A 'Test' for Politians?

[aguy2]

The Scienctologists call it being 'clear', psychiatists call it being 'sociopathic', some primative theists might call it being 'souless', but no matter what you might call it, it seems to be a condition that can be physically tested for. These people have a high propensity to be opportunistic at best. Why not ask all our pols. to take "The Test", before we see fit to give them positions of leadership and power?

aguy2

[the tree]

Because it assumes that people don't want sociopaths in goverment, making such an assumption would mean doing away with all the current attempts at being democratic.

[aguy2]

Because it assumes that people don't want sociopaths in goverment, making such an assumption would mean doing away with all the current attempts at being democratic.

Are you confusing 'demo-cratic' with 'demon-cratic'?

aguy2

[Mokele]

Why not ask all our pols. to take "The Test", before we see fit to give them positions of leadership and power?

 

Because then we wouldn't have anyone qualified to run for office who actually wanted the job.

[bascule]

I'm all for a meritocracy.

 

Because then we wouldn't have anyone qualified to run for office who actually wanted the job.

 

Bwahaha

[ParanoiA]

These people have a high propensity to be opportunistic at best. Why not ask all our pols. to take "The Test", before we see fit to give them positions of leadership and power?

aguy2

 

Because then we wouldn't have anyone qualified to run for office who actually wanted the job.

 

So why not a draft?

[padren]

So why not a draft?

 

If the politicians don't want to be there but are forced to by law, what law do you think would be the first one they'd repeal?

[aguy2]

If the politicians don't want to be there but are forced to by law, what law do you think would be the first one they'd repeal?

 

I was going to congratulate ParanoiA on beating me to the punch, when your post came up and devastated the idea.

 

I certainly don't blame either of you for your cynicism, concidering the current American political situation, but seriously, the positions I am talking about still pay rather well and confer a lot of social status to there holders.

 

Honestly though, don't you think that if we collectively have the ways and means of seeing that consciousless opportunists never achieve positions of public trust, we are being utter fools not to do so?

aguy2

[padren]

I was going to congratulate ParanoiA on beating me to the punch, when your post came up and devastated the idea.

 

I certainly don't blame either of you for your cynicism, concidering the current American political situation, but seriously, the positions I am talking about still pay rather well and confer a lot of social status to there holders.

 

Honestly though, don't you think that if we collectively have the ways and means of seeing that consciousless opportunists never achieve positions of public trust, we are being utter fools not to do so?

aguy2

 

I agree whole heartedly that better oversight is a positive thing. I think the best question we can ask is why are those we consider qualified are unwilling to enter government?

 

I think it may be that it is that its hard to compete and accomplish anything through all the opportunists without becoming one. Right now its the sort of candidate we don't like that is best suited to survive in that environment, and we are trying to change the environment by inserting a different candidate that is best suited to survive in the environment we want to create.

 

We need to change the environment and who we bring into it at the same time, but its incredibily hard when there is so much disagreement in politics. Its like having millions of heart surgeons who all disagree on the method trying to perform surgery on the same patient in realtime.

[the tree]

Are you confusing 'demo-cratic' with 'demon-cratic'?

Democracy is where things are decided by the people (hence, demo), if they were decided by a test it would be a tentocracy (possibly, my Latin isn't that great), a very different concept indeed.

A demoncratic system would presumably have things decided by vampires and the like which would be a fair bit closer to democracy, sort of.

I'm not the biggest fan of democracy, but I'd much prefer it to testing.

[iglak]

Are you confusing 'demo-cratic' with 'demon-cratic'?

aguy2

not unless you don't consider sociopaths to be humans beings.

and even then, you'd have to not even consider them as logic-using machines to want them out of democracy.

 

how is it physically tested for anyway? i was under the impression that it was mainly mental.

[JohnB]

A demoncratic system would presumably have things decided by vampires

Aren't they already working for the Tax Office?

 

Unfortunately the question as always is "How do you get an honest man out of a competition that only cheats can win?"

 

The idea of a draft has been put forward before. Let's face it, pollies aren't the brightest crayons in the box so the job can't be that hard. 27 out of 29 ALP Senators before the last election had never held a job outside the Unions or the Party so real life experience can't count for much. Why not a random draw of Drivers Licences or some such? The person is in for say 4 years and then never serves again.

 

An old Hungarian gentleman once put to me another proposal which I think has some merit. He suggested taking all the politicians, lining them up against a wall and then shooting every second one. Then tell them to get back to work or there will be another line-up in a month.

[aguy2]

I agree whole heartedly that better oversight is a positive thing.

I want to make it clear that I am not talking about coercive psycholgical testing, but giving the pols a clear indication, through the auspices of the vote, that if they want to 'stand a snowball's chance in hell' of getting elected they had better present the electorate with certified 'clean bill of health' in regards to their being a possible 'sociopathic opportunist'.

 

I think the best question we can ask is why are those we consider qualified are unwilling to enter government.

If the field is not rife with 'sociopathic opportunists' it would be highly likely that people truely qualified to lead and wield power would find the field more attractive.

 

We need to change the environment and who we bring into it at the same time, but its incredibily hard when there is so much disagreement in politics. Its like having millions of heart surgeons who all disagree on the method trying to perform surgery on the same patient in realtime.

 

Realtime disagreement and the natural 'give and take' of politics would not go away, but the quality and worthiness of the various contenders could rise dramatically.

aguy2

[D H]

We already have tests that aspiring politicians must pass. They are called "elections". I certainly would not want a system by which politicians have to pass some 'sociopathic opportunist' bill of health test to be in office.

 

Some questions:

What exactly is a sociopathic opportunist?

 

Who is more exemplary of a sociopathic opportunist, Rush Limbaugh or George Soros?

 

Who writes the test?

 

How would such a system differ from what the Soviet Union had?

[Edtharan]

Actullay Sociopaths are quite prevalent in to0p administrative positions (not just in politics), infact they have a name: "Corporate Sociaopaths" as that is where they are ususally found. The requierments for these job and the roles the have to perform are well suited to that personality type.

 

Someone without the sociopathis trend, one who can empathise with the emploees, might find it very difficult to fire many people (if the survival of the is at stake for instance). These non sociopaths might start thinking about how these people will survive without a job, etc. With sociopaths, these feeling don't have as high an importance (its what defines them sociopths).

 

I think non sociaopaths would be able to do those jobs, and might be able to make better decisions in certain circumstances, but not nessesarily in all situations (or even the majority).

[D H]

That is what I thought.

 

No way do I want such a test. That term (corporate sociopath) is a left wing catch phrase. The only people who would pass your test are the fellow travelers on the left.

[ParanoiA]

If the politicians don't want to be there but are forced to by law, what law do you think would be the first one they'd repeal?

 

Not if it was included as an amendment. That would take too much effort to change. Not to mention, how many folks really wouldn't like it, or at least appreciate it? Jury duty sucks, but I wouldn't repeal the whole concept if given the opportunity either.

 

I would demand a better compensation system. I believe that would be key to keeping the institution.

 

I think you can have a draft without fear of repealing said draft by draftees.

[ParanoiA]

I certainly don't blame either of you for your cynicism, concidering the current American political situation, but seriously, the positions I am talking about still pay rather well and confer a lot of social status to there holders.

 

A co-worker said it best, but I don't remember exactly how he put it. Something to the effect of, the fact that more money is spent on getting the job, than the salary of the job position ought to tell you something.

 

Honestly though, don't you think that if we collectively have the ways and means of seeing that consciousless opportunists never achieve positions of public trust, we are being utter fools not to do so?

 

I agree with you. But the major majority of americans do not. We get the government we deserve. Americans demand liars and salesmen to be leaders, because only liars and salesmen can be shallow enough to appease the ruling pop culture without revealing they're human.

 

When I saw John Edwards take a media beating and get relegated to vice presidential status for candidacy, all because he got a little excited and screamed "beeyow!!" in a motivational speech - I knew this would never change. Americans are just not real deep, ya know?

 

We apparently will always want "consciousless opportunists" in "positions of public trust".

[ParanoiA]

Actullay Sociopaths are quite prevalent in to0p administrative positions (not just in politics), infact they have a name: "Corporate Sociaopaths" as that is where they are ususally found. The requierments for these job and the roles the have to perform are well suited to that personality type.

 

Someone without the sociopathis trend, one who can empathise with the emploees, might find it very difficult to fire many people (if the survival of the is at stake for instance). These non sociopaths might start thinking about how these people will survive without a job, etc. With sociopaths, these feeling don't have as high an importance (its what defines them sociopths).

 

I think non sociaopaths would be able to do those jobs, and might be able to make better decisions in certain circumstances, but not nessesarily in all situations (or even the majority).

 

Well, we need corporate sociopaths then. People don't go into business to provide jobs. People go into business to make money. Jobs are a by product of sucessful business trying to grow.

 

So, a non-sociopath who worries about how folks are going to survive without this job when they lay them off, may not make that decision, despite the necessity. The business could then suffer more long term damage as a result of keeping them on, thereby putting the entire workerbase in jeopardy, to the point the entire business sinks. Then everybody there doesn't have a job - rather than the prefered logical smaller number of folks initially on the chopping block.

 

I say this from the perpective of a white collar computer corporate peon that is to be displaced or terminated anytime now.

 

There's nothing cute and cuddley about business. So people who are concerned with feelings and guilt don't do well in it. They cause more harm than good because it's not in the design.

 

This would be like meat-eating predators in the wild suddenly being morally righteous and converting to herbivores...

[Dak]

So why not a draft?

 

athens did something similar for a period, herding random bypassers into 'congress' to vote on the political issues, with fines for anyone who tried to avoid the hearding (wp has a good article, iirc).

 

another option, given that democracy is supposed to be rule by the commoners, would maybe be to have a random selection of random people, who are funded to run for office?

 

that way, people like you or i -- as opposed to rich people with supporters in industry or the majour political parties -- could get a chance to run for office.

[aguy2]

A co-worker said it best, but I don't remember exactly how he put it. Something to the effect of, the fact that more money is spent on getting the job, than the salary of the job position ought to tell you something.

 

 

 

I agree with you. But the major majority of americans do not. We get the government we deserve. Americans demand liars and salesmen to be leaders, because only liars and salesmen can be shallow enough to appease the ruling pop culture without revealing they're human.

 

When I saw John Edwards take a media beating and get relegated to vice presidential status for candidacy, all because he got a little excited and screamed "beeyow!!" in a motivational speech - I knew this would never change. Americans are just not real deep, ya know?

 

We apparently will always want "consciousless opportunists" in "positions of public trust".

 

I tend to use the term, "we get the government we deserve" quite a bit myself. You could very well be right, but I would think that even the public act of examining ways and means of altering the terrain of the political field, would be a sign of political health, and would in of itself make us more 'deserving' of a descent, rational, and effective government.

aguy2

[ParanoiA]

I tend to use the term, "we get the government we deserve" quite a bit myself. You could very well be right, but I would think that even the public act of examining ways and means of altering the terrain of the political field, would be a sign of political health, and would in of itself make us more 'deserving' of a descent, rational, and effective government.

aguy2

 

I would be inclined to agree, however it just seems like treating the symptoms. I'm more motivated by the idea of the mindless oblivious pop culture elite deciding that voting isn't cool anymore, and just stop altogether. If all the stupid people who don't care stay away from the polls because Supernova said "voting sucks!" - then maybe we'll have a better chance at getting a decent candidate elected.

[padren]

Not if it was included as an amendment. That would take too much effort to change. Not to mention, how many folks really wouldn't like it, or at least appreciate it? Jury duty sucks, but I wouldn't repeal the whole concept if given the opportunity either.

 

I would demand a better compensation system. I believe that would be key to keeping the institution.

 

I think you can have a draft without fear of repealing said draft by draftees.

 

I disagree because if you put these people in the position to apply force to the law, the law will bend towards their will over time.

 

 

And as for as how many folks wouldn't like it - I can imagine myself dealing with a political opponent, trying to blackmail me with a smear campaign of completely irrelevant issues in my personal life or those of my loved ones if I don't roll over for some bill I am morally obligated to oppose.

 

Dealing with people who would oppose what I support on the principle of my failing to support some other innoviative the party supported even though they would have supported idea if it stood by itself...then having to dirty myself by scratching their backs just to get what I believe in through.

 

 

Yeah, who would want to pass that life? I'm much more optimistic about working my way up to "excentic billionaire" and using the old fashioned tool of lobbying to try to get the changes I want to see happen in the world.

 

 

I do think the political system needs to be improved, but it will be via a number of small incremental changes fought for tooth and nail, which will change the nature of the evironment from being sociopath-friendly to intellectual-friendly.

 

 

The first thing I think would help would be a one-person-one-vote per candidate-slot.

 

IE: if three people ran for President, you could vote for two because you want either of them to win. It would give 3rd party candidates a chance and nullify the "fear vote" of voting for the person you hate the least that has the best chance of voting for the person you hate the most.

 

It would also seriously change the strength of the two parties, which I think would be positive impacts.

 

Now, not everyone would agree with me and even something this small would have serious impacts on the whole system. How could something even this small ever be implemented, or any other idea with a similar impact? There is too much fear of introducing untested changes to improve the system that we end up with the same old system year in and year out.

[ParanoiA]

Well, I guess I've always envisioned it with a direct democracy. Legislators become prioritizers and handle the logistics of passing bills while the public votes on them. In that case, you're not so valuable to lobbyists and the like any longer. And the public would have to vote to abolish the system that is allowing them to make the vote to abolish it, if you still try to abolish it.

 

The one-person-one-vote per candidate-slot idea sounds good, or any other kind of weighted system. I believe Australia does something like that. I've always thought that was a cool idea.

 

I also wondered about a hybrid representative-direct democracy with a weighted voting system between the office holder and the public. Each sort of holds the other in check.

[aguy2]

I disagree because if you put these people in the position to apply force to the law, the law will bend towards their will over time.

 

 

And as for as how many folks wouldn't like it - I can imagine myself dealing with a political opponent, trying to blackmail me with a smear campaign of completely irrelevant issues in my personal life or those of my loved ones if I don't roll over for some bill I am morally obligated to oppose.

 

Dealing with people who would oppose what I support on the principle of my failing to support some other innoviative the party supported even though they would have supported idea if it stood by itself...then having to dirty myself by scratching their backs just to get what I believe in through.

 

 

Yeah, who would want to pass that life? I'm much more optimistic about working my way up to "excentic billionaire" and using the old fashioned tool of lobbying to try to get the changes I want to see happen in the world.

 

 

I do think the political system needs to be improved, but it will be via a number of small incremental changes fought for tooth and nail, which will change the nature of the evironment from being sociopath-friendly to intellectual-friendly.

 

 

The first thing I think would help would be a one-person-one-vote per candidate-slot.

 

IE: if three people ran for President, you could vote for two because you want either of them to win. It would give 3rd party candidates a chance and nullify the "fear vote" of voting for the person you hate the least that has the best chance of voting for the person you hate the most.

 

It would also seriously change the strength of the two parties, which I think would be positive impacts.

 

Now, not everyone would agree with me and even something this small would have serious impacts on the whole system. How could something even this small ever be implemented, or any other idea with a similar impact? There is too much fear of introducing untested changes to improve the system that we end up with the same old system year in and year out.

 

Great post! Lots of new, new to me, ideas.

For instance the use of the term 'roll over'. Not 10 minutes before I proposed to my son the use of the term 'no roll overs' in lieu of the coopted term 'defeatest'.

This seems to be the 1st time I have heard the term 'intellectual-friendly terrain' as an alternative to 'sociopathic-friendly terrain'.

I still think that encouraging our pols to present the electorate with a clean medical 'bill of health',in this regards, could be a rational move and very quickly 'doable'.

aguy2