You have yet to demonstrate that anything about about the folks you deemed worthy gives them the ability to govern well. You’ve hypothesized that they would, but it’s based on pretty poor evidence and has ignored all the counter examples where an elite has governed to their own benefit.
IMO, governing well isn’t just about intelligence or rationality. If you believe that it is the only factor that matters, you don’t understand people very well, and coincidentally you’d make an awful leader. I think that would hold true for the people you’ve singled out as well.
That was the purpose of my idea. I never assumed that was the intended purpose of a democracy. I do think utilitarianism should be the purpose of any government, however, and I rate them according to that standard.
They do, but they are not historical precedents to my idea. I’m not arguing for a small, unrepresentative elite.
Is that the norm? What types of people tend to perform better in abstract reasoning (whether it be academia or otherwise). Government and world issues require mostly abstract reasoning to assess.
I have read that rational personalities (according to MBTI) do tend to test higher on the sociopathic scale. I could try and find a link if you want it, but it’s conceding your point.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Logical reasoning is superior when it is unemotional and unempathetic. This is why we have fallacies like appealing to emotion. The only problem is when emotion has little effect on your values or goals. This is what happens when a sociopathic dictator takes over; He cares little else above his own power.
There is a difference between leaning a little harder towards sociopathy than others, and being a complete sociopath.
Yes, we all know how dictionaries work. This is a perfect example of how logical thinking doesn’t help in all circumstances.
Now explain to us why the group of people who think in a logical way would govern any better than the people who win elections? Don’t hand wave and dismiss all the concerns people have raised in this thread.
The OP answer seems to be that there could be a cultural change so that the non-intellectuals would allow themselves to be led by the elite. But human nature isn’t infinitely malleable. So in a nation ruled by an elite that understands history, the leadership is not going to be dumb enough to make the unfairness so obvious. This is why no good examples can be found of the OP scheme.
P.S. Contemporary Logic might want to study Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew, a good example of a country run by a meritocracy.
I can give a good example of why intellect is not the only ability a good leader needs.
I used to have a supervisor who worked for me. He was a pretty smart and he had a really good knowledge of our policies. But he had almost no leadership ability. He regularly had difficulties getting people to do what he told them.
And his real problem was that he didn’t see this as a problem. His attitude was that he had told people what they were supposed to do. If they then failed to do it, it was on them and not him.
I told him he was wrong. He was a supervisor. His job was not only to know what should be done but to see that it was done. You don’t get any points for having the right answer; you only get points for the final results. (And I’m aware of the irony of the situation. My inability to straighten this guy out was my failure as his supervisor.)
So to bring it back on topic, it’s not enough to have a political leadership full of people who have the right answers. You also need people who will get things done. And oftentimes, logic and reason have nothing to do with getting something done.
I’ve explained how their decisions are likely to produce better outcomes based on their thinking preferences, and the abstract nature of government.
I agree it has been based on poor evidence.
There is no historical precedence that can serve as a comparison for my idea that has been brought to my attention.
This is a strawman and a non-sequitur. I never said, or implied, that leadership was only about those two factors, and my own leadership abilities have nothing to do with the argument.
Sure, if they reaped the benefits of a more utilitarian society; I would expect them to pay taxes.
The problem is their lack of consent in the system in the first place due to their preconceived notions of freedom and democracy, and reasonable distrust in an untried system. That’s what makes the idea apparently unfeasible.
Anyway, if the OP thinks better governance is attainable by only letting smart people vote, the solution isn’t to disenfranchise dumb people, it’s to improve education to turn dumb people into smart people.
First thing, dump all that creationist bullshit. In fact, dump religion altogether. This will probably have a similar effect to reducing the amount of lead in the environment.
There are rational minds who make good leaders, and rational minds who make bad leaders, but a rational leader is always better than an irrational leader. The idea is that the leaders will make it to the top and get elected; Just like they do now, and I can absolutely promise you the system wouldn’t be perfect.
I agree. But I think it’s important that “education” be interpreted in a very broad sense that means more than just formal schooling. Political discourse and the general flow of information informing popular views on major issues have been deeply poisoned by an extreme bias manufactured by those who control the messages. If Exxon want to drill on certain lands regardless of environmental consequences, or BP wants to drill offshore without adequate safeguards, or the coal industry wants to promote more coal burning for power plants, or someone else wants to do more fracking, and a small group of scientists think these are all very, very bad ideas, whose message is the public overwhelmingly going to hear?
Or how about tax policy? Never mind recent tax cuts for the rich – top executive salaries have skyrocketed to the moon in the many decades since maximum marginal tax rates were drastically cut. Is there anything to show for it in terms of productivity? The middle class is hurting more than ever, yet enough of the middle class thinks all these things are terrific that they keep electing lunatics who espouse all those policies. Why is that?
The meritocracy thing is an interesting academic discussion, though. It just ain’t gonna happen. Public education – in the sense of the public being not just smarter but more generally informed – is what has to happen. Then hopefully they’ll elect politicians who have more than two brain cells to rub together and who demonstrate at least some consideration for the public interest instead of being total corporate sellouts.
No…I am advancing the hypothesis that the cumulative effects of everyone having a stake in society and its decisions outstrip the effects of the difference between good and less good decisions.
I think history in general supports this.
Many were. That anecdote is intended to illustrate that intelligence and common sense is not the same thing, and they are not necessarily linked.
My point is that I think letting everyone have a say in matters that affect, sometimes very heavily affect, their lives has cumulative effects through the entire society that seems to yield far more utilitarian results than changes in the people at the top.
Indeed. I was very careful to say “more like” a sociopath, than someone sociopathic When dealing with large numbers though, you’d probably be increasing the number of actual sociopaths in government. Although I’ve read a sociopath argue that being the leaders and the ones who makes the hard, calculated decisions is the sociopaths role in society.
However, intelligence does include the ability to override what seems intuitive conclusions on reflection. This ability however, comes with a bug: It also lets one short-circuit common sense when the reasoning is erroneous.
Emotional thinking does provide a certain compassionate auxiliary circuit-breaker on these things. Meaning that if the intellectual reasoning does go wrong, it could go far more wrong than the more emphatic reasoning, which comes with more safeties.
So are you arguing that we should restrict the people who can run for office or the people who can vote? It’s not clear that you’re making a distinction.
Leaders who make it to the top, whether you’re dealing with the intelligentsia or the hoi polloi, are going to be people who can appeal to emotion. Every voting base can be motivated by emotion no matter how rational they appear on the surface. I don’t believe it will be possible to eliminate that from the equation, and all you will have done is replace one set of invested citizens with a much smaller, much less diverse one.
Because with an aristocracy, there’s no accountability (except to other aristocrats, e.g. the Cultural Revolution or various civil wars between illiberal factions). That’s a recipe for kleptocracy - not lobbying, not Super PACs, not top tax rates being lower than you’d prefer, but straight-up Ferdinand Marcos-style looting of a country.
I’m looking around, and I’m seeing government services that function, business-unfriendly reformlaws being passed, and Congressional seats changing hands. Sure, big business has a disproportionate influence on our system, but they aren’t running things…no one is, frankly.
What accountability could there be, when no one else is permitted to participate in government? Other than being set upon by angry mobs of revolutionaries, I suppose, which is a sort of accountability.
“The oligarchy” didn’t vote those gents into power, so they have nothing to be accountable for. As for how they get votes, I don’t know what to tell you, other than talk more with people who hold right-wing views and try to understand where they’re coming from. For the most part, they just have a different value system than you, they aren’t morons and they aren’t lunatics.
When dealing with large numbers though, you’d probably be increasing the number of actual sociopaths in government. Although I’ve read a sociopath argue that being the leaders and the ones who makes the hard, calculated decisions is the sociopaths role in society.