Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 193 posts

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#31

Post by peteretep »

pranjalv123 wrote: post #5

I think the really big factor here is that scientists don't want to go into politics! Maybe I'm painting the world with an overly broad brush here, but politics and science approach the truth in exactly opposite ways. I'm not going to say that politics is a game of lies, because it's not, but politicians essentially invent the truth as they go along. It's similar in some ways to law or the humanities, where the truth…

Plenty of other countries have had memorable scientist leaders. The article itself opens with a picture of Merkel, and then of course, there's Thatcher... And most of the Chinese Communist Party Glitterati are engineers.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#32

Post by stretchwithme »

Its not who you elect that matters. Its how decentralized the system is and how limited the power of the government is that matters.

When the amount of power is great and concentrated, those lusting after power work very hard to get it. And they will do what they need to get it. And then use the power to keep it.

But when the government is limited and very decentralized, its not going to attract sociopaths as much.

In Switzerland, each member of a 7 person council takes a one-year turn presiding.

There's a joke about it actually. A tourist is discussing this with a Swiss man he bumped into.

After asking many other questions, the tourist finally asks "So who is president this year?" The Swiss man replied "Oh, this year its me."

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#33

Post by Nate75Sanders »

peteretep wrote: post #28
prewett wrote: post #22

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American, it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy. I get the feeling that few American…

That'll be the same reason Americans don't elect a Juris Doctor who was President of the Harvard Law Review, right?

I'd bet fewer than 25% of American adults can tell you both of those things.

Plain and simple:

Obama got elected because he is a great speaker and he's charismatic. Qualities much closer to being a popular actor or religious figure got him elected rather than his intellect.

It didn't hurt that people were tired of the previous party (this is a common pattern).

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#34

Post by smsm42 »

saulrh wrote: post #9
trb wrote: post #3

What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what? It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it. Singapore is a city-st…

China is socially repressive and an environmental catastrophe in progress, but it's also one of the fastest-advancing nations in the world. Chinese citizens were starving to death en masse as recently as the 70's. The fact that they've pulled themselves out of that kind of industrial slump is amazing. Wikipedia says that Singapore is the best trade center in Asia and one of the best in the world. It also has the best…

One thing to consider here is that it may be fast advancing because it is advancing from such a low positions. With more than a billion people, Chinese economic potential is enormous, far exceeding any other country. The fact that the have almost the same GDP as Japan while having more than 10 times more population and huge natural resources can be explained only by broken political and economic system. It is slowly moving out towards being somewhat less broken, but one would be deeply mistaken taking this as a sign that one should take it as an example to follow in its current state.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#35

Post by funthree »

Until the meme or whatever of people smugly laughing under their coats at people for trying to sound smart or understand difficult concepts (and sometimes getting it wrong) changes, which exists for whatever large number of various mostly individualistic reasons, this will not change.

Rather the politician (silver tongues) who can convince both the aforementioned types as well as those truly caring for reason will be elected. The reason is large and without making too many blanket statements, I think they are merely trickier to defeat when the game is all about making someone look more wrong. The game is sadly enough, victorious for those who care more about merely looking intelligent by a definition more widely accepted (by being less wrong) than actually being intelligent (read:scientific, by postulation and diligence even in regards to self) -- and largely the same game is scrimmaged in courtrooms all day every day.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#36

Post by buster »

For one, i'd like to say:

It doesn't matter for Angela Merkel to have studied. What far more important is to have knowledgable persons in the groups that make decisions and evaluate new laws and for the ministers.

For what i can see in germany, most of those politicians and decision makers are lawyers. It's terrible if you actually see what is said in a committee, just a bunch of old people not knowing what they talk about.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#37

Post by apu »

Qz wrote: post #26
RandallBrown wrote: post #16

Why would a scientist want to be a politician? So they can spend their days fighting over paperwork instead of solving problems they're passionate about? The kind of people that want to be scientists would have no interest in politics, beyond what it takes to get them funding.

My impression is that being a scientist involves a whole lot of fighting over paperwork instead of solving problems (at least in America, when it's time to apply for grants!).

Depending on how much money you need to raise and how good you are at it, fundraising can take from 10% - 80% of your time. Note that even at the high end, you still get 20% of your time to work on scientific problems, which is better than 0% -- what you get in most administrative/political jobs.

[All numbers very approximate.]

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#38

Post by smsm42 »

prewett wrote: post #22

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American, it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy. I get the feeling that few American…

People still go to lectures - or find them on YouTube, download them from the web or torrents, etc. And the debates are as much "attended" and more - people just don't have to be physically there anymore. It's all right with Americans and thinking - it's just most of them don't turn their thinking towards government. Which is a blessing - it is brilliant minds who brought us the current financial crisis, for example, with their delusions about their ability to calculate risks and always stay on top of the game (check out Nassim Taleb about this). Mediocre people bring mediocre failures, brilliant people would bring spectacular - and catastrophic - ones. If a brilliant scientific theory fails, well, a couple of egos are brused, but nobody's hurt. If a brilliant political theory fails, millions die. Look what happened to marxism. They thought of themselves as political scientists building society on a rational scientific basis. No emotions, no stupid democratic politicking, just straightforward implementation of proper science. Worst nightmare of the century. I'd rather take the bumbling mediocrities in the government, thank you very much. I don't like them but at least they are less dangerous this way.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#39

Post by cdavid »

prewett wrote: post #22

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American, it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy. I get the feeling that few American…

The idea that gvt should be run by common people is quite old in the US (Jacksonian democracy). I am not American, and this traits always made me wonder every time I go the US, as this is the only developed country where I heve been to where this is so pronounced. This article by Fukuyama was quite interesting in that regard: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/w.... He explains it by the fact that the US existed before a bureaucracy, which is the opposite of pretty much any other developed country.

Re: Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

#40

Post by olalonde »

prewett wrote: post #22

Why don't Americans elect scientists? Because current American culture is anti-intellectual. I can't really back this up concretely, but as an American, it's hard to find anything intellectual around. A long time ago, people went to hear lectures on the weekends, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates were well attended. Now, TV "news" is a joke, and even NPR is becoming a bit entertainy. I get the feeling that few American…

"Intellectuals and society" by Thomas Sowell is an interesting book on the subject. His central thesis is that intellectuals -- "people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas - writers, academics, and the like" - are having negative effects.

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Thomas-Sowell/dp...

Post reply on HN