Should Trump and Clinton volunteer to take standardized psychological & neurological tests?

[Bill Angel]

Wouldn't psychological and neurological testing of the candidates give voters a better picture of who they actually are than witnessing them trading barbs and insults in their interviews, speeches, and Twitter posts?

[iNow]

People can and often do lie on self-report measures

[Bill Angel]

People can and often do lie on self-report measures

True. But some of the tests evaluate one's problem-solving ability and also one's ability to concentrate. Also, there's been speculation about whether or not Ronald Reagan exhibited some signs of Alzheimer's disease while he was still serving as President.

[iNow]

Do you believe tests of competence really matter to the electorate? If so, I'd question why given current circumstances.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure the tests would tell me anything I don't already know.

[ajb]

I also question if the typical member of the public would understand the results of tests.

[John Cuthber]

If we are telling them to get tested, it's hardly voluntary.

[geordief]

I would have thought Trump in particular was pretty easy to fathom without the need for "expert" evaluation

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36935175

 

Anyone still unsure may need to take the test themselves.

Edited July 31, 2016 by geordief

[DrmDoc]

I'm not sure the tests would tell me anything I don't already know.

 

I couldn't agree more; our candidates have already shown us who they are. Our only remaining opposition is to choose the lesser of what many of us consider two evils.

Edited July 31, 2016 by DrmDoc

[ajb]

Our only remaining opposition is to choose the lesser of what many of us consider two evils.

Democracy has always been like that - nothing new in this years US elections in this respect.

[Airbrush]

Yes please test candidates in every conceivable way. It is better to know more about them than not enough.

[iNow]

Yes please test candidates in every conceivable way.

Like in the thunderdome, or like their pH balance or something?

[DrmDoc]

Like in the thunderdome, or like their pH balance or something?

I believe Airbrush said "every conceivable way", which I presume includes Rorschach tests and rectal exams, saliva, stool and urine samples.

Edited August 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

Fertility, allergies, vision, hearing, liver function, 100 meter dash, flight simulator performance, 10 meter dive, skeet shooting, cosmetology, and watermelon seed spitting are all clearly relevant, too.

[MigL]

You might have some difficulty giving H. Clinton a rectal exam.

She's a bit of a 'tight-ass'.

( she should have a little more fun, like her husband does )

[DrmDoc]

Fertility, allergies, vision, hearing, liver function, 100 meter dash, flight simulator performance, 10 meter dive, skeet shooting, cosmetology, and watermelon seed spitting are all clearly relevant, too.

Rhythmic swimming, flame jugging, nose balancing, and ice sculpting...maybe...but cosmetology? Inconceivable!

[Delta1212]

Rhythmic swimming, flame jugging, nose balancing, and ice sculpting...maybe...but cosmetology? Inconceivable!

Just imagine, our next President sits down with Kim Jong Un in a landmark negotiation. In a surprising move, Un opens by offering to dismantle the entire North Korean nuclear arsenal, step down as the head of government and allow the reunification of North and South Korea, but his one non-negotiable stipulation for doing all of this is that the President has to fix his hair so it doesn't look so stupid before they leave the negotiating table that day.

 

Wouldn't you want to know whether we had a President who was capable of taking advantage of such an unprecedented opportunity in the event that it arises?

[Airbrush]

Ok, tested in every conceivable but relevant way and relevancy is determined by a panel of experts who also may be elected to their position.

 

My belief is the office of president should not be a voluntary position. It should be more like jury duty. The most able candidates should be drafted into running out of a pool of well-qualified persons who originally had no aspirations to politics. But because they are very brilliant and of good temperament they can be ENCOURAGED to study for the presidency.

 

Anyone who originally WANTS to be president is nuts, power-hungry, and should be suspect. Being president is a very serious matter and hopefuls should be vetted thoroughly. They must join a prep school for future presidents which educates and eliminates undesirables (based on objective, generally-agreed on criteria and that criteria can be the result of a vote). The surviving candidates eventually will become enthusiastic about being president because it pays well and other perks, but many undesirables are voted out during the training. Like a boot camp for presidents. In the boot camp they are all thoroughly educated in economics, politics, history, science and all subjects that are important for a president, so you don't end up ONLY with people like Trump or Hillary.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Airbrush

[DrmDoc]

Just imagine, our next President sits down with Kim Jong Un in a landmark negotiation. In a surprising move, Un opens by offering to dismantle the entire North Korean nuclear arsenal, step down as the head of government and allow the reunification of North and South Korea, but his one non-negotiable stipulation for doing all of this is that the President has to fix his hair so it doesn't look so stupid before they leave the negotiating table that day.

 

Wouldn't you want to know whether we had a President who was capable of taking advantage of such an unprecedented opportunity in the event that it arises?

 

You have a way of raising very difficult questions? I'm a little conflicted now.

[DrmDoc]

Ok, tested in every conceivable but relevant way and relevancy is determined by a panel of experts who also may be elected to their position.

 

My belief is the office of president should not be a voluntary position. It should be more like jury duty. The most able candidates should be drafted into running out of a pool of well-qualified persons who originally had no aspirations to politics. But because they are very brilliant and of good temperament they can be ENCOURAGED to study for the presidency.

 

Anyone who originally WANTS to be president is nuts, power-hungry, and should be suspect. Being president is a very serious matter and hopefuls should be vetted thoroughly. They must join a prep school for future presidents which educates and eliminates undesirables (based on objective, generally-agreed on criteria and that criteria can be the result of a vote). The surviving candidates eventually will become enthusiastic about being president because it pays well and other perks, but many undesirables are voted out during the training. Like a boot camp for presidents. In the boot camp they are all thoroughly educated in economics, politics, history, science and all subjects that are important for a president, so you don't end up ONLY with people like Trump or Hillary.

 

I think the kind of regimented process you're suggesting here is more likely to produce a horde of prep school Manchurian candidates rather than individuals clearly for the will of the people. As long as the people are properly educated and well informed, I think the process we have in place works fine--with the exception of the Electoral College, which is in present times superfluous.

Edited August 9, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Airbrush]

Not Manchurian candidates because the training of future presidents could be rigorous and TOTALLY transparent for that reason. There would be a governing board of educators who are members of all political parties determining a balanced, neutral, impartial studies of subjects that are important to a president. The candidates would be under surveillance at all times and they are aware of it since the pay is very good and perks are nice too. Basically you are trying to get rid of all the Hitler's, Musolini's, Mao's, Stalin's and Trumps.

[DrmDoc]

Not Manchurian candidates because the training of future presidents could be rigorous and TOTALLY transparent for that reason. There would be a governing board of educators who are members of all political parties determining a balanced, neutral, impartial studies of subjects that are important to a president. The candidates would be under surveillance at all times and they are aware of it since the pay is very good and perks are nice too. Basically you are trying to get rid of all the Hitler's, Musolini's, Mao's, Stalin's and Trumps.

 

You seem to be endorsing a directed indoctrination to the political process devised to produce an elite political class, which doesn't work well in a democracy, in my opinion. I think what you're proposing could easily become a kind of military school for politicians, which could potentially produce an egomaniacal and elitist class of individuals skilled in ways of public manipulation and deception. What we have in place--college level political science courses--is all the training I think the politically ambitious requires. It's up to the public to participate in the election process by educating themselves on the issues and the politicians pressing their votes.

Edited August 9, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Delta1212]

I think you're going to have a difficult time managing to simultaneously get only people who don't particularly want to be President and a grueling, hellish process that will weed out anyone who isn't really dedicated to completing it unless forced to do so.

 

The people who legitimately don't want to be president are going to drop out of the program you described very, very quickly.

 

You cannot select people who don't want the job and then motivate them after their selection to want the job through the perks of having the job. Presumably the perks would be known about ahead of time, and therefore anyone who would be motivated by those perks would already want to be the president to begin with.

 

Then you run into the problem of who, exactly, gets into the pool in the first place. How are you selecting these unambitious, well-tempered geniuses? How are they evaluated as they progress through the program? Who decides who gets eliminated and who goes on?

[Airbrush]

Talent scouts go to universities and ask for a list of their outstanding students. The selection committee strives for the widest range of talent of all ethnic groups as well as men and women. Transparency is of the utmost. Maybe even the public gets to vote on which students get selected for presidency boot camp. It would work like "Dancing With The Stars" where the public is encouraged to vote, to avoid a fine, and a committee of experts in economics, political science, physical sciences, and martial arts.

[Delta1212]

Why martial arts?