[ExI] Donald Trump

[William Flynn Wallace]

It is not just "putting people in charge". That assumes their job is
decisionmaking, and that is pretty clearly wrong (hang out in a parliament
for a while or read a PoliSci textbook). Decisions are a tiny part of the
job, with much more of it being management, negotiation and (this is a
biggie in democratic politics) representing the viewpoint of the voters. If
I somehow magically (and unconstitutionally) ended up in the White House
and had the right skillset I would still be a disaster since I do not
represent the US people in any sensible way, and I would have absolutely
zero legitimacy. Getting legitimacy, that is actually what the current US
candidate circus is about. Unfortunately for everyone it is not going very
well. anders

Oh, I disagree completely with the last sentence.  This is exactly what
needs to happen to our political parties.  In the four years the Repubs
have ruled Congress they have done nothing to make their campaign promises
come true.  There is not one victory they can claim.  They have bickered
with everyone, mainly themselves.  They needed shaking up badly.

I wish democratic politics were as you say, actually representing the
voters.  They haven't and that's why it's such a mess.  They have been
representing the viewpoints of the rich donors, while Mr Average Voter
could not get two minutes of a Congressman's time.  I imagine the first
question asked about someone who wanted an appt. to be "Is he on the donor
list?l  How much did he give?"

I'd vote for you, Anders, for president.  While you have no obligation to
our voters, you would be determined to do a good job.  Of course Jimmy
Carter wanted to also, but he had no idea how Washington worked.

Maybe I do need to read a pol sci text.  I think it's a huge part of being
on top to choose very carefully the people under you whom you expect to
carry out your programs.

bill w

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-08 18:27, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace <
> <foozler83 at gmail.com>foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I ask everyone on this list this question:  given that you are far
>> smarter than the average person or even the average college graduate, did
>> you ever think that you could do a better job of running your town, state,
>> or country?  Of course you have.  Why?  Because you are great an
>> engineering or economics or physics?  You see - being among the elite pumps
>> your ego -- it certainly has pumped mine, and I AM one of those who think
>> this way, but I know that this is dangerous thinking and I am very ignorant
>> of how to run anything outside of a classroom.
>>
>
> I know that I could learn how to run things better.  That is a meta-skill
> that most people do not have, to a degree that many use the lack of it as a
> social or comedic common.  (How many people say they want to "rest their
> brain" or the like when merely encountering a complex problem, with no
> serious attempt made to begin figuring out how to solve it?)
>
>
> That is a good answer. Putting people able to acquire relevant skills in
> charge is a good idea. But in general there is a big cost to on-the-job
> learning: you want to put people in charge who have the skills from the
> start. Which skills depends a fair bit on the job - many jobs running
> institutions require social skills that tend to require practical training
> over long time.
>
> I like my friend Toby's answer. When asked whether the world would be a
> better place if we put a philosopher like him (well-meaning, very smart and
> knowledgeable) in charge he gave it some thought and said: "Either much
> better, or much worse. And there is no way of knowing before trying it."
>
> It is not just "putting people in charge". That assumes their job is
> decisionmaking, and that is pretty clearly wrong (hang out in a parliament
> for a while or read a PoliSci textbook). Decisions are a tiny part of the
> job, with much more of it being management, negotiation and (this is a
> biggie in democratic politics) representing the viewpoint of the voters. If
> I somehow magically (and unconstitutionally) ended up in the White House
> and had the right skillset I would still be a disaster since I do not
> represent the US people in any sensible way, and I would have absolutely
> zero legitimacy. Getting legitimacy, that is actually what the current US
> candidate circus is about. Unfortunately for everyone it is not going very
> well.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/92c70d4c/attachment.html>