3 ms·

I assume that "rather have a beer with" is a proxy for "has similar values to me" and "seems honest". Those seem reasonable qualifications for at least some off

I assume that "rather have a beer with" is a proxy for "has similar values to me" and "seems honest". Those seem reasonable qualifications for at least some offices. What would you place higher, for which offices?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I'd rank higher than beer-ability: * ability to hold, and describe, contradictory ideas * ability to convey complex policies in a way that doesn't bore people * ability to pick the right people to work with, and specifically the avoidance of a "yes-men" bubble * ability to listen to and have a reasonable understanding of scientific advice * previous independent out-of-country, out-of-language travel experience * display a clear understanding of the full scope of political ideology, and of why their positions are what they are * be awesome in the media of the day
- woah 5y ago
  Sounds like this is your own beer-ability criterion, except you have a taste for more intellectual drinking buddies than most.
- CWuestefeld 5y ago
  Let me note that you didn't cite what office these qualifications hold for. I don't mean to single you out here: it seems that this is usually how it goes. But I'd like to suggest that there are very different qualifications for executives, legislators, and parts of the judicial system (when they are electable). Like, maybe a legislator needs to have that ability to work with science that you mention, in order to devise the best possible policies. But that seems much less important for an executive, who needs more of your anti-yes-man quality than does a legislator. And so forth.
Fezzik 5y ago
I think most people, even here on HN where folk are relatively educated, are woefully unawares as to what goes in to governing (diplomacy, financial literacy on a massive scale, legislating, and so forth). Sam Harris summarized the problem well 13 years ago in general terms: “Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.” https://www.newsweek.com/sam-harris-sarah-palin-and-elitism-88595 https://www.newsweek.com/sam-harris-sarah-palin-and-elitism-...

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I'd rank higher than beer-ability: * ability to hold, and describe, contradictory ideas * ability to convey complex policies in a way that doesn't bore people * ability to pick the right people to work with, and specifically the avoidance of a "yes-men" bubble * ability to listen to and have a reasonable understanding of scientific advice * previous independent out-of-country, out-of-language travel experience * display a clear understanding of the full scope of political ideology, and of why their positions are what they are * be awesome in the media of the day

woah 5y ago
Sounds like this is your own beer-ability criterion, except you have a taste for more intellectual drinking buddies than most.
CWuestefeld 5y ago
Let me note that you didn't cite what office these qualifications hold for. I don't mean to single you out here: it seems that this is usually how it goes. But I'd like to suggest that there are very different qualifications for executives, legislators, and parts of the judicial system (when they are electable). Like, maybe a legislator needs to have that ability to work with science that you mention, in order to devise the best possible policies. But that seems much less important for an executive, who needs more of your anti-yes-man quality than does a legislator. And so forth.

Fezzik 5y ago

I think most people, even here on HN where folk are relatively educated, are woefully unawares as to what goes in to governing (diplomacy, financial literacy on a massive scale, legislating, and so forth). Sam Harris summarized the problem well 13 years ago in general terms: “Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.” https://www.newsweek.com/sam-harris-sarah-palin-and-elitism-88595 https://www.newsweek.com/sam-harris-sarah-palin-and-elitism-...