7 ms·

Urge President Trump to give scientists a seat at the table

161 points by vqc 10y ago

thinkloop 10y ago
Wanting more STEM seems like an indirect way of wanting more critical, evidence-based, thinking. Atheism is probably a better proxy.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Do I want more critical, evidence-based thinking, or more decent human beings who want to serve rather than play god? I wasn't thrilled with say Cass Sunstein's ideas when he was appointed by Obama.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    Why does it need to be either/or? To me, being a decent human being who wants to serve rather than play god is a minimum requirement for public service. I also want that person to be able to think critically and base policy on evidence (when there is evidence to be had). Sometimes, these things even overlap: For example, criminal justice.
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    The problem is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone thinks they're decent. Few would disagree that reducing illegal immigration is OK, the issue is ordering a wall with little consideration of costs, effectiveness, game theory, political reactions, etc. The hard stuff.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I wasn't thrilled with say Cass Sunstein's ideas when he was appointed by Obama. Would you expand on this? I was quite impressed with what I read in Nudge. Did any of this practical thinking carry over to OIRA? Or was that perhaps part of the problem?
    - rayiner 10y ago
      It's impressive, but falls into the "playing God" bucket for me.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Gotcha. I'll admit I was hoping for more, but I can understand not wanting to get into it in a comment. Can you point me to a critique (your own, or someone else's) of Sunstein that would elaborate on this for me, in particular his work under Obama?
- slacka 10y ago
  I assume you joke, but I'm truly worried that the Fundamentalist Christians are making progress towards their goal of imposing Christian sharia law on us all. They are a powerful and single issue voter block. They will show up to vote for anyone, even a "pussy grabber", if they feel it will help their cause. If you've never been to the South and think I"m exaggerating, check out Jesus Camp[1] to get an idea of how this group thinks. People rarely acknowledge the danger of our own religious extremists. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/
- nulldevz 10y ago
  You won't believe the number of aerospace/mechanical engineers in the federal government that believe in Creationism.
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    No doubt, being good at cal 8 doesn't mean general smarts.
- mastazi 10y ago
  Most Chinese political leaders have an engineering background, yet if you asked me what's the main characteristic of Chinese leaders when compared to leaders of other countries, "critical thinking" wouldn't be among the first definitions coming to me.
Taek 10y ago
I'm not hopeful. I am young but my experince has been that moving up the leadership or management ladder requires a vastly different set of skills than stem and if you are serious about doing it you will have to leave your stem behind, or you simply won't be able to compete.
- bassman9000 10y ago
  True. But your background lasts. Management gives you people skills, organizational ones, teaches you to listen, and a sense of duty towards your team members. Couple that to a solid technical/scientific background, and you got a prepared leader.
- state_less 10y ago
  Exactly, you better at least be aware of some of the "dark arts" to defend against them. For one, being a provocateur can actually be a good thing, strange right? Generally, we want people of good character, integrity and intelligence to rise to the top. STEM is fine, but other backgrounds are fine too. They should inspire people so as to draw the attention away from the power mongers they will be running against.
candiodari 10y ago
Because it works so well in China ? Also Ahmadinejad has a master in civil engineering, a PhD in transportation engineering, and has taught as a professor (apparently he has returned to that job).
- chrischen 10y ago
  Is it not working well in China, or even Iran?
  - candiodari 10y ago
    If you ask some Chinese, they're unlikely to be happy with the results. Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. How they're destroying the savings of the Chinese people. The total and completely endemic corruption ...
    - pen2l 10y ago
      > Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. Huh? Have you looked at it recently? Beijing has made incredible strides in solving air pollution problems. They turned around the situation quickly to pretty decent results -- give them some more time and I'm sure they'll do even better. China is not doing that bad. And I think one of the reasons why is in fact that high amount of STEM-educated folks in the politburo.
      - Eridrus 10y ago
        They did let it get pretty bad though, I was only there once in 2008 after the games and it was already pretty crazy back then.
        pen2l 10y ago
        It was pretty bad around 2008. Now, 2017, it's not perfect but it's much, much better. They're on the right track. Separately, I want to say: judging per capita they're not doing bad.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
The thing is that I don't care if a politician has a background in STEM subjects - in fact, if they have a STEM background, I prefer they also have a political science background or something that has to do with public policy. It doesn't need to be a formal degree if the person has a long history of political experience. This is for state level or higher. Local elections I doubt it matters so much. I do, however, fully expect elected officials to take those in the STEM fields seriously and listen to their advice like they would listen to any expert. I do want the elected officals to appoint STEM folks to the appropriate departments. I want someone well-versed in science to head the EPA and the like. Similarly, I want someone with teaching experience (and confidence in bettering public education) to head education. And so on.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  And you'd like a banker running the SEC, of course?
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    With that position, I'd prefer co-chairs. For one, I'd prefer an economist with an intimate knowledge of banking, actually, who is paid a decent wage in hopes to better deflect corruption. For the other, a consumer rights specialist. Alternatively, a banker is acceptable, as is someone well versed in the ins and outs of banking - but of course, there is the little issue of bankers not exactly being trusted because of ... well, history.
    - trentmb 10y ago
      Perhaps a triumverate, the economist, consumer rights advocate, and a banker?
      - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
        That would work as well. Banking is an odd place, very ripe for corruption, self-gain, and one-sided vision. What is good for one side isn't necessarily good for the other. The main point is to balance some of these things and not wreck the economy in the process. There are some folks that are capable of balancing this stuff on their own, but there is no promise that these same individuals will go into public service - in fact, they might be more useful in other sectors. Just seems easier to have some balance by design.
CalChris 10y ago
Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Jimmy Carter comes to mind.
- whorleater 10y ago
  Angela Merkel comes to mind.
to3m 10y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/17/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/1...
general_ai 10y ago
People with decent STEM backgrounds can be MUCH more gainfully employed elsewhere. Higher echelons of US government are badly underpaid, which is why they attract the kind of "talent" they do. A Google search shows that it takes $110K to decently get by in DC. $175K for someone who is expected to be at the top of their game is a bad deal when a professional can make two to three times as much in the private sector. So you get a bunch of has-beens who aren't good for anything else. The only exception I can think of is the USDS, where idealistic young people go to serve their country and take a massive pay cut (which is even more massive if you factor in the opportunity cost), but sooner or later life will catch up to them, too, and they'll discover they need to save for retirement and college, pay for private school for their kids, etc, etc. Shit's expensive.
- makecheck 10y ago
  Worse, there is a massive chicken-and-egg problem here. At least with normal jobs, I only have to risk occasionally encountering someone who is difficult or slightly incompetent. While dealing with difficult people is normal, at least right now it isn’t a daily occurrence. Conversely, I can pretty much guarantee that a huge number of future colleagues would be making my life miserable when in Congress. Some of them apparently cannot be reasoned with at all (“I’m sorry, you have the wrong letter after your name therefore your idea sucks <turning brain off now>”), and a pretty insane number of them just do whatever they want without obeying rules. It reaches a point where you have to decide where you can do the most good, and there just doesn’t seem to be a way to do much “good” by being in public office. I feel better working on engineering projects that go somewhere.
jekrb 10y ago
Elect more leaders who come from a Philosophy background.
diogenescynic 10y ago
Just stop electing republicans for a start.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  So you are proposing a Democrat led dictatorship?
  - diogenescynic 10y ago
    There are other parties. The two party monopoly is exactly what led us to this disaster of an election.
DonaldFisk 10y ago
I didn't like her politics, but Margaret Thatcher had a BSc in Chemistry, and went on to work as a research chemist. Credit where credit's due: she understood the problem of climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  And the ozone layer.
- hliyan 10y ago
  Angela Merkel has a similar background, doesn't she?
  - peter303 10y ago
    She had a doctorate.
cloakandswagger 10y ago
The majority of Einsatzgruppen (SS) officers had PhDs. Anecdotes aside, I used to think this way until I realized that being a leader is about a lot more than raw intelligence. The best leaders (business, political or otherwise) have a unique mental resolve that is a lot stronger than the rest of us. They need to be able to thrive in chaos and stay motivated when everything is falling apart. I arrived at this conclusion after years of looking at various CEOs and scoffing at how easily I could do the job--just make arbitrary decisions, take credit when they work and deflect when they don't, right? It wasn't until I worked for a company that was teetering on failure that I realized there was more to it. While I would have felt completely overwhelmed, frustrated and defeated, this CEO somehow managed to stay positive and kept fighting for years until the business was in the clear.
- striking 10y ago
  godwin
- jude- 10y ago
  > The majority of Einsatzgruppen (SS) officers had PhDs. Citation needed, or is this an alternative fact?
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    I think asking for a citation was fine. Framing OP's statement as an "alternative fact," without evidence, caused me to downvote.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen >Many Einsatzgruppe leaders were highly educated; for example, nine of seventeen leaders of Einsatzgruppe A held doctorate degrees.[42] Three Einsatzgruppen were commanded by holders of doctorates, one of whom (SS-Gruppenführer Otto Rasch) held a double doctorate.[43] So perhaps I was wrong to say majority, but a good portion. As an aside, what a bizarre thing to nitpick. Why does this fact bother you?
Tloewald 10y ago
We need fewer leaders with legal backgrounds as well. The law trains you to argue a case by selectively ignoring unfavorable evidence, and guess what our politicians are incredibly good at?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The law trains you to argue a case by selectively ignoring unfavorable evidence No, it doesn't.
  - state_less 10y ago
    A law degree is great thing for a leader to have, but not sufficient. You need people with integrity too. I think a lot of the common backlash against lawyers is due to the fact that a lawyer lacking integrity is good at circumventing the law. Similar to how a doctor, usually a profession known for healing, would also know how to make many people sick.
    - Tloewald 10y ago
      > A law degree is great thing for a leader to have, but not sufficient A law degree has an opportunity cost. That's a bunch of years you didn't spend learning something else. Is that the best thing you could have spent that time learning? Bear in mind that a huge proportion of our politicians have law degrees. If we had as few people with law degrees as have backgrounds in statistics or economics or engineering then sure, we'd want more -- but we are in no immediate danger of that.
      - state_less 10y ago
        Lawyers value and spend more time training themselves on breaking apart flimsy arguments and constructing good ones. Yes I do think this skill is worth the opportunity cost. And one of the skills to be learned early, so subsequent knowledge can be placed on solid footing. As an aside, given I had to learn what little I know of argumentation on my own, I wonder if this is a coincidence or something intentionally kept out of the minds of the populace to disempower? Anyway, I'd be in favor of a higher proportion of STEM reps. Beware, I think you'd find STEM folks who would/do ignore facts that don't support their pet conclusion. Integrity is critical in these roles in any case. I wish people were a better judge of character.
JetSpiegel 10y ago
Might as well go the extra mile and demand people to elect only the good politicians. Just like demanding programmers to not write bugs.
philipov 10y ago
The problem isn't that politicians are stupid, the problem is that they have adverse incentives. Education is no vaccine against corruption, and if you're not a team player you won't get advanced by your party.
hefeweizen 10y ago
Of course, it is a fallacy to assume that leaders from STEM backgrounds may be qualitatively better than others, or even perform better for their constituents. But then again, such leaders would definitely not ignore climate change wholesale. If there is indeed a correlation between education in any of the STEM fields and "leadership qualities", would it not be better to reform education to introduce skills implicit to these fields at an early age (logic, reasoning, rational discourse, understanding of the scientific process) instead of selecting for these qualities later on?
maxxxxx 10y ago
It definitely wouldn't hurt to have less lawyers in leadership. they seem a little over represented.
- lkbm 10y ago
  Congress' job is to write, evaluate, and vote on laws. It makes sense that we have legal experts--IE, lawyers--doing that. I can definitely see a good argument to the contrary: Politicians should be the experts in negotiating/being the interface between field experts (scientists, lawyers, economists) and public values (voters or all citizens). Having them distinct from the legal experts seems sensible. But right now, law is the language of politics/policy, so I'm not sure how this separation would work. Congress can say "NASA, based on your input and the public's preferences, you get these resources to do aeronautics" and leaves the details up to NASA, and that's fine, but if Congress just says "lawyers, based on your input and the public's preferences, write a law on decriminalized cannabis use" and let's the lawyers handle the details....I dunno. Somehow, it feels like law requires less delegation and more technical understanding on the part of Congress than aeronautics does. I see the problem not as too many lawyers, but as corruption (though not in a literal bribery sort of way) and--for lack of a better term--politics. (e.g., the problem isn't lawyers don't believe in climate change. The problem is that climate change has become a political issue that half of the country rejects ideologically.)
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    Politicians in congress don't write laws themselves. They are written by staff and unfortunately often lobbyists. I would much prefer if they had real expertise in some areas and left the detail of writing laws to the lawyers in their stuff.
Mikeb85 10y ago
Dear god the last thing I'd ever want is a country ruled by engineers. Most have one track minds, can't multitask, and can't see the forest beyond the trees. Maybe if they also have some sort of background in philosophy/economics/humanities or anything that can add perspective on the human condition, managing people, etc...
- DonaldFisk 10y ago
  Here's a list of PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) graduates from Oxford: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_p.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_p.... They're very much a mixed bag.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  Right I'm the only STEM major I know that I'd even sort of vaguely trust to not fuck over large swatch of humans due to a belief in elegant solutions. And even then thats only because I'm a tad biased. More Studio Art Majors and Interpretive Dancers please.
- Renaud 10y ago
  The call is for more engineers and scientists to be part of the decision process in the hope that they would be able to balance the anti-science streak that seesm representative of the current political make-up. No-one is saying that political office should be held only by scientists and engineers.
blazespin 10y ago
Elect more leaders like me! Seriously? This is seriously at the top of HN? What is so great about science? Didn't science create nuclear weapons? Isn't it rushing us towards the AI Singularity? Why are you so confident that STEM is the answer to all our prayers? I do STEM because it provides for my family. However, I appreciate and understand that I might very well be the problem rather than the solution. But, I am good at it and pays well and sometimes it seems to do good when in the right hands. If you ask me though - elect more leaders who are anti-violence and anti-consumption. But hey, one person one vote - right?
- state_less 10y ago
  You owe your life to STEM. We don't get to ~7 billion without it. You are the roadways that bring you food. You are the pipes that bring you water, and carry away your feces. I agree with your assessment though, STEM isn't sufficient to be a good leader. You need to care about people and want to improve their well-being too.
peter303 10y ago
President Carter had training in nuclear engineering. President Hoover had a geology degree, later practicing mining engineering. Neither were particularly exceptional Presidents.
- general_ai 10y ago
  Saying that Carter wasn't "exceptional" is quite an understatement. He kinda sucked at his job in general, and at getting the Congress to support his agenda in particular.
myf01d 10y ago
From my experience, guys with the highest IQs are the worst leaders and they inexplicably, usually lack vision and courage.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Hey, just a clarification. Could you ballpark, roughly, the ballpark that you're talking about for "highest IQs" and the IQs of the better leaders you've worked with? Because I think in software development, we fail to appreciate that 100 - by definition - is the median IQ and that half of people are below 100. I'd say the bulk of highly effective leaders in software I've worked with were substantially over 100. Before software, I have worked with different populations with greater variance. Unintelligent people usually make poor leaders. Anyway, people have written and research a lot about this (MBTI, EQ, etc) and IQ is just a component and IQ itself is a very coarse grained metric that has many subcomponents. High IQ certainly doesn't hurt in general.
  - myf01d 10y ago
    I meant real high IQ like most engineers & scientists, maybe IQ > 125 or 130. I guess there may be some relation between higher IQs and poor communication skills, less courage and other traits. But that's just a personal view with no scientific evidence.
    - throwaway5752 10y ago
      That's what I guessed. I have seen some very smart individuals lack empathy for people that weren't as smart or otherwise capable, or undercommunicate because they thought more things were tacitly understood than really were. I have no idea if there's a negative correlation there.
samfisher83 10y ago
Jimmy Carter was an engineer and he turned out to be bad president. I think the president should be someone who can work with people and gets things done. You could be the smartest person in the world and if you can't deal with people you will end up not being an effective president.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jgord 10y ago
This will help, but isnt the real issue .. which is that the main qualifier for high office is having immense wealth. The measure of wealth in and of itself selects for people without the depth of experience in fields other than personal-wealth-generation. Due to effects explained in Piketty's Capital, it also has a secondary selection bias, preferring inherited wealth over entrepreneurial wealth. Given the prior, that we do have money-in-politics, it makes sense to erode that bias in a minor way by having more STEM [ and poor but innovative entrepreneur ] people get involved in politics. It also helps as a partial measure to reduce the power of the daily alternative facts, post truth media barrage we now face [ itself partly due to big-money owning the media ] - STEM practitioners are familiar with sifting facts from noise. We should also solve the real problem - big-[old]-money in politics - perhaps by flushing the big-money out with little-money : a torrent of 27 dollar contributions from citizens. The massive womens rally and the Bernie movement give me hope we might achieve this - but clearly the DNC itself is afflicted by the same cancer, and must be taken over by real/progressive Democrats for there to be any hope of sane policy in America. [edit : clarity, intent ]
- woofyman 10y ago
  Overturn Citizens United and publicly fund elections.
  - jeffdavis 10y ago
    I think blame on Citizen's United is misplaced. Even without it, rich interests can (and do) simply buy media companies and promote politicians without any regulation at all. In theory at least, the pooling of money into PACs allows ordinary people with small donations to make a dofference. Maybe we should encourage ordinary citizens to put some money into PACs, which will have a greater impact than trying to prevent rich people from having influence (which doesn't usually work).
  - Agustus 10y ago
    From your perspective, what were the legal issues of the case that make you disagree with it?
- 10y ago
resfirestar 10y ago
Anecdotally I don't think choosing leaders with STEM backgrounds would produce improvements in acceptance of climate science. Here's some members of congress who are climate deniers despite their STEM backgrounds. Joe Barton, Texas 6th, industrial engineer and climate denier. Tom Coburn (senator from Oklahoma from 2005-2015) is an obstetrician and leading climate denier. Thom Tillis, climate denier and senator from North Carolina, has a degree in "technology management". Timothy F. Murphy, Pennsylvania 18th, climate denier with a Ph.D in psychology. Steve Scalise, Louisiana 1st, climate denier with a B.S. in computer science. And that's just what I found off the top of my head plus 5 minutes of clicking through the bios of some of the Republican members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, then googling to check if they were climate deniers. I'm sure people will take this opportunity to bash medical doctors, but I think it definitely counts as STEM, and they generally have abhorrent views on health policy as well.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  I wonder how many of these people truly disbelieve climate change, and how many are "towing the party line"?
  - resfirestar 10y ago
    Toeing the party line would be voting no on climate change bills and keeping your mouth shut. I came across a couple of people apparently doing that, and they of course didn't make the list. I think all but one or two of the people listed gave some wacky statement invoking the Bible to say that humans can't change the climate.
- dagw 10y ago
  Don't forget that 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain has a B.S in Math and a MSc in Computer Science. By that criteria he should have been HN's candidate of choice.
snomad 10y ago
For reference, here is link http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/02/by-the-numbers-the-jobs-jobs-jobs-of-the-first-congress-vs-the-112th-congress/ http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/02/by-the-numbers-th... to 2011 - 2012 congress and their career backgrounds.
MR4D 10y ago
How about electing more leaders who know how to solve problems and can do a decent job of breaking down complex problems? I don't care where they learned how to do that.
tigeba 10y ago
When I clicked the link I expected to be presented evidence this approach would create better outcomes than the status quo.
guest-speaker-4 10y ago
Gotta fix the top of operating system before suggesting a lowly cabinet position that will be ignored anyhow. There are fundamental problems with the incestuous corporations buying off the news media and the politicians, combined with a broken and corrupt system which has failed in Romantic ways. Things which the illegitimate, corrupt politicians cannot or will not address. This doesn't mean throw everything away or wait by the phone for incrementalism, but multiple, major, decisive changes are vital in order to level the playing field for public servants. 0) Only allow X dollars per campaign from named, naturalized, human beings to fund specific candidates, and the candidates must disclose how it must be spent only on that campaign. No more super PACs or dark money pools. 0.5) No more special interest political smear ads. Again, the clear and present danger to the republic by manipulating elections supercedes unlimited "freedom" to persuade people that "clean coal" is good for them. 1) Make it a felony for any elected official to accept any compensation, gift or privilege including food, goods, services, vacations or exclusive event participation. Politicans are there to be public servants, not cut book deals or consulting gigs. 2) Matching public campaign funds to private funds. 3) Make it a felony for a for-profit news organization to be funded by advertisements or politicians. 4) Eliminate the electoral college: it has failed, twice. Replace it with national popular ranked vote (1st Sally, 2nd Joe, ...) 5) Eliminate jerrymandering by redrawing all districts based on a simple, deterministic, open-source algorithm finding population centroids. Tweaks to this law can only be enacted to fix flaws and edge-cases without predetermined favoritism. 6) News media embargo on manipulating election results from a day before early voting starts until after all final results are in, punishable by a 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. 7) National voter conformance: national vote on the same day, permanent absentee voting by mail, early voting (two weeks), same day registration for in-person and open-source blockchain tabulation with a paper (non-thermal) receipt. No discriminatory "poll tax" or bureaucratic hoops laws. Period.
forgottenpass 10y ago
This is doomed to fail. Even if they succeed, it will be a cosmetic victory. The explicitly defined object of desire is the trappings of power. The SEAT rather than the influence. But nobody is taken seriously because they have a seat at the table, they have a seat at the table because they're taken so seriously that the meeting is worth less without them. The only setback Trump has caused to science's input to policy was removing it's current cosmetic status. Nobody in government, in either party, takes science seriously when it conflicts with their policy goals. It's just a cudgel that sometimes aligns with their goals, and is wielded the same as any other block of useful idiots with fancy nametags. In other words: if the government had actually taken science seriously when Democrats were in power, this would have never been a problem.

161 points by vqc 10y ago

Wanting more STEM seems like an indirect way of wanting more critical, evidence-based, thinking. Atheism is probably a better proxy.

rayiner 10y ago
Do I want more critical, evidence-based thinking, or more decent human beings who want to serve rather than play god? I wasn't thrilled with say Cass Sunstein's ideas when he was appointed by Obama.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Why does it need to be either/or? To me, being a decent human being who wants to serve rather than play god is a minimum requirement for public service. I also want that person to be able to think critically and base policy on evidence (when there is evidence to be had). Sometimes, these things even overlap: For example, criminal justice.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  The problem is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone thinks they're decent. Few would disagree that reducing illegal immigration is OK, the issue is ordering a wall with little consideration of costs, effectiveness, game theory, political reactions, etc. The hard stuff.
- grzm 10y ago
  I wasn't thrilled with say Cass Sunstein's ideas when he was appointed by Obama. Would you expand on this? I was quite impressed with what I read in Nudge. Did any of this practical thinking carry over to OIRA? Or was that perhaps part of the problem?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    It's impressive, but falls into the "playing God" bucket for me.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Gotcha. I'll admit I was hoping for more, but I can understand not wanting to get into it in a comment. Can you point me to a critique (your own, or someone else's) of Sunstein that would elaborate on this for me, in particular his work under Obama?
slacka 10y ago
I assume you joke, but I'm truly worried that the Fundamentalist Christians are making progress towards their goal of imposing Christian sharia law on us all. They are a powerful and single issue voter block. They will show up to vote for anyone, even a "pussy grabber", if they feel it will help their cause. If you've never been to the South and think I"m exaggerating, check out Jesus Camp[1] to get an idea of how this group thinks. People rarely acknowledge the danger of our own religious extremists. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/
nulldevz 10y ago
You won't believe the number of aerospace/mechanical engineers in the federal government that believe in Creationism.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  No doubt, being good at cal 8 doesn't mean general smarts.
mastazi 10y ago
Most Chinese political leaders have an engineering background, yet if you asked me what's the main characteristic of Chinese leaders when compared to leaders of other countries, "critical thinking" wouldn't be among the first definitions coming to me.

Taek 10y ago

I'm not hopeful. I am young but my experince has been that moving up the leadership or management ladder requires a vastly different set of skills than stem and if you are serious about doing it you will have to leave your stem behind, or you simply won't be able to compete.

bassman9000 10y ago
True. But your background lasts. Management gives you people skills, organizational ones, teaches you to listen, and a sense of duty towards your team members. Couple that to a solid technical/scientific background, and you got a prepared leader.
state_less 10y ago
Exactly, you better at least be aware of some of the "dark arts" to defend against them. For one, being a provocateur can actually be a good thing, strange right? Generally, we want people of good character, integrity and intelligence to rise to the top. STEM is fine, but other backgrounds are fine too. They should inspire people so as to draw the attention away from the power mongers they will be running against.

candiodari 10y ago

Because it works so well in China ? Also Ahmadinejad has a master in civil engineering, a PhD in transportation engineering, and has taught as a professor (apparently he has returned to that job).

chrischen 10y ago
Is it not working well in China, or even Iran?
- candiodari 10y ago
  If you ask some Chinese, they're unlikely to be happy with the results. Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. How they're destroying the savings of the Chinese people. The total and completely endemic corruption ...
  - pen2l 10y ago
    > Just look at just how horrible smog is in Beijing. Huh? Have you looked at it recently? Beijing has made incredible strides in solving air pollution problems. They turned around the situation quickly to pretty decent results -- give them some more time and I'm sure they'll do even better. China is not doing that bad. And I think one of the reasons why is in fact that high amount of STEM-educated folks in the politburo.
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      They did let it get pretty bad though, I was only there once in 2008 after the games and it was already pretty crazy back then.
      - pen2l 10y ago
        It was pretty bad around 2008. Now, 2017, it's not perfect but it's much, much better. They're on the right track. Separately, I want to say: judging per capita they're not doing bad.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

The thing is that I don't care if a politician has a background in STEM subjects - in fact, if they have a STEM background, I prefer they also have a political science background or something that has to do with public policy. It doesn't need to be a formal degree if the person has a long history of political experience. This is for state level or higher. Local elections I doubt it matters so much. I do, however, fully expect elected officials to take those in the STEM fields seriously and listen to their advice like they would listen to any expert. I do want the elected officals to appoint STEM folks to the appropriate departments. I want someone well-versed in science to head the EPA and the like. Similarly, I want someone with teaching experience (and confidence in bettering public education) to head education. And so on.

twoodfin 10y ago
And you'd like a banker running the SEC, of course?
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  With that position, I'd prefer co-chairs. For one, I'd prefer an economist with an intimate knowledge of banking, actually, who is paid a decent wage in hopes to better deflect corruption. For the other, a consumer rights specialist. Alternatively, a banker is acceptable, as is someone well versed in the ins and outs of banking - but of course, there is the little issue of bankers not exactly being trusted because of ... well, history.
  - trentmb 10y ago
    Perhaps a triumverate, the economist, consumer rights advocate, and a banker?
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      That would work as well. Banking is an odd place, very ripe for corruption, self-gain, and one-sided vision. What is good for one side isn't necessarily good for the other. The main point is to balance some of these things and not wreck the economy in the process. There are some folks that are capable of balancing this stuff on their own, but there is no promise that these same individuals will go into public service - in fact, they might be more useful in other sectors. Just seems easier to have some balance by design.

CalChris 10y ago

Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Jimmy Carter comes to mind.

whorleater 10y ago
Angela Merkel comes to mind.

to3m 10y ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/17/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/1...

general_ai 10y ago

People with decent STEM backgrounds can be MUCH more gainfully employed elsewhere. Higher echelons of US government are badly underpaid, which is why they attract the kind of "talent" they do. A Google search shows that it takes $110K to decently get by in DC. $175K for someone who is expected to be at the top of their game is a bad deal when a professional can make two to three times as much in the private sector. So you get a bunch of has-beens who aren't good for anything else. The only exception I can think of is the USDS, where idealistic young people go to serve their country and take a massive pay cut (which is even more massive if you factor in the opportunity cost), but sooner or later life will catch up to them, too, and they'll discover they need to save for retirement and college, pay for private school for their kids, etc, etc. Shit's expensive.

makecheck 10y ago
Worse, there is a massive chicken-and-egg problem here. At least with normal jobs, I only have to risk occasionally encountering someone who is difficult or slightly incompetent. While dealing with difficult people is normal, at least right now it isn’t a daily occurrence. Conversely, I can pretty much guarantee that a huge number of future colleagues would be making my life miserable when in Congress. Some of them apparently cannot be reasoned with at all (“I’m sorry, you have the wrong letter after your name therefore your idea sucks <turning brain off now>”), and a pretty insane number of them just do whatever they want without obeying rules. It reaches a point where you have to decide where you can do the most good, and there just doesn’t seem to be a way to do much “good” by being in public office. I feel better working on engineering projects that go somewhere.

jekrb 10y ago

Elect more leaders who come from a Philosophy background.

diogenescynic 10y ago

Just stop electing republicans for a start.

Mikeb85 10y ago
So you are proposing a Democrat led dictatorship?
- diogenescynic 10y ago
  There are other parties. The two party monopoly is exactly what led us to this disaster of an election.

DonaldFisk 10y ago

I didn't like her politics, but Margaret Thatcher had a BSc in Chemistry, and went on to work as a research chemist. Credit where credit's due: she understood the problem of climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg

SamReidHughes 10y ago
And the ozone layer.
hliyan 10y ago
Angela Merkel has a similar background, doesn't she?
- peter303 10y ago
  She had a doctorate.

cloakandswagger 10y ago

The majority of Einsatzgruppen (SS) officers had PhDs. Anecdotes aside, I used to think this way until I realized that being a leader is about a lot more than raw intelligence. The best leaders (business, political or otherwise) have a unique mental resolve that is a lot stronger than the rest of us. They need to be able to thrive in chaos and stay motivated when everything is falling apart. I arrived at this conclusion after years of looking at various CEOs and scoffing at how easily I could do the job--just make arbitrary decisions, take credit when they work and deflect when they don't, right? It wasn't until I worked for a company that was teetering on failure that I realized there was more to it. While I would have felt completely overwhelmed, frustrated and defeated, this CEO somehow managed to stay positive and kept fighting for years until the business was in the clear.

striking 10y ago
godwin
jude- 10y ago
> The majority of Einsatzgruppen (SS) officers had PhDs. Citation needed, or is this an alternative fact?
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  I think asking for a citation was fine. Framing OP's statement as an "alternative fact," without evidence, caused me to downvote.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen >Many Einsatzgruppe leaders were highly educated; for example, nine of seventeen leaders of Einsatzgruppe A held doctorate degrees.[42] Three Einsatzgruppen were commanded by holders of doctorates, one of whom (SS-Gruppenführer Otto Rasch) held a double doctorate.[43] So perhaps I was wrong to say majority, but a good portion. As an aside, what a bizarre thing to nitpick. Why does this fact bother you?

Tloewald 10y ago

We need fewer leaders with legal backgrounds as well. The law trains you to argue a case by selectively ignoring unfavorable evidence, and guess what our politicians are incredibly good at?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The law trains you to argue a case by selectively ignoring unfavorable evidence No, it doesn't.
- state_less 10y ago
  A law degree is great thing for a leader to have, but not sufficient. You need people with integrity too. I think a lot of the common backlash against lawyers is due to the fact that a lawyer lacking integrity is good at circumventing the law. Similar to how a doctor, usually a profession known for healing, would also know how to make many people sick.
  - Tloewald 10y ago
    > A law degree is great thing for a leader to have, but not sufficient A law degree has an opportunity cost. That's a bunch of years you didn't spend learning something else. Is that the best thing you could have spent that time learning? Bear in mind that a huge proportion of our politicians have law degrees. If we had as few people with law degrees as have backgrounds in statistics or economics or engineering then sure, we'd want more -- but we are in no immediate danger of that.
    - state_less 10y ago
      Lawyers value and spend more time training themselves on breaking apart flimsy arguments and constructing good ones. Yes I do think this skill is worth the opportunity cost. And one of the skills to be learned early, so subsequent knowledge can be placed on solid footing. As an aside, given I had to learn what little I know of argumentation on my own, I wonder if this is a coincidence or something intentionally kept out of the minds of the populace to disempower? Anyway, I'd be in favor of a higher proportion of STEM reps. Beware, I think you'd find STEM folks who would/do ignore facts that don't support their pet conclusion. Integrity is critical in these roles in any case. I wish people were a better judge of character.

JetSpiegel 10y ago

Might as well go the extra mile and demand people to elect only the good politicians. Just like demanding programmers to not write bugs.

philipov 10y ago

The problem isn't that politicians are stupid, the problem is that they have adverse incentives. Education is no vaccine against corruption, and if you're not a team player you won't get advanced by your party.

hefeweizen 10y ago

Of course, it is a fallacy to assume that leaders from STEM backgrounds may be qualitatively better than others, or even perform better for their constituents. But then again, such leaders would definitely not ignore climate change wholesale. If there is indeed a correlation between education in any of the STEM fields and "leadership qualities", would it not be better to reform education to introduce skills implicit to these fields at an early age (logic, reasoning, rational discourse, understanding of the scientific process) instead of selecting for these qualities later on?

maxxxxx 10y ago

It definitely wouldn't hurt to have less lawyers in leadership. they seem a little over represented.

lkbm 10y ago
Congress' job is to write, evaluate, and vote on laws. It makes sense that we have legal experts--IE, lawyers--doing that. I can definitely see a good argument to the contrary: Politicians should be the experts in negotiating/being the interface between field experts (scientists, lawyers, economists) and public values (voters or all citizens). Having them distinct from the legal experts seems sensible. But right now, law is the language of politics/policy, so I'm not sure how this separation would work. Congress can say "NASA, based on your input and the public's preferences, you get these resources to do aeronautics" and leaves the details up to NASA, and that's fine, but if Congress just says "lawyers, based on your input and the public's preferences, write a law on decriminalized cannabis use" and let's the lawyers handle the details....I dunno. Somehow, it feels like law requires less delegation and more technical understanding on the part of Congress than aeronautics does. I see the problem not as too many lawyers, but as corruption (though not in a literal bribery sort of way) and--for lack of a better term--politics. (e.g., the problem isn't lawyers don't believe in climate change. The problem is that climate change has become a political issue that half of the country rejects ideologically.)
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Politicians in congress don't write laws themselves. They are written by staff and unfortunately often lobbyists. I would much prefer if they had real expertise in some areas and left the detail of writing laws to the lawyers in their stuff.

Mikeb85 10y ago

Dear god the last thing I'd ever want is a country ruled by engineers. Most have one track minds, can't multitask, and can't see the forest beyond the trees. Maybe if they also have some sort of background in philosophy/economics/humanities or anything that can add perspective on the human condition, managing people, etc...

DonaldFisk 10y ago
Here's a list of PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) graduates from Oxford: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_p.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_p.... They're very much a mixed bag.
Avshalom 10y ago
Right I'm the only STEM major I know that I'd even sort of vaguely trust to not fuck over large swatch of humans due to a belief in elegant solutions. And even then thats only because I'm a tad biased. More Studio Art Majors and Interpretive Dancers please.
Renaud 10y ago
The call is for more engineers and scientists to be part of the decision process in the hope that they would be able to balance the anti-science streak that seesm representative of the current political make-up. No-one is saying that political office should be held only by scientists and engineers.

blazespin 10y ago

Elect more leaders like me! Seriously? This is seriously at the top of HN? What is so great about science? Didn't science create nuclear weapons? Isn't it rushing us towards the AI Singularity? Why are you so confident that STEM is the answer to all our prayers? I do STEM because it provides for my family. However, I appreciate and understand that I might very well be the problem rather than the solution. But, I am good at it and pays well and sometimes it seems to do good when in the right hands. If you ask me though - elect more leaders who are anti-violence and anti-consumption. But hey, one person one vote - right?

state_less 10y ago
You owe your life to STEM. We don't get to ~7 billion without it. You are the roadways that bring you food. You are the pipes that bring you water, and carry away your feces. I agree with your assessment though, STEM isn't sufficient to be a good leader. You need to care about people and want to improve their well-being too.

peter303 10y ago

President Carter had training in nuclear engineering. President Hoover had a geology degree, later practicing mining engineering. Neither were particularly exceptional Presidents.

general_ai 10y ago
Saying that Carter wasn't "exceptional" is quite an understatement. He kinda sucked at his job in general, and at getting the Congress to support his agenda in particular.

myf01d 10y ago

From my experience, guys with the highest IQs are the worst leaders and they inexplicably, usually lack vision and courage.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Hey, just a clarification. Could you ballpark, roughly, the ballpark that you're talking about for "highest IQs" and the IQs of the better leaders you've worked with? Because I think in software development, we fail to appreciate that 100 - by definition - is the median IQ and that half of people are below 100. I'd say the bulk of highly effective leaders in software I've worked with were substantially over 100. Before software, I have worked with different populations with greater variance. Unintelligent people usually make poor leaders. Anyway, people have written and research a lot about this (MBTI, EQ, etc) and IQ is just a component and IQ itself is a very coarse grained metric that has many subcomponents. High IQ certainly doesn't hurt in general.
- myf01d 10y ago
  I meant real high IQ like most engineers & scientists, maybe IQ > 125 or 130. I guess there may be some relation between higher IQs and poor communication skills, less courage and other traits. But that's just a personal view with no scientific evidence.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    That's what I guessed. I have seen some very smart individuals lack empathy for people that weren't as smart or otherwise capable, or undercommunicate because they thought more things were tacitly understood than really were. I have no idea if there's a negative correlation there.

samfisher83 10y ago

Jimmy Carter was an engineer and he turned out to be bad president. I think the president should be someone who can work with people and gets things done. You could be the smartest person in the world and if you can't deal with people you will end up not being an effective president.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jgord 10y ago

This will help, but isnt the real issue .. which is that the main qualifier for high office is having immense wealth. The measure of wealth in and of itself selects for people without the depth of experience in fields other than personal-wealth-generation. Due to effects explained in Piketty's Capital, it also has a secondary selection bias, preferring inherited wealth over entrepreneurial wealth. Given the prior, that we do have money-in-politics, it makes sense to erode that bias in a minor way by having more STEM [ and poor but innovative entrepreneur ] people get involved in politics. It also helps as a partial measure to reduce the power of the daily alternative facts, post truth media barrage we now face [ itself partly due to big-money owning the media ] - STEM practitioners are familiar with sifting facts from noise. We should also solve the real problem - big-[old]-money in politics - perhaps by flushing the big-money out with little-money : a torrent of 27 dollar contributions from citizens. The massive womens rally and the Bernie movement give me hope we might achieve this - but clearly the DNC itself is afflicted by the same cancer, and must be taken over by real/progressive Democrats for there to be any hope of sane policy in America. [edit : clarity, intent ]

woofyman 10y ago
Overturn Citizens United and publicly fund elections.
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  I think blame on Citizen's United is misplaced. Even without it, rich interests can (and do) simply buy media companies and promote politicians without any regulation at all. In theory at least, the pooling of money into PACs allows ordinary people with small donations to make a dofference. Maybe we should encourage ordinary citizens to put some money into PACs, which will have a greater impact than trying to prevent rich people from having influence (which doesn't usually work).
- Agustus 10y ago
  From your perspective, what were the legal issues of the case that make you disagree with it?
10y ago

resfirestar 10y ago

Anecdotally I don't think choosing leaders with STEM backgrounds would produce improvements in acceptance of climate science. Here's some members of congress who are climate deniers despite their STEM backgrounds. Joe Barton, Texas 6th, industrial engineer and climate denier. Tom Coburn (senator from Oklahoma from 2005-2015) is an obstetrician and leading climate denier. Thom Tillis, climate denier and senator from North Carolina, has a degree in "technology management". Timothy F. Murphy, Pennsylvania 18th, climate denier with a Ph.D in psychology. Steve Scalise, Louisiana 1st, climate denier with a B.S. in computer science. And that's just what I found off the top of my head plus 5 minutes of clicking through the bios of some of the Republican members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, then googling to check if they were climate deniers. I'm sure people will take this opportunity to bash medical doctors, but I think it definitely counts as STEM, and they generally have abhorrent views on health policy as well.

FireBeyond 10y ago
I wonder how many of these people truly disbelieve climate change, and how many are "towing the party line"?
- resfirestar 10y ago
  Toeing the party line would be voting no on climate change bills and keeping your mouth shut. I came across a couple of people apparently doing that, and they of course didn't make the list. I think all but one or two of the people listed gave some wacky statement invoking the Bible to say that humans can't change the climate.
dagw 10y ago
Don't forget that 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain has a B.S in Math and a MSc in Computer Science. By that criteria he should have been HN's candidate of choice.

snomad 10y ago

For reference, here is link http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/02/by-the-numbers-the-jobs-jobs-jobs-of-the-first-congress-vs-the-112th-congress/ http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/02/by-the-numbers-th... to 2011 - 2012 congress and their career backgrounds.

MR4D 10y ago

How about electing more leaders who know how to solve problems and can do a decent job of breaking down complex problems? I don't care where they learned how to do that.

tigeba 10y ago

When I clicked the link I expected to be presented evidence this approach would create better outcomes than the status quo.

guest-speaker-4 10y ago

Gotta fix the top of operating system before suggesting a lowly cabinet position that will be ignored anyhow. There are fundamental problems with the incestuous corporations buying off the news media and the politicians, combined with a broken and corrupt system which has failed in Romantic ways. Things which the illegitimate, corrupt politicians cannot or will not address. This doesn't mean throw everything away or wait by the phone for incrementalism, but multiple, major, decisive changes are vital in order to level the playing field for public servants. 0) Only allow X dollars per campaign from named, naturalized, human beings to fund specific candidates, and the candidates must disclose how it must be spent only on that campaign. No more super PACs or dark money pools. 0.5) No more special interest political smear ads. Again, the clear and present danger to the republic by manipulating elections supercedes unlimited "freedom" to persuade people that "clean coal" is good for them. 1) Make it a felony for any elected official to accept any compensation, gift or privilege including food, goods, services, vacations or exclusive event participation. Politicans are there to be public servants, not cut book deals or consulting gigs. 2) Matching public campaign funds to private funds. 3) Make it a felony for a for-profit news organization to be funded by advertisements or politicians. 4) Eliminate the electoral college: it has failed, twice. Replace it with national popular ranked vote (1st Sally, 2nd Joe, ...) 5) Eliminate jerrymandering by redrawing all districts based on a simple, deterministic, open-source algorithm finding population centroids. Tweaks to this law can only be enacted to fix flaws and edge-cases without predetermined favoritism. 6) News media embargo on manipulating election results from a day before early voting starts until after all final results are in, punishable by a 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. 7) National voter conformance: national vote on the same day, permanent absentee voting by mail, early voting (two weeks), same day registration for in-person and open-source blockchain tabulation with a paper (non-thermal) receipt. No discriminatory "poll tax" or bureaucratic hoops laws. Period.

forgottenpass 10y ago

This is doomed to fail. Even if they succeed, it will be a cosmetic victory. The explicitly defined object of desire is the trappings of power. The SEAT rather than the influence. But nobody is taken seriously because they have a seat at the table, they have a seat at the table because they're taken so seriously that the meeting is worth less without them. The only setback Trump has caused to science's input to policy was removing it's current cosmetic status. Nobody in government, in either party, takes science seriously when it conflicts with their policy goals. It's just a cudgel that sometimes aligns with their goals, and is wielded the same as any other block of useful idiots with fancy nametags. In other words: if the government had actually taken science seriously when Democrats were in power, this would have never been a problem.