psychological tests for politicians

[gib65]

What do you think of this idea?

 

Although I'll describe this concept in terms of the US system, it could apply to any democracy. Why not make it mandatory that before anyone gets to run for president he/she must take a psychological test that measures leadership qualities and skills, and the results of the test must be made public. At first, it may sound like this is an infringement against the right to run for president and an invasion of privacy, but when you think about it, running for president is still a choice any candidate to make freely knowing full well that he/she must take this test, and regardless of the results of the test, the candidate can still run - nothing's stopping him/her.

 

The upside is that voters would be more informed about who they're voting for, and it would pull in more candidates who truly feel qualified and confident that they would pass the test. And as I said, nothing's stopping them from running, even after they take the test and possibly fail miserably, although if they did fail miserably, they'd be more likely to withdraw before election day. When it comes to selecting a good leader to guide your country into this brave new world, testing for their leadership qualities isn't something to be taken lightly.

 

The only drawback I can see to this is that there are not a lot of people who deem psychological tests as reliable. Psychology is not an exact science, and this would be true in this case as well. But most psychological tests which are used today have a fairly high level of reliability (often greater than 98%) and there is no reason a leadership test (or maybe even the MMPI) couldn't be tweaked to achieve a reliability measure of this degree. Besides, as I said, you're electing the leader of your country, so you'd want something that would give you more certainty that empty campaign promises.

[reverse]

Well...

in a way, the screening process for a candidate in the US is way more stringent than any psi test.

 

no way is old money going to back a nutter.

 

it's a bad investment.

 

PS:

Who was that president that liked to wear a dress....

he did a pretty good job didn’t he...?

(and he cut a mighty fine figure in a ball gown).

[husmusen]

I strongly doubt you could design a psych test that could stand up

to the concerted efforts of hunderds of psychologists and millions

of election dollars to crack it.

 

Cheers

[JohnB]

I thought psy testing only worked on sentient beings?

[In My Memory]

Gib,

 

What do you think of this idea?

 

Although I'll describe this concept in terms of the US system' date=' it could apply to any democracy. Why not make it mandatory that before anyone gets to run for president he/she must take a psychological test that measures leadership qualities and skills, and the results of the test must be made public. At first, it may sound like this is an infringement against the right to run for president and an invasion of privacy, but when you think about it, running for president is still a choice any candidate to make freely knowing full well that he/she must take this test, and regardless of the results of the test, the candidate can still run - nothing's stopping him/her.

 

The upside is that voters would be more informed about who they're voting for, and it would pull in more candidates who truly feel qualified and confident that they would pass the test. And as I said, nothing's stopping them from running, even after they take the test and possibly fail miserably, although if they did fail miserably, they'd be more likely to withdraw before election day. When it comes to selecting a good leader to guide your country into this brave new world, testing for their leadership qualities isn't something to be taken lightly.[/quote']

I dont think many people wouldnt take well to this idea - even if its perfectly sound.

 

The idea feels too much like setting up an aristocracy, or lends itself to dividing people sharply into two classes, perhaps a small elite ruling class and a much larger but disenfranchised servent class. And I think people would be absolutely frightened by this idea if it were implimented on how well candidates perform on an IQ or competency test or similar.

[Coral Rhedd]

A basic IQ test would be reasonable. For the highest job in a nation, I think an IQ of at least 110 should be required.

 

In the U.S., for instance, such a requirement would probably have allowed us to avoid some our current embarrassments. You run into real problems when the electorate doesn't want a president smarter than the average Joe or Jane.

[Phi for All]

I think a psych test would be new grounds for mudslinging and smear tactics. They can imply things that any political strategist would manipulate and take out of context. Good idea in theory, bad idea in practice, imo.

Who was that president that liked to wear a dress....

he did a pretty good job didn’t he...?

(and he cut a mighty fine figure in a ball gown).

Are you thinking of J. Edgar Hoover? He was Director of the FBI. And he didn't have the figure for a really nice ball gown. Not a backless one anyway.

[Coral Rhedd]

Are you thinking of J. Edgar Hoover? He was Director of the FBI. And he didn't have the figure for a really nice ball gown. Not a backless one anyway.

 

I feel sorry for men like that. Their fashion choices are sooo limited.

 

Actually, the psych test thing could present some problems. It is time we realized that we all probably fit somewhere in the DSM. And if eliminate possible presidents who are sociopaths, we will find the remaining pool sadly limited.

[Pangloss]

Hehe, it would be interesting to see extremists on both sides having fits of apoplexy if someone were to seriously suggest an IQ test for the Presidency.

 

But I'm afraid you'll never get folks to agree on the parameters.

 

I also think it's way off to think that an intelligence requirement will help you "avoid some our current embarrassments", as Coral put it. I can understand the sentiment, but most of what happens in legislation and foreign policy has very little to do with intelligence, even when perfectly intelligent people are in charge. Politics, sad to say, is not a matter of logic. It's a matter of salesmanship and marketing.

 

I think Bush's IQ is well over 110, by the way (not that you claimed otherwise, Coral, I'm just throwing it out there). It's not a linear progression, so that's not really saying a whole lot -- I'm not exactly mounting a major defense of Mr. Bush here in saying that. ;-)

[Phi for All]

I feel sorry for men like that. Their fashion choices are sooo limited.

And they rarely have any concept of proper accessorizing. It's always taffeta, stiletto heels and a beaded clutch. Gah.

And if eliminate possible presidents who are sociopaths, we will find the remaining pool sadly limited.

This is the really unfortunate truth of our present system. I think the only solution is mandatory service, with psych test, based on qualifications chosen by representatives who are also forced to serve. The best leaders wouldn't touch politics without such a system.

[Skye]

Just because a guy can work when a train leaving Startsville at 3:42 at 42 mph will arrive at Endtown which is 32,600 feet away, doesn't mean he can make the trains run on time.

[Coral Rhedd]

Hehe' date=' it would be interesting to see extremists on both sides having fits of apoplexy if someone were to seriously suggest an IQ test for the Presidency.

 

But I'm afraid you'll never get folks to agree on the parameters.

 

I also think it's way off to think that an intelligence requirement will help you "avoid some our current embarrassments", as Coral put it. I can understand the sentiment, but most of what happens in legislation and foreign policy has very little to do with intelligence, even when perfectly intelligent people are in charge. Politics, sad to say, is not a matter of logic. It's a matter of salesmanship and marketing.

 

I think Bush's IQ is well over 110, by the way (not that you claimed otherwise, Coral, I'm just throwing it out there). It's not a linear progression, so that's not really saying a whole lot -- I'm not exactly mounting a major defense of Mr. Bush here in saying that. ;-)[/quote']

 

Well "salesmanship and marketing" benefit from a leader with a good verbal IQ at least. Thank God for Karl Rove.

 

I know you are not about to launch a major defense on Mr. Bush. You will do that when cows fly.

 

(BTW, did you see the excellent article on how schools cheat the system in the latest issue of Reason?)

[Coral Rhedd]

And they rarely have any concept of proper accessorizing. It's always taffeta' date=' stiletto heels and a beaded clutch. Gah.

This is the really unfortunate truth of our present system. I think the only solution is mandatory service, with psych test, based on qualifications chosen by representatives who are also forced to serve. The best leaders wouldn't touch politics without such a system.[/quote']

 

You seem stable and intelligent.

 

How about Phi for President? It has a certain ring to it.

[Mokele]

The only way I could see it being introduced is if one candidate voluntarily took a battery of psych tests and submitted to analysis, the publicly displayed the results, saying something to the effect of "I'm putting all my cards on the table, now let's see my opponent do the same. Or does he have something to hide?"

 

I can't imagine it being used outside of a cheap political trick, though.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

(BTW' date=' did you see the excellent article on how schools cheat the system in the latest issue of [i']Reason[/i]?)

 

No, do tell.

[Phi for All]

You seem stable and intelligent.

 

How about Phi for President? It has a certain ring to it.

We'd all like to think we would be the first ones not to be affected by the absolute power. We'd end the corruption and the pork barrel practices and the elitism.

 

Then the reality of 230 years of Beltway brawls runs up hard against your measly 4-year term. Sorry, my 10-foot pole is in the shop.

 

One president can't make the changes necessary. Maybe we should give the psych test to all the people who don't vote but get hurt by a system they feel powerless to change. Or the voters who really care about an independent candidate but don't vote for him/her because they don't want to throw their vote away. They're the real whackos.