4 ms·

This could go really well or really badly. Scientists are good for making good scientific decisions, but they might (probably?) not be the best at managing a co

This could go really well or really badly. Scientists are good for making good scientific decisions, but they might (probably?) not be the best at managing a country. I think the best thing would be more people with political experience to run with the position of having lots of scientists as advisors.

superquest 9y ago
They also might be bad at politics.
- fermienrico 9y ago
  What is the supporting evidence of “scientists are bad politicians?” I am genuinely curious.
  - superquest 9y ago
    Scientists generally pursue truth whereas politicians spend most of their time pursuing power by building a constituency, trying to get and stay elected, raising money, etc. And I'm not saying "scientists are bad politicians". I'm saying what the two groups do don't overlap a ton. For a gross example, most scientists will have to learn to lie to be good politicians, because all good politicians play fast and loose with the truth.
fermienrico 9y ago
This is such a cliche criticism of scientists running for public office and frankly I’m tired of it as it detracts from the fundamental truth. There is no reason why scientists cannot run for public office. Reason, logic and strategic thinking is what we need - doesn’t matter if it’s a scientist, engineer or an accountant. Compared to the shit we have today, this would be a huge step forward. Plenty of scientists have leadership and political skills. It’s not like scientists are just completely incapable of dealing with people - that is the cliche and we need to objectively think about this.
- pavlov 9y ago
  I honestly think Mitch McConnell employs a lot of “reason, logic and strategic thinking”. Those things are not enough by themselves — you need to have something to build towards besides short-term partisan points. Gerrymandering is another example of the abundance of misguided cleverness in the American system.
  - fermienrico 9y ago
    All I am saying is that "Reason, Logic and Strategic thinking" is minimum that a scientist offers. There are so many scientists and engineers that lead multi-billion dollar corporations. They have, in addition to reason , logic and strategic thinking - organizational, political and people skills. My point is that just having a scientific background should in no way be a limiting factor. In fact, it should be a positive thing.
- bmelton 9y ago
  > Reason, logic and strategic thinking is what we need Reason, logic and strategic thinking (hereafter, "they") don't get you palatable slogans like "Yes we can" and "The Buck Stops Here". They don't empower you with the ability to shake a man's hand on the campaign trail and remember their name, their wife's name, and the details of their situation a year later (or the con-man ability to pretend they can through cold-reading). They don't teach you when to talk, when to shut up and listen, and how to effectively communicate your ideas to an audience. They don't teach you how and when to compromise your ideals to get somebody else's bill passed so that you can effectively curry political favor and capital on the issue that matters to you enough to uphold your campaign policies. Past that, the constitution (and thus, law) cannot be parsed in any programmatic or logical way. Without that understanding, you can't know what is or isn't constitutional, or even if something is or isn't constitutional, whether or not it's likely to be upheld by a system of courts, or what words to use during its planning phase such that the legislative record reflects the best chances of ensuring it be read by the courts in the manner you desire. All that said, I freely acknowledge that the abilities to schmooze, read and write law, and effectively sway others to your belief do not necessarily empower you to understand climate data, or the ecological impact of a tariff on solar panels, or the technological impact of a blockchain. Either way, we need a diverse group of people in power - true diversity, in the usual ways as well as in the experiential, cultural and viewpoint diversity metrics to truly represent the many valid ideas to be had within the electorate. Of course, the more diversity you have within a legislature, the more they tend to disagree on things ,and the less likely you are to get compromise. Personally, I maintain that's a feature of the legislature, but considering every time Congress is seen as 'do-nothing', their approval ratings drop, which is why political parties tend to coalesce behind a few divisive issues and then just kind of fall in line or not give much credence to the remainder, using rhetoric to blame the other party for its woes.
pavlov 9y ago
That’s what the Obama administration did, but it didn’t yield political dividends. American voters seem to view all career politicians as equally suspicious regardless of who their advisors are. Hence scientists running for office themselves.
nbardy 9y ago
I'd rather flip it around. Put the scientist at the top and having him use advisors to navigate the political landscape.
closeparen 9y ago
Reason and logic are the domain of the wonks and civil servants. We have politicians to litigate questions of values and identity. Subjects with generally respected expert consensus are handled at department-staff level.
chriskanan 9y ago
As a scientist, I'm biased on this issue. Being a scientist involves dealing with data and making/testing hypotheses. Being a scientist helps you understand scientific results, and then you can make a value decision with how those results affect policy. Germany seems to be doing very well with many scientist leaders. Angela Merkel has a PhD in physical chemistry. Just because America doesn't respect scientists that much, doesn't mean they don't make good leaders.

superquest 9y ago

They also might be bad at politics.

fermienrico 9y ago
What is the supporting evidence of “scientists are bad politicians?” I am genuinely curious.
- superquest 9y ago
  Scientists generally pursue truth whereas politicians spend most of their time pursuing power by building a constituency, trying to get and stay elected, raising money, etc. And I'm not saying "scientists are bad politicians". I'm saying what the two groups do don't overlap a ton. For a gross example, most scientists will have to learn to lie to be good politicians, because all good politicians play fast and loose with the truth.

fermienrico 9y ago

This is such a cliche criticism of scientists running for public office and frankly I’m tired of it as it detracts from the fundamental truth. There is no reason why scientists cannot run for public office. Reason, logic and strategic thinking is what we need - doesn’t matter if it’s a scientist, engineer or an accountant. Compared to the shit we have today, this would be a huge step forward. Plenty of scientists have leadership and political skills. It’s not like scientists are just completely incapable of dealing with people - that is the cliche and we need to objectively think about this.

pavlov 9y ago
I honestly think Mitch McConnell employs a lot of “reason, logic and strategic thinking”. Those things are not enough by themselves — you need to have something to build towards besides short-term partisan points. Gerrymandering is another example of the abundance of misguided cleverness in the American system.
- fermienrico 9y ago
  All I am saying is that "Reason, Logic and Strategic thinking" is minimum that a scientist offers. There are so many scientists and engineers that lead multi-billion dollar corporations. They have, in addition to reason , logic and strategic thinking - organizational, political and people skills. My point is that just having a scientific background should in no way be a limiting factor. In fact, it should be a positive thing.
bmelton 9y ago
> Reason, logic and strategic thinking is what we need Reason, logic and strategic thinking (hereafter, "they") don't get you palatable slogans like "Yes we can" and "The Buck Stops Here". They don't empower you with the ability to shake a man's hand on the campaign trail and remember their name, their wife's name, and the details of their situation a year later (or the con-man ability to pretend they can through cold-reading). They don't teach you when to talk, when to shut up and listen, and how to effectively communicate your ideas to an audience. They don't teach you how and when to compromise your ideals to get somebody else's bill passed so that you can effectively curry political favor and capital on the issue that matters to you enough to uphold your campaign policies. Past that, the constitution (and thus, law) cannot be parsed in any programmatic or logical way. Without that understanding, you can't know what is or isn't constitutional, or even if something is or isn't constitutional, whether or not it's likely to be upheld by a system of courts, or what words to use during its planning phase such that the legislative record reflects the best chances of ensuring it be read by the courts in the manner you desire. All that said, I freely acknowledge that the abilities to schmooze, read and write law, and effectively sway others to your belief do not necessarily empower you to understand climate data, or the ecological impact of a tariff on solar panels, or the technological impact of a blockchain. Either way, we need a diverse group of people in power - true diversity, in the usual ways as well as in the experiential, cultural and viewpoint diversity metrics to truly represent the many valid ideas to be had within the electorate. Of course, the more diversity you have within a legislature, the more they tend to disagree on things ,and the less likely you are to get compromise. Personally, I maintain that's a feature of the legislature, but considering every time Congress is seen as 'do-nothing', their approval ratings drop, which is why political parties tend to coalesce behind a few divisive issues and then just kind of fall in line or not give much credence to the remainder, using rhetoric to blame the other party for its woes.

pavlov 9y ago

That’s what the Obama administration did, but it didn’t yield political dividends. American voters seem to view all career politicians as equally suspicious regardless of who their advisors are. Hence scientists running for office themselves.

nbardy 9y ago

I'd rather flip it around. Put the scientist at the top and having him use advisors to navigate the political landscape.

closeparen 9y ago

Reason and logic are the domain of the wonks and civil servants. We have politicians to litigate questions of values and identity. Subjects with generally respected expert consensus are handled at department-staff level.

chriskanan 9y ago

As a scientist, I'm biased on this issue. Being a scientist involves dealing with data and making/testing hypotheses. Being a scientist helps you understand scientific results, and then you can make a value decision with how those results affect policy. Germany seems to be doing very well with many scientist leaders. Angela Merkel has a PhD in physical chemistry. Just because America doesn't respect scientists that much, doesn't mean they don't make good leaders.