4 ms·

I wouldn't want people who are (purely) programmers running congress either; why would they make more rational decisions than lawyers? However, I would put my

by joubert 16y ago

I wouldn't want people who are (purely) programmers running congress either; why would they make more rational decisions than lawyers? However, I would put my money behind scientists and engineers, because on the continuum of rationality, they're probably the best experts to make decisions. Caveat: of course the nature of politics would still corrupt the integrity of a congress made up by scientists/engineers, because of (a) influence (b) psychological "imbalance" (c) ambition (d) uneducated public, and (e) sex scandals

raganwald 16y ago
I think we have different perceptions of the point of the OP. I read it as suggesting that basing decisions on stereotypes is flawed. It doesn't really matter whether few, some, or even most programmers would be poor politicians: The point of a democracy is to allow us to judge the one programmer running for office and elect them based on their actual characteristics. Are scientists really rational? I would like to think so, but have you looked at science lately? There's brutal infighting over the credit for research, outright corruption over licenses and patents, taking $250 an hour from BP to be "oil spill consultants" and agreeing to three years of silence, working for tobacco companies, and on and on. I am skeptical that all scientists are rational, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss any one scientist as irrational. I would like to judge her on her merits.
- joubert 16y ago
  I agree with you 100% that basing decisions on stereotypes is flawed. But I was of course replying in the context of, not only the poster's reply to the Gartner reply, but to his original post (http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-fo...) In there he espouses programmers' (and for some reason he thinks web developers are higher up the totem pole than "regular" developers) knack for solving problems, looking for novel solutions, etc. etc., in the context of issues that are increasingly technical (which I think is debatable). I think one particular aspect of programmers, a stereotype if you will, is that they don't like to compromise and are generally quite independent of mind. Perhaps one could argue this would be a Good Thing™. But, if you look at all the disagreement amongst programmers, I don't see why their proposed solutions would be better than they are currently (in the end it is about politics). To your question: "Are scientists really rational?" - see my caveat :-) (PS: I think politicians should focus on creating policy, not try to solve problems that the free market solves better).
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Excellent clarification and expansion, thank you.
jerf 16y ago
A system full of smart people with no effective opposition is too unstable, in the physics sense of the term. It's too easy for the system to go flying off in some really, really bad direction with nobody stopping it, because all the smart people have rationalized that this is a good idea and the negative consequences will come far too late. (And smart people are just as vulnerable to the argument "The bad things are happening because our ideas haven't been implemented hard enough, so the solution is to do the same thing, only more!" If I could just wipe one argument from political discourse, that's probably the one I'd pick....) If you need to see government where intellectuals of one sort or another were in uncontested control of the government, the 20th century can provide you with some examples. You probably won't like them. The real key to good government (and the brilliance of the founding fathers) has actually been to effectively cripple the government and make sure nobody has the power to completely rewrite the government on a whim, and that no coalition that is capable of doing so can last very long. Unfortunately, that still seems to only delay the inevitable, but that's better than nothing.
jarek 16y ago
Well, at least with engineers you won't have to worry about the sex scandals too much. [1] [1] I'm educated as an engineer so it's ok for me to stereotype about this. [2] [2] Humour.

by joubert 16y ago

raganwald 16y ago

I think we have different perceptions of the point of the OP. I read it as suggesting that basing decisions on stereotypes is flawed. It doesn't really matter whether few, some, or even most programmers would be poor politicians: The point of a democracy is to allow us to judge the one programmer running for office and elect them based on their actual characteristics. Are scientists really rational? I would like to think so, but have you looked at science lately? There's brutal infighting over the credit for research, outright corruption over licenses and patents, taking $250 an hour from BP to be "oil spill consultants" and agreeing to three years of silence, working for tobacco companies, and on and on. I am skeptical that all scientists are rational, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss any one scientist as irrational. I would like to judge her on her merits.

joubert 16y ago
I agree with you 100% that basing decisions on stereotypes is flawed. But I was of course replying in the context of, not only the poster's reply to the Gartner reply, but to his original post (http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-fo...) In there he espouses programmers' (and for some reason he thinks web developers are higher up the totem pole than "regular" developers) knack for solving problems, looking for novel solutions, etc. etc., in the context of issues that are increasingly technical (which I think is debatable). I think one particular aspect of programmers, a stereotype if you will, is that they don't like to compromise and are generally quite independent of mind. Perhaps one could argue this would be a Good Thing™. But, if you look at all the disagreement amongst programmers, I don't see why their proposed solutions would be better than they are currently (in the end it is about politics). To your question: "Are scientists really rational?" - see my caveat :-) (PS: I think politicians should focus on creating policy, not try to solve problems that the free market solves better).
- raganwald 16y ago
  Excellent clarification and expansion, thank you.

jerf 16y ago

A system full of smart people with no effective opposition is too unstable, in the physics sense of the term. It's too easy for the system to go flying off in some really, really bad direction with nobody stopping it, because all the smart people have rationalized that this is a good idea and the negative consequences will come far too late. (And smart people are just as vulnerable to the argument "The bad things are happening because our ideas haven't been implemented hard enough, so the solution is to do the same thing, only more!" If I could just wipe one argument from political discourse, that's probably the one I'd pick....) If you need to see government where intellectuals of one sort or another were in uncontested control of the government, the 20th century can provide you with some examples. You probably won't like them. The real key to good government (and the brilliance of the founding fathers) has actually been to effectively cripple the government and make sure nobody has the power to completely rewrite the government on a whim, and that no coalition that is capable of doing so can last very long. Unfortunately, that still seems to only delay the inevitable, but that's better than nothing.

jarek 16y ago

Well, at least with engineers you won't have to worry about the sex scandals too much. [1] [1] I'm educated as an engineer so it's ok for me to stereotype about this. [2] [2] Humour.