3 ms·

reading all the threads here, about murder ratios is a really good reason not to have engineers as politicians

cornel_io 5y ago
Being fully informed and cognizant about the true systemic machinations of the system that you're manipulating as a politician seems like it's a good thing, not a bad thing. Asking for more carefully split-out info before YOLOing a policy prescription is something I've pretty much never seen but would love to. On the other hand, declaring that you're right without a goddamned shred of statistical info is just wrong, no matter what side you're on (and that's most of the debate on this article, since there's no useful info presented). The best engineers (and math/science people) I know ask tough questions about policies that their own parties are pushing; I've rarely seen a humanities major do that unless it was because of some niche "against-the-grain" identity issue they were plumping for. I do know a couple humanities folks who eventually realized they needed to learn more about math/stats to be able to justify their statements, and in every case they became more rationalist once they understood the toolkit. So: bad tech people are dumbasses, just like bad humanities majors are (and they will always be if they don't understand math, science, and tech). We should stop electing both, but we never will. But let's not throw the fucking baby out with the bathwater when it comes to preferences, please.
shapefrog 5y ago
Yeah, becuase it is working out so well limiting the pool of politicians it to just grifters and conmen who were too shit to sell used cars for a living.
inglor_cz 5y ago
I am split on this. If we consider human lives to be equal in value, concentration on a small, though outrageous death cause, may kill many more other people out of neglect / insufficient attention to another phenomenon. On the other hand, 1000 more murders for 10 000 less cancer deaths does not sound like a good tradeoff either.

Being fully informed and cognizant about the true systemic machinations of the system that you're manipulating as a politician seems like it's a good thing, not a bad thing. Asking for more carefully split-out info before YOLOing a policy prescription is something I've pretty much never seen but would love to. On the other hand, declaring that you're right without a goddamned shred of statistical info is just wrong, no matter what side you're on (and that's most of the debate on this article, since there's no useful info presented). The best engineers (and math/science people) I know ask tough questions about policies that their own parties are pushing; I've rarely seen a humanities major do that unless it was because of some niche "against-the-grain" identity issue they were plumping for. I do know a couple humanities folks who eventually realized they needed to learn more about math/stats to be able to justify their statements, and in every case they became more rationalist once they understood the toolkit. So: bad tech people are dumbasses, just like bad humanities majors are (and they will always be if they don't understand math, science, and tech). We should stop electing both, but we never will. But let's not throw the fucking baby out with the bathwater when it comes to preferences, please.

shapefrog 5y ago

Yeah, becuase it is working out so well limiting the pool of politicians it to just grifters and conmen who were too shit to sell used cars for a living.

inglor_cz 5y ago

I am split on this. If we consider human lives to be equal in value, concentration on a small, though outrageous death cause, may kill many more other people out of neglect / insufficient attention to another phenomenon. On the other hand, 1000 more murders for 10 000 less cancer deaths does not sound like a good tradeoff either.