need of a better education, or just their constituents.
Whichever is the case, I think an increased emphasis on science education is important.
>If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
Seems fairly unlikely that the majority the 200,000,000+ eligible voters are nearly as brilliant, in any way, as this particular astrophysicist who graduated from Harvard and earned a PhD at Columbia.
>Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
Getting everyone to vote in the direction that's actually in their own best interests would be a huge step.
Seems fairly unlikely that the majority the 200,000,000+ eligible voters are nearly as brilliant, in any way, as this particular astrophysicist who graduated from Harvard and earned a PhD at Columbia.
>Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
Getting everyone to vote in the direction that's actually in their own best interests would be a huge step.
>The presumption that the masses are ignorant
People are mind-bogglingly ignorant, and it is demonstrably so. I don't know how one could even claim otherwise.
>If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
These ways obviously don't lend themselves to scientific literacy, knowledge of international politics or human rights, or rational appraisal of facts. Maybe an individual has an amazing ability to console those in distress - that's GREAT, but it doesn't grant them immunity from criticism for ignorance of important worldly issues.
Frankly your attitude is typical of American "everyone is special" bullshit. In other cultures if you're uneducated you are looked down upon. While it's probably deeply unsettling to sensibilities that promote understanding and tolerating differences in individuals' capacities to contribute to society (which I do support), perhaps that outlook has some merit after all.
People are mind-bogglingly ignorant, and it is demonstrably so. I don't know how one could even claim otherwise.
>If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
These ways obviously don't lend themselves to scientific literacy, knowledge of international politics or human rights, or rational appraisal of facts. Maybe an individual has an amazing ability to console those in distress - that's GREAT, but it doesn't grant them immunity from criticism for ignorance of important worldly issues.
Frankly your attitude is typical of American "everyone is special" bullshit. In other cultures if you're uneducated you are looked down upon. While it's probably deeply unsettling to sensibilities that promote understanding and tolerating differences in individuals' capacities to contribute to society (which I do support), perhaps that outlook has some merit after all.
All voters are smart in the same tragically mythological way that all babies are beautiful, all soldiers brave, and all teachers competent.
Based on my reading you're conflating ignorance with an apathy toward evidence and information based decision making.
I agree with the author that most people lack the ability or desire (I'm not sure which) to _seek_ an objective reality even if it's unlikely a truly objective reality exists. I think this is what he characterizes as "scientifically literate". And while you can argue up and down that data can be used to mislead people just as easily as rhetoric, I'd prefer the latter to the former because at least then there's something tangible to discuss (methods for data collection, data presentation, etc).
I agree with the author that most people lack the ability or desire (I'm not sure which) to _seek_ an objective reality even if it's unlikely a truly objective reality exists. I think this is what he characterizes as "scientifically literate". And while you can argue up and down that data can be used to mislead people just as easily as rhetoric, I'd prefer the latter to the former because at least then there's something tangible to discuss (methods for data collection, data presentation, etc).
He's making a statement of goals consistent with his temperment and skill set.
He's an educator and scientist. He has knowledge, knows how to process systematic knowledge (qualifications of a scientist). He can express and explain his knowledge, and enjoys doing so (qualifications of an educator).
He's probably much less skilled and/or interested in politics, negotiating, electioneering, campaigning, and leading, all required of a politician / statesman. He may actually be able to do these things, but very likely dislikes doing them.
I know that my own preferences and skills lean similarly, though I can fill a leadership role in a pinch / emergency situation.
Arrogance need have nothing to do with it. Sounds much more like an accurate self-assessment in my book.
As to the problems we're facing: some result from ignorance, some from tactical stupidity, and yes, many from divergent / conflicting interests.
NdGT is suggesting his own ability/interest in negotiating such conflicts may be insufficient to fill a political role.
He's an educator and scientist. He has knowledge, knows how to process systematic knowledge (qualifications of a scientist). He can express and explain his knowledge, and enjoys doing so (qualifications of an educator).
He's probably much less skilled and/or interested in politics, negotiating, electioneering, campaigning, and leading, all required of a politician / statesman. He may actually be able to do these things, but very likely dislikes doing them.
I know that my own preferences and skills lean similarly, though I can fill a leadership role in a pinch / emergency situation.
Arrogance need have nothing to do with it. Sounds much more like an accurate self-assessment in my book.
As to the problems we're facing: some result from ignorance, some from tactical stupidity, and yes, many from divergent / conflicting interests.
NdGT is suggesting his own ability/interest in negotiating such conflicts may be insufficient to fill a political role.
Everybody has a prejudice or two without adequate basis in reality. Most people don't realize that they have prejudices. Of those who do, most don't bother to do test them further than inspecting a few cases of confirmation bias.
It's not the ignorance or the intelligence of the American populace that upsets me. It's the inability to imagine that they might be wrong.
It's not the ignorance or the intelligence of the American populace that upsets me. It's the inability to imagine that they might be wrong.
You say our problems stem from divergent interests, but yet what he speaks to here is our ability to observe objective truths, and to build our solutions on those. Our current system has no interest in building or finding solutions that help everyone, but instead in pushing their own agendas in the assumption that once "we" win, "they" will have to admit how right we were!
He's saying that our subjective opinions of what the facts SHOULD be (often our very notion of what is in our best interest,) should be investigated until we come to an objective reality of what is in our best interests. He's saying science provides those answers if we can get beyond ourselves.
He says we should not elect people only to chastise them for being both too smart, or too dumb. How, from that, do you get "he's saying we're dumb!" He's not saying someone is dumb, and someone is smart. He's saying as a scientist, it's his job to hunt for objective truths, and that as an educator, he seeks to teach everyone to find those truths.
Should scientists and educators not... Educate and seek objective truths? Isn't that kind of the point in those professions? What's arrogant about that? What's EXTREMELY arrogant about that?
He's saying that our subjective opinions of what the facts SHOULD be (often our very notion of what is in our best interest,) should be investigated until we come to an objective reality of what is in our best interests. He's saying science provides those answers if we can get beyond ourselves.
He says we should not elect people only to chastise them for being both too smart, or too dumb. How, from that, do you get "he's saying we're dumb!" He's not saying someone is dumb, and someone is smart. He's saying as a scientist, it's his job to hunt for objective truths, and that as an educator, he seeks to teach everyone to find those truths.
Should scientists and educators not... Educate and seek objective truths? Isn't that kind of the point in those professions? What's arrogant about that? What's EXTREMELY arrogant about that?
> The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
That's the entire purpose of government and has been since the dawn of time. Even authoritarianism is a "creative way [to] resolve those conflicts of interest".
That's the entire purpose of government and has been since the dawn of time. Even authoritarianism is a "creative way [to] resolve those conflicts of interest".
The extent to which really obvious pandering is effective makes me disagree somewhat. There actually are a lot of very ignorant people.
Hm... your comment sounded quite strange.
Do you really know we're talking about NDT, right? One of the most hard-working scientists when it comes down to educate people. And you're saying this:
> If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Do you really know we're talking about NDT, right? One of the most hard-working scientists when it comes down to educate people. And you're saying this:
> If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
I think you're reading too much into it. The point is everybody hates (or at least complains about) their elected leaders, despite the fact that they keep electing them. Rather than complain, he chooses to educate. That is "arrogance"?
Seems like quite a reach to simply say "no" to the idea of one of the greatest scientists of our time being more enlightened than the average person. Is this just a troll or are you being serious?
"One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters."
We have a dysfunctional political system that provides voters with leaders who are compromised. Who then pander, rabble-rouse, and pick narrow issues to speak loudly about to raise money. Who then lose our trust and respect, corrupting the institution. Voters are not too "dysfunctional" or ill-informed to make reasonable decisions. Approval of the US Congress was at %10 in August, the lowest in 38 years. The electorate isn't smiling through the failures of government.
The People are not the problem. I think Tyson would have answered different after a few hours with Lessig. Blaming governement's failures on a ill-informed electorate is second-rate at best.
We have a dysfunctional political system that provides voters with leaders who are compromised. Who then pander, rabble-rouse, and pick narrow issues to speak loudly about to raise money. Who then lose our trust and respect, corrupting the institution. Voters are not too "dysfunctional" or ill-informed to make reasonable decisions. Approval of the US Congress was at %10 in August, the lowest in 38 years. The electorate isn't smiling through the failures of government.
The People are not the problem. I think Tyson would have answered different after a few hours with Lessig. Blaming governement's failures on a ill-informed electorate is second-rate at best.
> Voters are not too "dysfunctional" or ill-informed to make reasonable decisions. Approval of the US Congress was at %10 in August, the lowest in 38 years. The electorate isn't smiling through the failures of government.
The 10% approval with Congress is only half the story. Those same people will tell you that they're 80-90% satisfied with their own congressional representatives. The reason the electorate is so dissatisfied with Congress as a whole is because they think either things aren't getting done, or they aren't going their way. Both are true.
And yes, voters are ill-informed and unlikely to make reasonable decisions. One needs look no further than Glenn Beck and the conspiracy material he peddled for several years to see how far the news has gotten from reporting actual news. I remember the "cash 4 gold" advertisements being prominent during his show; do you think that informed people were the ones making that business viable enough to advertise like they did?
A media that relies more on data, that provides context and scope; this is what we need to have to get informed voters, but a lot of people aren't smart enough to place value on that when they can get a daily dose of things to rage about and blame for their issues with the world. (I would further argue that people of lower socioeconomic status simply don't have the time or energy to deal with complex information when they're mostly focused on making ends meet, but that's a separate argument).
The 10% approval with Congress is only half the story. Those same people will tell you that they're 80-90% satisfied with their own congressional representatives. The reason the electorate is so dissatisfied with Congress as a whole is because they think either things aren't getting done, or they aren't going their way. Both are true.
And yes, voters are ill-informed and unlikely to make reasonable decisions. One needs look no further than Glenn Beck and the conspiracy material he peddled for several years to see how far the news has gotten from reporting actual news. I remember the "cash 4 gold" advertisements being prominent during his show; do you think that informed people were the ones making that business viable enough to advertise like they did?
A media that relies more on data, that provides context and scope; this is what we need to have to get informed voters, but a lot of people aren't smart enough to place value on that when they can get a daily dose of things to rage about and blame for their issues with the world. (I would further argue that people of lower socioeconomic status simply don't have the time or energy to deal with complex information when they're mostly focused on making ends meet, but that's a separate argument).
>>"The 10% approval with Congress is only half the story. Those same people will tell you that they're 80-90% satisfied with their own congressional representatives. The reason the electorate is so dissatisfied with Congress as a whole is because they think either things aren't getting done, or they aren't going their way. Both are true."
Very good point, reminds me of the Demotivational poster, "Meetings - none of us are as dumb as all of us."
http://www.despair.com/meetings.html
Very good point, reminds me of the Demotivational poster, "Meetings - none of us are as dumb as all of us."
http://www.despair.com/meetings.html
A political system that effectively rules out more than two contenders can't be greatly representative, since it's easy for the two contenders to collude - even unwittingly - and provide no effective choice.
I'd vote for him, if only to increase basic research stock and funding. I'm not sure his social and foreign policies would be apt, however, given his academic veneer he takes to the written-about issue.
I'd vote for him too. I am sure his social and foreign policies would turn out fine. I don't think it is even hard to come up with a decent social and foreign policy: observe that there is a wide range of such policies among "successful countries". USA is laissez-faire, Denmark is half-socialist, Switzerland is neutral etc. As long as you are not deliberately trying to be a tool, you'll probably do okay.
Is there some obstacle that stops him from running?
He has said before that he doesn't actually want the job. If he ran, I don't know if I would vote for him or not, but I certainly think he is best applied elsewhere.
it's not the job he wants to do, or feels he'd be most effective doing. from the article:
> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
His ego.
Damn it, think about this for a moment. Is there no other plausible reason why he might not want to run for president? The immense effort and expense of running a campaign, for example? Or the blow to his reputation from being seen as a joke candidate with no chance of winning? Or simply the fact that he has other stuff to do?
Cynicism may feel good, but if it's causing you to jump to uncharitable conclusions while ignoring other likely explanations, then it's a problem.
Cynicism may feel good, but if it's causing you to jump to uncharitable conclusions while ignoring other likely explanations, then it's a problem.
"On the day we reserve to tell ourselves America is great - July 4 - Europe reminds us that we suck at science #HiggsBoson" -- tweeted by Neil deGrasse Tyson [0]
Please do not simply project your assumptions of cynicism onto me as it is unwarranted and unwelcome. I have read and studied extensively in the history of science and in was particularly fascinated at one time with the rise of "Big Science" in the US following the Great War. My healthy skepticism of technocratic pretension to political authority is born of the recognition that almost universally (albeit with a few notable exceptions) scientists and in particular physicists when given freedom and political power (and most importantly budgetary discretion), generally within a short timeframe become technocratic monsters. They are myopic in single-minded purpose, dismissive of "outside" uncredentialed critique, and politically naive and insensitive. Usually the only saving grace is that they are extremely jealous of their rivals success and engage in petty bickering of each other's qualifications and actual work so that progress towards their ultimate aims break down before becoming institutionalized. They generally pay lip service to popular science education but in general the greatest fear of science administrators that you find in their private writings is having to justify budgets to an actually informed and educated populace and polity. They much prefer the "hero" model of the history of science for this reason.
If you want to read more about this topic you might be interested in reading about the life and career of Robert Oppenheimer [1], the roots of the interaction between science and the federal government in the 19th century and the 20th century and in particular the NRC and NAS in the work of A Hunter Dupree [2]. There is a very excellent article by Peter Galison in the larger volume "Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research" [3] that is exceedingly well-written. Finally, if you want to understand what actually happens inside a particle physics laboratory from an anthropological perspective in which some of these trends are made visible you should investigate the work of Sharon Traweek [4]. All are very good and readable introductions and I can recommend each wholeheartedly to you.
As for Neil deGrasse Tyson in particular... In order to celebrate those who made the ultimate sacrifice to achieve independence from what they viewed as tyranny and to also celebrate a crowning experimental achievement that took many years of international effort, this is what a potential political leader would choose to remark to an audience of hundreds of thousands of Americans and even more globally? And you call me cynical? In my view, upset by the lack of funding of the Texas SSC (a prototypical case of "Big Science" gone awry) and after getting a taste of how science politics really works from the inside and failing to have much impact during the Bush administration, he has turned to railing at nearly any occasion about the failure of science in America, without regard to significant American achievements in fields other than his own with much greater utility and contributions to progress in human understanding. When questioned about this tendency, he resorts to bringing up things like the Scopes trial or obscure Boards of Education fights in minor jurisdictions with regards to the teaching of evolution without proper context or brings out what he feels are the big guns and talks about the stupidity of a tiny minority of Americans wrt to extreme climate change deniers and makes huge generalizations to the public at large with no real basis in fact and refuses to engage when confronted with genuine, authentic skepticism wrt to anthropomorphic causation and the complexity involved in forming policy.
And to be clear, adopting the role of popularizer and chief simplifier and contributing generally nothing to the advancement of actual human understanding other than generating hate mail to the Hayden for striking Pluto as a planet (lol) has been quite good to Mr. Tyson. Don't get me wrong, the role of science popularizer/educator is a very necessary and not an easy job but it has also one that has been rewarding financially and in the entrepreneurial spirit I say kudos.
However, when I say "his Ego" would prevent him from being a legitimate candidate for the office of POTUS, I am stating a conclusion based on actual observation and my understanding of how his persona fits into the larger context of the dynamics of research science and contemporary American politics in the federal government. It is also true, that a candidacy would also entail giving up a fairly lucrative speaking fee in order to divert funds from his pocket to a campaign chest for several years and involve interacting in a genuine fashion with people he thinks are obtuse, stupid and unworthy of his time. Something he simply cannot seem to do if you have ever witnessed him speaking in person with someone who is not simply gushing in praise but genuinely conversant.
You may choose to interpret this as deriving from some motivation on my part for character assassination, but I can only assure you it is not. I could see some sort of "real science" super PAC or some absurd thing generating alot of attention in line with his persona, but a legitimate candidacy? It would be almost as likely as a Jesse Ventura ticket. Stranger things have happened, I guess :)
[0] http://i.imgur.com/i1nhk.jpg [1] J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life by Abraham by Pais/Robert Crease [2] Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities by A. Hunter Dupree [3] Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, Peter Galison/Bruce Hevly (eds) [4] Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, Sharon Traweek
Please do not simply project your assumptions of cynicism onto me as it is unwarranted and unwelcome. I have read and studied extensively in the history of science and in was particularly fascinated at one time with the rise of "Big Science" in the US following the Great War. My healthy skepticism of technocratic pretension to political authority is born of the recognition that almost universally (albeit with a few notable exceptions) scientists and in particular physicists when given freedom and political power (and most importantly budgetary discretion), generally within a short timeframe become technocratic monsters. They are myopic in single-minded purpose, dismissive of "outside" uncredentialed critique, and politically naive and insensitive. Usually the only saving grace is that they are extremely jealous of their rivals success and engage in petty bickering of each other's qualifications and actual work so that progress towards their ultimate aims break down before becoming institutionalized. They generally pay lip service to popular science education but in general the greatest fear of science administrators that you find in their private writings is having to justify budgets to an actually informed and educated populace and polity. They much prefer the "hero" model of the history of science for this reason.
If you want to read more about this topic you might be interested in reading about the life and career of Robert Oppenheimer [1], the roots of the interaction between science and the federal government in the 19th century and the 20th century and in particular the NRC and NAS in the work of A Hunter Dupree [2]. There is a very excellent article by Peter Galison in the larger volume "Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research" [3] that is exceedingly well-written. Finally, if you want to understand what actually happens inside a particle physics laboratory from an anthropological perspective in which some of these trends are made visible you should investigate the work of Sharon Traweek [4]. All are very good and readable introductions and I can recommend each wholeheartedly to you.
As for Neil deGrasse Tyson in particular... In order to celebrate those who made the ultimate sacrifice to achieve independence from what they viewed as tyranny and to also celebrate a crowning experimental achievement that took many years of international effort, this is what a potential political leader would choose to remark to an audience of hundreds of thousands of Americans and even more globally? And you call me cynical? In my view, upset by the lack of funding of the Texas SSC (a prototypical case of "Big Science" gone awry) and after getting a taste of how science politics really works from the inside and failing to have much impact during the Bush administration, he has turned to railing at nearly any occasion about the failure of science in America, without regard to significant American achievements in fields other than his own with much greater utility and contributions to progress in human understanding. When questioned about this tendency, he resorts to bringing up things like the Scopes trial or obscure Boards of Education fights in minor jurisdictions with regards to the teaching of evolution without proper context or brings out what he feels are the big guns and talks about the stupidity of a tiny minority of Americans wrt to extreme climate change deniers and makes huge generalizations to the public at large with no real basis in fact and refuses to engage when confronted with genuine, authentic skepticism wrt to anthropomorphic causation and the complexity involved in forming policy.
And to be clear, adopting the role of popularizer and chief simplifier and contributing generally nothing to the advancement of actual human understanding other than generating hate mail to the Hayden for striking Pluto as a planet (lol) has been quite good to Mr. Tyson. Don't get me wrong, the role of science popularizer/educator is a very necessary and not an easy job but it has also one that has been rewarding financially and in the entrepreneurial spirit I say kudos.
However, when I say "his Ego" would prevent him from being a legitimate candidate for the office of POTUS, I am stating a conclusion based on actual observation and my understanding of how his persona fits into the larger context of the dynamics of research science and contemporary American politics in the federal government. It is also true, that a candidacy would also entail giving up a fairly lucrative speaking fee in order to divert funds from his pocket to a campaign chest for several years and involve interacting in a genuine fashion with people he thinks are obtuse, stupid and unworthy of his time. Something he simply cannot seem to do if you have ever witnessed him speaking in person with someone who is not simply gushing in praise but genuinely conversant.
You may choose to interpret this as deriving from some motivation on my part for character assassination, but I can only assure you it is not. I could see some sort of "real science" super PAC or some absurd thing generating alot of attention in line with his persona, but a legitimate candidacy? It would be almost as likely as a Jesse Ventura ticket. Stranger things have happened, I guess :)
[0] http://i.imgur.com/i1nhk.jpg [1] J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life by Abraham by Pais/Robert Crease [2] Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities by A. Hunter Dupree [3] Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, Peter Galison/Bruce Hevly (eds) [4] Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, Sharon Traweek
Why would an inflated ego be an obstacle to becoming president? Isn't it actually necessary? After all, you have to believe you're more qualified than a hundred million other people.
I think you actually have to only believe you're more qualified than one other person whom you generally demonify and caricature and maybe 2 or 3 other candidates you can safely ignore and refuse to engage. You can rely on your party to "convince" you about the other millions.
It is my understanding from reading presidential biographies that ambition has not usually been a key factor in making The Big Decision(tm) to run in recent elections at least since Nixon. But who knows, not like you can really trust the sources either. Saying it's better to be King is not much of a way to create an historical legacy :)
It is my understanding from reading presidential biographies that ambition has not usually been a key factor in making The Big Decision(tm) to run in recent elections at least since Nixon. But who knows, not like you can really trust the sources either. Saying it's better to be King is not much of a way to create an historical legacy :)
>Isn't it actually necessary?
That... actually makes sense.
That... actually makes sense.
I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key:
As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
NDT falls into the same trap as nearly everyone since the framers of the constitution. You're never going to elect the right leaders. They don't exist. The reason our government was set up the way it was, and not the way it exists now, was precisely because the greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time realized that people are inherently flawed, weak, and susceptible to the intoxicating effects of power. Because you'll never have the "right leaders", you must structure the system to prevent abuse by the inevitable "wrong leaders" that will be elected.
NDT, like so many others, misses this point completely, even though nearly the entire letter pays lip service to the idea that the leaders are not the problem to focus on. While he's right, the solution won't appear even if he "enlightened the electorate" to Tysonian heights.
As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
NDT falls into the same trap as nearly everyone since the framers of the constitution. You're never going to elect the right leaders. They don't exist. The reason our government was set up the way it was, and not the way it exists now, was precisely because the greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time realized that people are inherently flawed, weak, and susceptible to the intoxicating effects of power. Because you'll never have the "right leaders", you must structure the system to prevent abuse by the inevitable "wrong leaders" that will be elected.
NDT, like so many others, misses this point completely, even though nearly the entire letter pays lip service to the idea that the leaders are not the problem to focus on. While he's right, the solution won't appear even if he "enlightened the electorate" to Tysonian heights.
"The greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time" were probably the Athenians that, out of the same conclusions on human nature, concluded that if you want political equality for all, your political system must only allow small, non-renewable and other controlled mandates taken by randomly chosen citizens (yes, they have considered elected but have rejected it). The key point being that those randomly chosen people don't have the power, it the assembly of all the citizens that have the power.
And it's based on that that they have created the first (and only, for some people) democratic system ever. Ironically, the person that have created our current democratic system knew exactly this Athenian system but explicitly rejected it because it was ... democracy, and that is was a system were the people really has the power. It's only since Tocqueville has started to call it democracy that we think about it has democratic, Tocqueville who explicitly said that he wasn't afraid of election because people would vote what we told them to vote, something impossible in the Athenian system.
And it's based on that that they have created the first (and only, for some people) democratic system ever. Ironically, the person that have created our current democratic system knew exactly this Athenian system but explicitly rejected it because it was ... democracy, and that is was a system were the people really has the power. It's only since Tocqueville has started to call it democracy that we think about it has democratic, Tocqueville who explicitly said that he wasn't afraid of election because people would vote what we told them to vote, something impossible in the Athenian system.
Certainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is that who we elect matters, because if it didn't, there would be no point in electing anyone.
The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good system is irrelevant if no one bothers to implement it, or if the electorate seeks to undermine it.
The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good system is irrelevant if no one bothers to implement it, or if the electorate seeks to undermine it.
Your logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable.
I think the logic is unsound in either locus.
I think the logic is unsound in either locus.
I see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.
Thanks for clarifying - the alternative is real democratic representation. That is the selected few would be representative in a more statistically significant way. It seems strange to choose a few privileged people as "representatives". I'm getting quite drawn by the idea of a lottery instead of an election; like being called up to jury duty.
Indeed, true democratic representation would avoid that problem. I think that it would also make NDT's point even clearer. If the citizens were directly making the country's decisions then we certainly should be making serious efforts to ensure that every citizen is equipped to make the best decisions for the country.
The trouble is, the Constitution, and the systems it put in place, while a great advance over the systems it replaced, is old, and the factions and interests much of its machinery was intended to foil, have subverted it, and wage-slavery and mass media have nearly finished the job.
I think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually intended.
This. NDT's saying that leaders are a product of their base. If you want better leaders, do something to change the minds of the people who elect them.
Exactly.
He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote in someone worth their salt for each position.
He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote in someone worth their salt for each position.
There have been many intellectual tyrants. I disagree that we'll get better leaders simply by educating the people about science.
I still think it's a bit more abstract than that. Would you agree that overall knowledge is good? Or at least holds more objective, intrinsic good than not?
I'm positing that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. A society that knows more is better able to wield that knowledge to make decisions than a society that doesn't have that knowledge. I fail to see how there is any negative to educating more of the general public. Sure, it's gonna' be damn near impossible to measure anything on a political leader vs. general knowledge scale, but intuitively I think education is good.
I'm positing that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. A society that knows more is better able to wield that knowledge to make decisions than a society that doesn't have that knowledge. I fail to see how there is any negative to educating more of the general public. Sure, it's gonna' be damn near impossible to measure anything on a political leader vs. general knowledge scale, but intuitively I think education is good.
I agree that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. Knowledge is good in its own right. But knowledge doesn't change human nature. The rising tide of knowledge will lift all moral boats. Smarter good people, smarter bad people.
You're somewhat mistaken, here. The system of checks and balances was very much designed to prevent the abuse of power. The Federalist No. 68, however, argues that the tiered electoral process is designed so that only the best, or the "right leaders", would attain the Presidency:
-----
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
-----
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
Ah, indeed. As stated by Plato, "Those with the ability to get themselves elected, are the least fit to lead."
Platos The Republic, (and especially his "five regimes") is interesting stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes
Platos The Republic, (and especially his "five regimes") is interesting stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes
The greatest group of political scientists?! So great that a lot of Americans don't understand how the president gets elected.
The constitution was architected to understand the notion that "Cemetaries are full of once-indispensible people"[1].
______________
[1] Young man, as you perambulate down the pathway of life toward an unavoidable bald head bordered with gray hairs it would be well to bear in mind that the cemeteries are full of men this world could not get along without, and note the fact that things move along after each funeral procession at about the same gait they went before. It makes no difference how important you may be, don’t get the idea under your hat that this world can’t get along without you —Abilene Reporter, 1909.
______________
[1] Young man, as you perambulate down the pathway of life toward an unavoidable bald head bordered with gray hairs it would be well to bear in mind that the cemeteries are full of men this world could not get along without, and note the fact that things move along after each funeral procession at about the same gait they went before. It makes no difference how important you may be, don’t get the idea under your hat that this world can’t get along without you —Abilene Reporter, 1909.
I dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.
FtG was effective -- at starting wars and killing people to further his own dynastic ambitions. People who wanted to live in peace and prosperity would not agree he was the "right leader"
Well sure, George Washington was a very violent fellow as well but I usually don't see that levied against him. Same with Winston Churchill. You might want to learn more about Frederick, here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_The_Great
Funny how both the guys you mentioned are remembered for being leaders of men during war.
Is that the only thing? Regarding Augustus in particular, the Pax Romana is very strongly associated with him. Funny how with strong leaders who wield power and hold responsibility, even given some initial violence things can turn out pretty swell. Dr. Francia is an interesting smaller-scale example. http://books.google.com/books?id=-yeaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA547#v... By the way, is it funny how many fairly popular (considering none have been extremely popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_president...) US presidents there are whose prior claim to fame is more or less being a victorious fighter?
So was Lincoln, So was Washington, So was Roosevelt. War seem to be the gauge of leaders who get remembered....
I'm not a fan of Lincoln or Roosevelt the Second. Washington was an okay guy in my book.
yeah, but my point wasn't how good or bad any of them were, My point was that wartime leaders seem to get "remembered" or "revered" more so than peacetime leaders. I wasn't trying to judge great/non-great leaders. Besides, the fact that you don't like Lincoln is vastly overshadowed by the fact that he has an enormous frickin marble monument made out to him, that civilizations 2000 years from now will come and stare at in awe. Just like they do today.. it's just not a ruin yet, and his history is still relatively close in time.
The greatest group of political scientists? You're referring the founding fathers.
Why didn't they institute proportional representation? Why did they have an electoral college?
Why didn't they abolish slavery and institute women's vote right away?
This FF worship has got to stop. It gives Republicans some slack to spew their lies about gun control and other constitution-backed tomfoolery.
Why didn't they institute proportional representation? Why did they have an electoral college?
Why didn't they abolish slavery and institute women's vote right away?
This FF worship has got to stop. It gives Republicans some slack to spew their lies about gun control and other constitution-backed tomfoolery.
It also gives us some slack to spew on about civil liberties and other constitutional tomfoolery.
Like no other country has civil liberties. What does Canada or Western Europe have.
A 'notwithstanding' clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that lets the government override it, as long as it's 'reasonable and justified'? The somewhat amusingly named Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can regulate what can and cannot be said publicly?
Canada's a pretty free place, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have the well-thought-out constitution that America has, which means every once in a while you get things like the October Crisis - where habeas corpus was suspended, thousands of warrantless searches were conducted, and almost five hundred people were arrested in nighttime raids and held without charges, in some cases for weeks.
Americans really don't appreciate what they've got. Historically, civil liberties are the exception, not the rule, and there's certainly no guarantee they'll stick around in the future.
Canada's a pretty free place, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have the well-thought-out constitution that America has, which means every once in a while you get things like the October Crisis - where habeas corpus was suspended, thousands of warrantless searches were conducted, and almost five hundred people were arrested in nighttime raids and held without charges, in some cases for weeks.
Americans really don't appreciate what they've got. Historically, civil liberties are the exception, not the rule, and there's certainly no guarantee they'll stick around in the future.
The American constitution is great but please don't believe the US is the paragon of freedom and rights; there's people held indefinitely held without trial, warrantless searches/eavesdropping, "free speech" zones during Irak war demonstrations, Guantanamo, death penalty etc etc so don't talk bad about Canada & Western Europe as they have a much better record of Human Rights.
Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here...
I've had a strange idea cooking in my mind for a few years now, although I've never really fleshed it out.
What if we had an AI-like system instead of representatives? Imagine this: "Pennsylvania-One" is an AI. Every day, from their smartphones or another device, PA citizens vote on issues, ranging from small to big. Using this data, "Pennsylvania-One" creates a model of what its constituents want, and then, using its vast knowledge of political theory, history, economics, etc., makes a decision. This decision can be double-checked by constituents or by some other "watchmen"-like individuals.
Of course, this would never happen (people trust people much more than machines), and it's more of a sci-fi idea, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.
What if we had an AI-like system instead of representatives? Imagine this: "Pennsylvania-One" is an AI. Every day, from their smartphones or another device, PA citizens vote on issues, ranging from small to big. Using this data, "Pennsylvania-One" creates a model of what its constituents want, and then, using its vast knowledge of political theory, history, economics, etc., makes a decision. This decision can be double-checked by constituents or by some other "watchmen"-like individuals.
Of course, this would never happen (people trust people much more than machines), and it's more of a sci-fi idea, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.
There's at least one story by Issac Asimov about that. There was at least one computer coordinating the world. I think it was "All the Troubles of the World".
Similarly, in Neon Genesis Evangelion, there were three supercomputers who independently processed all policy issues and would vote on them. "It's a form of democracy, I suppose"
In the same vein, what if we had a system that actually allowed people to keep track of the issues that mattered to them and vote on them when it was convenient? There could be a window period of a month or so where you could vote on a given issue from a web app or smartphone app. Of course, this requires some sort of government ID or some other non-fungible identification to prevent rigging the vote, among other issues. Of course, only people who feel strongly about an issue would vote on it anyways.
IMO the government has embraced far too little technology in the legislative process. Transparency in terms of openness of the law and changes made to it(see some European countries using git), as well as truly enabling the concept of one vote per person on an issue(instead of counting towards an aggregate) could do leaps and bounds for actual representation of the people.
IMO the government has embraced far too little technology in the legislative process. Transparency in terms of openness of the law and changes made to it(see some European countries using git), as well as truly enabling the concept of one vote per person on an issue(instead of counting towards an aggregate) could do leaps and bounds for actual representation of the people.
Yes, it's an arrogant post.
As The Dad says: "Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."
As The Dad says: "Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."
Tyson is correct in that it is not politicians that are the problem.
But I don't know that there is something inherently wrong with the voters either.
I think it is the electoral process that does not represent voter's interests. I can't select who will represent my interests. I have to pick between two false choices.
And then ALL of the power is handed to whoever wins the popularity contest. And then my concerns are ignored for four years.
Proportional representation would solve that problem. You can even use it in the executive branch (Switzerland does).
THEN Tyson could say the mistakes are our fault.
But I don't know that there is something inherently wrong with the voters either.
I think it is the electoral process that does not represent voter's interests. I can't select who will represent my interests. I have to pick between two false choices.
And then ALL of the power is handed to whoever wins the popularity contest. And then my concerns are ignored for four years.
Proportional representation would solve that problem. You can even use it in the executive branch (Switzerland does).
THEN Tyson could say the mistakes are our fault.
I know who I'm writing in tomorrow!
The following quote comes to mind:
"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." -Joseph de Maistre
"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." -Joseph de Maistre
Our bicameral legislature is dysfunctional in the US. The Senate and it's 60 votes to pass a bill filibuster rule make change too difficult.
The Senate does not represent the country well. California has two senators, so does Wyoming.
The next two years will be gridlock. It's unlikely Democrats retake the House and get sixty seats in the Senate, so divided government is what we have to look forward to.
The Senate is a strong architectural advantage for Conservative politics in the US.
This situation is unlikely to change. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate and that is nigh impossible in the US.
Because of this big change only happens once a generation or so.
The Senate does not represent the country well. California has two senators, so does Wyoming.
The next two years will be gridlock. It's unlikely Democrats retake the House and get sixty seats in the Senate, so divided government is what we have to look forward to.
The Senate is a strong architectural advantage for Conservative politics in the US.
This situation is unlikely to change. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate and that is nigh impossible in the US.
Because of this big change only happens once a generation or so.
Isn't this a good thing since it is actually representative of the divided electorate? Most polling data seems to indicate a genuinely divided nation on key legislative issues.
Filibuster reform is not a constitutional crisis. If Senate Democrats refuse to tackle it when they hold the Upper chamber it's on them. Senator Jeff Merkley's gang of nine [0] seem enthusiastic about getting it done.
My hope is that states will begin to take proactive roles to fill the vacuum and it is one of my greatest aggravations the extent to which the federal judiciary has expanded the power and meaning of the commerce clause to cover basically everything in order to prevent states from taking action.
[0] http://bitly.com/U71kL4
Filibuster reform is not a constitutional crisis. If Senate Democrats refuse to tackle it when they hold the Upper chamber it's on them. Senator Jeff Merkley's gang of nine [0] seem enthusiastic about getting it done.
My hope is that states will begin to take proactive roles to fill the vacuum and it is one of my greatest aggravations the extent to which the federal judiciary has expanded the power and meaning of the commerce clause to cover basically everything in order to prevent states from taking action.
[0] http://bitly.com/U71kL4
If you really want to change the system, the president should be chosen at random from the people of the United States, same for the House of Representatives and State Houses. If any of us could become president that is over 40, we'd pay a lot more attention.