I like how the author breaks down the gender divide into competence vs. confidence. There's some decent stuff in here, if it's a little one-note. It makes me think, again, of Adams:
I like how the author breaks down the gender divide into competence vs. confidence. There's some decent stuff in here, if it's a little one-note. It makes me think, again, of Adams:
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
You know, you're absolutely right. Adams (Douglas Adams, maybe I should've been clearer) was satirizing the whole idea of leadership in that quote, but you're right that the article mislabels...
You know, you're absolutely right. Adams (Douglas Adams, maybe I should've been clearer) was satirizing the whole idea of leadership in that quote, but you're right that the article mislabels "egotism" as "confidence."
Obama is another example of president who lacked confidence. He was smart, and charismatic, but I think he wavered against the partisanship of Congress.
A thought experiment: A country-wide mandatory personality testing of all eligible adults every... let's say three terms? Helps the state account for immigrants and newly-adult citizens without...
There is no known system in which we can decide upon a capable leader from amongst those who do not seek the position.
A thought experiment:
A country-wide mandatory personality testing of all eligible adults every... let's say three terms? Helps the state account for immigrants and newly-adult citizens without being too annoying due to frequency of testing.
This can even be included in the census count. I dunno how it's done elsewhere, but in Russia, volunteers all around the country visit every single person they can reach and take their data. Giving the counted person a personality test to fill in and submit at a later date could be incorporated into that sort of a process.
How does the state implore the person to serve? The governing equivalent of jury duty, written into the constitution. Give very good reason to stay away from the position, or face prosecution on refusal.
Anyone wanna create a pocket universe and test that out?
I have heard of proposals to make a leadership lottery, basically what you suggest but for a larger group of leaders. I think it'd be really interesting. BUT one major problem could be that...
I have heard of proposals to make a leadership lottery, basically what you suggest but for a larger group of leaders. I think it'd be really interesting.
BUT one major problem could be that lobbies would have outsize power, since everyone with actual power wouldn't really know what they were doing, so they'd need advisors, and the system would be easy to game.
The thing you have to be careful of there is bias in the testing. Southern US states used to administer literacy tests to determine eligibility to vote. They gave easy questions to white voters...
The thing you have to be careful of there is bias in the testing. Southern US states used to administer literacy tests to determine eligibility to vote. They gave easy questions to white voters and much harder questions to black voters to keep them from voting. Depending on how the personality test is set up it could skew things in favor of certain classes or ethnic groups.
Keep mindful of the fact that this is a thought experiment. I don't expect anything to come out of it. What I had in mind is one test for everyone. Assuming a certain level of country-wide...
Keep mindful of the fact that this is a thought experiment. I don't expect anything to come out of it.
What I had in mind is one test for everyone. Assuming a certain level of country-wide literacy, this shouldn't be an issue. Same questions, in all major languages of the country (that one is up for debate; I dunno how things are done in countries where there are multiple national languages), checked for errors in phrasing and translation by independent experts.
What you mentioned is called "racism". That wasn't part of the plan.
That would be difficult, as even without explicit bias when constructing a test, there are still biases. One person might understand a question in a different way than someone else, and if the...
That would be difficult, as even without explicit bias when constructing a test, there are still biases. One person might understand a question in a different way than someone else, and if the SATs run into this year after year, then it can happen to literally anything.
The SATs also change yearly, right? Personality tests needn't, once they'd been codified. I'm sure a bunch of MDs can work out a syntactic construction that most, if not all, people understand as...
The SATs also change yearly, right? Personality tests needn't, once they'd been codified. I'm sure a bunch of MDs can work out a syntactic construction that most, if not all, people understand as intended.
And sure, there is probably bias embedded into many modern personality tests. We're just gonna have to work with that and strive to do better, I suppose.
I searched the phrase, no quote-marks, using StartPage first. The best it gave me was about the UK's current political clusterfuck and/or Theresa May. Google no-quotes just gives me Trump. Just...
I searched the phrase, no quote-marks, using StartPage first. The best it gave me was about the UK's current political clusterfuck and/or Theresa May.
That’s interesting. Like i said below, i changed he to she for effect, but the adage is at least as old as i am (born in 70’s). It may be geographically limited, but i doubt it.
That’s interesting. Like i said below, i changed he to she for effect, but the adage is at least as old as i am (born in 70’s). It may be geographically limited, but i doubt it.
I like how the author breaks down the gender divide into competence vs. confidence. There's some decent stuff in here, if it's a little one-note. It makes me think, again, of Adams:
You know, you're absolutely right. Adams (Douglas Adams, maybe I should've been clearer) was satirizing the whole idea of leadership in that quote, but you're right that the article mislabels "egotism" as "confidence."
Obama is another example of president who lacked confidence. He was smart, and charismatic, but I think he wavered against the partisanship of Congress.
A thought experiment:
A country-wide mandatory personality testing of all eligible adults every... let's say three terms? Helps the state account for immigrants and newly-adult citizens without being too annoying due to frequency of testing.
This can even be included in the census count. I dunno how it's done elsewhere, but in Russia, volunteers all around the country visit every single person they can reach and take their data. Giving the counted person a personality test to fill in and submit at a later date could be incorporated into that sort of a process.
How does the state implore the person to serve? The governing equivalent of jury duty, written into the constitution. Give very good reason to stay away from the position, or face prosecution on refusal.
Anyone wanna create a pocket universe and test that out?
I have heard of proposals to make a leadership lottery, basically what you suggest but for a larger group of leaders. I think it'd be really interesting.
BUT one major problem could be that lobbies would have outsize power, since everyone with actual power wouldn't really know what they were doing, so they'd need advisors, and the system would be easy to game.
The thing you have to be careful of there is bias in the testing. Southern US states used to administer literacy tests to determine eligibility to vote. They gave easy questions to white voters and much harder questions to black voters to keep them from voting. Depending on how the personality test is set up it could skew things in favor of certain classes or ethnic groups.
Keep mindful of the fact that this is a thought experiment. I don't expect anything to come out of it.
What I had in mind is one test for everyone. Assuming a certain level of country-wide literacy, this shouldn't be an issue. Same questions, in all major languages of the country (that one is up for debate; I dunno how things are done in countries where there are multiple national languages), checked for errors in phrasing and translation by independent experts.
What you mentioned is called "racism". That wasn't part of the plan.
That would be difficult, as even without explicit bias when constructing a test, there are still biases. One person might understand a question in a different way than someone else, and if the SATs run into this year after year, then it can happen to literally anything.
The SATs also change yearly, right? Personality tests needn't, once they'd been codified. I'm sure a bunch of MDs can work out a syntactic construction that most, if not all, people understand as intended.
And sure, there is probably bias embedded into many modern personality tests. We're just gonna have to work with that and strive to do better, I suppose.
Ay there's the rub. Hierarchy is designed to fail.
There’s an old adage: she has to be a preacher or a politician, because she can’t do anything else.
How old can the saying be if "she" is allowed to be anything but barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?
If one is to believe Google, the adage is five hours old – that is, the age of the parent comment.
I searched the phrase, no quote-marks, using StartPage first. The best it gave me was about the UK's current political clusterfuck and/or Theresa May.
Google no-quotes just gives me Trump.
Just being thorough in my reporting.
That’s interesting. Like i said below, i changed he to she for effect, but the adage is at least as old as i am (born in 70’s). It may be geographically limited, but i doubt it.
I adapted it for both modernity and contrarianism.