Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President... • Hacker News Board

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#41

Post by keiferski » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:55 AM UTC

I've had a strange idea cooking in my mind for a few years now, although I've never really fleshed it out.

What if we had an AI-like system instead of representatives? Imagine this: "Pennsylvania-One" is an AI. Every day, from their smartphones or another device, PA citizens vote on issues, ranging from small to big. Using this data, "Pennsylvania-One" creates a model of what its constituents want, and then, using its vast knowledge of political theory, history, economics, etc., makes a decision. This decision can be double-checked by constituents or by some other "watchmen"-like individuals.

Of course, this would never happen (people trust people much more than machines), and it's more of a sci-fi idea, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#42

Post by jeffool » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:58 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

You say our problems stem from divergent interests, but yet what he speaks to here is our ability to observe objective truths, and to build our solutions on those. Our current system has no interest in building or finding solutions that help everyone, but instead in pushing their own agendas in the assumption that once "we" win, "they" will have to admit how right we were!

He's saying that our subjective opinions of what the facts SHOULD be (often our very notion of what is in our best interest,) should be investigated until we come to an objective reality of what is in our best interests. He's saying science provides those answers if we can get beyond ourselves.

He says we should not elect people only to chastise them for being both too smart, or too dumb. How, from that, do you get "he's saying we're dumb!" He's not saying someone is dumb, and someone is smart. He's saying as a scientist, it's his job to hunt for objective truths, and that as an educator, he seeks to teach everyone to find those truths.

Should scientists and educators not... Educate and seek objective truths? Isn't that kind of the point in those professions? What's arrogant about that? What's EXTREMELY arrogant about that?

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#43

Post by tlb » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:00 AM UTC

Jach wrote: post #34

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

I dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.

FtG was effective -- at starting wars and killing people to further his own dynastic ambitions. People who wanted to live in peace and prosperity would not agree he was the "right leader"

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#44

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:02 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #36

hooande wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships. That's how it's supposed to be. As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "b…

If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature. If this were true, then Jews as a demographic wouldn't have a reputation for being well-educated and literate. What you're talking about is as much cultural as it is inherent, i…

I think you're right. You are probably always going to have a normal distribution, or close to it, but how tight that distribution is and where it is centred is I think something that can be changed with some effort.

Certainly it is possible to make the population as a whole dumber (just stop public education for instance), so it makes sense that, unless we happen to be doing everything brilliantly right now, we can do better as well.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#45

Post by lefthansolo » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:23 AM UTC

I think Neil is wrong, unfortunately. It does matter who is in power, but not for the reasons that the media and political campaigns focus on. Other than the ability to veto, presidents don't legislate, they don't have that much control over the economy- although if they are ignorant enough (Bush) or obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) that doesn't help things but we can't reasonably blame them and even the effects from legislation are often not felt for years, etc. The main thing that a good U.S. president does is to lead and have respect. If that respect is gone, because of a hostage crisis, Iran-contra hearings, Monica Lewinsky affair, because you can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly, etc. then that is a problem. But that is also why we hire politicians instead of great leaders- great leaders make mistakes, but the people and the media don't like mistakes. Great leaders don't want their career ruined by the media, so instead we get politicians that parade around as if they are great leaders.

If you really want to change the system, the president should be chosen at random from the people of the United States, same for the House of Representatives and State Houses. If any of us could become president that is over 40, we'd pay a lot more attention.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#46

Post by bdunbar » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:27 AM UTC

Jach wrote: post #34

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

I dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.

Funny how both the guys you mentioned are remembered for being leaders of men during war.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#47

Post by lywald » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:30 AM UTC

hooande wrote: post #16

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships. That's how it's supposed to be. As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "b…

A laughably small number of americans vote in presidential

I'm sorry but it's not logical to waste time with something which has no impact. If there was any incentive, people would come. Like $5 or tax reductions, I don't know. It's not rocket science to increase the participation. But I guess the vote of the pragmatic is not desired. Actually the fact there is no incentive at all shows they want as few people to vote as possible, globally.

Maybe it's because opposition mobilizing themselves more is what allows the country to alternate leadership easily instead of being stuck in the same ideology forever, at the expense of the other 48%. Or maybe the alternate leadership is like our beating heart, a constant source of ideological thought, instead of the slumbering effect of an eternal monolithic party like in China. Be careful what you wish for.

Anyway when the choice you have is Blue or Red, "educating the masses" has little impact. But maybe masses having little impact is actually perfection...

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#48

Post by ryguytilidie » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:33 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

Seems like quite a reach to simply say "no" to the idea of one of the greatest scientists of our time being more enlightened than the average person. Is this just a troll or are you being serious?

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#49

Post by marshallp » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:42 AM UTC

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

The greatest group of political scientists? You're referring the founding fathers.

Why didn't they institute proportional representation? Why did they have an electoral college?

Why didn't they abolish slavery and institute women's vote right away?

This FF worship has got to stop. It gives Republicans some slack to spew their lies about gun control and other constitution-backed tomfoolery.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#50

Post by cynicalkane » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 2:44 AM UTC

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

I think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually intended.