Profiling leaders.
Let's assume for sake of clarity that no person would want a psychopath or narcissist to be their own leader for the sake of the common good.
Therefore, that points at a certain psychological profile that one ought not have to assume positions of power and influence. (notice the 'not' instead of an ideologically driven affirmative)
Therefore, should a certain battery of tests, that would exclude undesirable traits from potential leaders, be administered to people in positions of power due to that logic?
If all this seems undemocratic, it perhaps is or is it? But, then again we do groom people, through college, military leaders, and so on before they assume positions of power or influence, so why not Presidents and Prime Ministers also?
BTW, I'm not sure if this is more of an ethics or political philosophy discussion.
Therefore, that points at a certain psychological profile that one ought not have to assume positions of power and influence. (notice the 'not' instead of an ideologically driven affirmative)
Therefore, should a certain battery of tests, that would exclude undesirable traits from potential leaders, be administered to people in positions of power due to that logic?
If all this seems undemocratic, it perhaps is or is it? But, then again we do groom people, through college, military leaders, and so on before they assume positions of power or influence, so why not Presidents and Prime Ministers also?
BTW, I'm not sure if this is more of an ethics or political philosophy discussion.
Comments (29)
Political machines can monitor performance and advance leaders up the system, but without a machine the roster of personnel in politics is too fluid.
We could, certainly, require a psychological evaluation of candidates for high public office -- maybe the two presidential candidates (president and vice-president). We would need to agree on what characteristics were really unacceptable. Megalomania is not desirable, but most leaders have at least a mild case, not matter what the field. Narcissism is undesirable, but again, most leaders have at least a modest degree of self-adoration (you just about have to have it). Insensitivity is undesirable, but a certain amount of insensitivity is a desirable feature when it comes to critical negotiations. Psychopathy is mot all or nothing, and many good executives have a modest dose of psychopathy -- it makes it possible for them to carry out unpopular policies with confidence (like laying off 5,000 surplus workers whose labor is no longer needed).
We need to recognize that leaders are both necessary and dangerous.
Most people have at least several minor flaws, and many people -- including famous successful ones -- have several major flaws -- and are none-the-less successful. Look at F. D. Roosevelt. Being confined to a wheelchair was a tremendous political liability (in that time, in that place). Roosevelt's methods of dealing with people could be quite opaque and manipulative. His marriage was not good. He broke a long-standing precedent in running for a third (never mind fourth) term. Was FDR altogether on the level?
John F. Kennedy also had some significant flaws in his health and character; Nixon too. Was Kennedy's many affairs while serving as president (2.7 years) unacceptable? What about his shaky physical health? Nixon? A lot of people loathed Richard M. Nixon for good reason before he became president. Tricky Dick had to assert that "I am not a crook!" Most presidents do not NEED to say such a thing.
Donald Trumps main liability seems to be that he had so little formal political experience before winning the election. But then, Eisenhower didn't have any political experience as such before he became president.
I don't think there is a lack of evidence to dismiss this as a non-issue, speaking about human history. The advent of 'psychopathy' seems to be a recent one. I am not aware of analyzing the psychology of leaders during ancient Greece, until the birth of the field of psychology.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, let me point out again, that I'm not ideologically advocating a certain type of personality, just a personality that does not display undesirable traits.
This is red-herring. We both know, maybe (unfortunately) through personal experience, that some people are just plain wicked or 'evil'.
Quoting Bitter Crank
While, I would like to downplay my own concerns at sabotaging my own thread, I don't think there's a big chance of a 'true' psychopath making his or her way into the office. There's just too much exposure to hide such a fact/trait form plain view, I think. There's always that small chance though...
Just a fun fact that because we didn't have TV's back then his voice was heard through the radio instead. Just thought that was kind of a cool thing to consider.
ALL personalities (everybody) will display undesirable traits at times.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I agree; people who are very psychopathic do not behave normally; they do not display loyalty, stability in projects, long term residence, etc. There psychopathic behaviors make them very poor candidates for public office.
I said a little psychopathy might make someone a more effective executive. The problem comes when there is more than a little psychopathic distortion present, but not enough to be terribly noticeable.
Psychopathy isn't a trait that is expressed sometimes. It's always apparent in all decisions of life.
Trump gets a F60.2 and F03 from most psychiatrists. Is that unfortunate? Yes, so what can we do about it then? I hope not rationalize everything.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, people are really really complex. It's just that if you get a combination of a psychopathic and narcissistic individual, that you end up with really bad consequences. If there would be anything in my life that I would want to leave as a mark on human history, it would be to institute some kind of test to prevent people of such undesirable traits from ever taking office.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, we can indulge in a version of the Sorites paradox; but, we can delineate that there's a line that can be drawn on the matter.
People very much liked listening to him. Radio was relatively new in 1932, and hadn't previously been employed for political purposes to any great extent. When Roosevelt appeared in public (which was fairly often) handlers went to considerable efforts to plan his appearances so that the wheelchair and crutches wouldn't be visible. If Roosevelt had to walk a short distance in public, he was usually leaning heavily on the arm of a strong male assistant. He could stand at a podium and speak, but it required a lot of strain on Roosevelt to hold himself up on his crutches. For a major speech, such as at a political convention, more complicated gear was used to get him to the podium in his wheelchair.
It wasn't a secret that he had had polio, and that he couldn't walk, but he felt it was a PR problem.
Yeah, well... what IS the secret of keeping people like Donald Trump out of office? I don't think he at all psychopathic; he seems to be quite narcissistic, but Trump is also bull headed about what he thinks he knows. The guy isn't well educated, and isn't very interested in learning. He's a stubborn jackass. Hee Haw, Hee Haw. As Martin Luther said back in the early 1500s, "The people are better off being ruled by a smart Turk (or Moslem) than by a dumb Christian." We've got the dumb Christian and a loose cannon -- very bad combo.
An educated electorate.
The number of college educated people has been consistently rising over the past few decades, I'm not sure the same can be said for the quality of our leaders, so the empirical evidence would seem to contradict this theory.
I think this is due to the apparently anti-intellectual sentiment widespread in America.
It would appear that there is a reasonable amount of education in Congress. Donald Trump has a bachelors degree in economics from Wharton School of Business (U Penn).
How so?
It's been covered here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2955/anti-intellectualism-in-america/p1
I'm not sure if you're supporting the theory or opposing it. Are you suggesting that the quality of our leaders has risen because they are well-educated, or are you agreeing that education is not the answer on the grounds that both our leaders and our electorate seem to be increasingly well educated yet still manage to run a country in a manner which is manifestly a shambles.
No, I mean how mechanistically. How does the anti-intellectualism cause the poor quality of leader. Is it that well-educated people vote for idiots because they themselves are ideologically opposed to intellectuals, or is it that well-educated people aren't really well-educated because there are no real intellectuals in colleges any more?
That would be something worthy of a thesis paper on the current socio-economic landscape of political science in the US. I'm afraid I'll have to return to your question in a good while, while I review the linked thread above.
Not to leave you hanging though, my experience at college has been somewhat lackluster in some regards. Critical thinking, or fighting against bias and ignorance, and apparent cult of individualism have been or are guiding values which have been either lackluster and/or rampant. It's fundamentally a problem about the education system itself, which I don't have enough knowledge to even comment on the issue.
I noticed that you posted in that linked thread, have your opinions and beliefs changed on the matter?
No. My only involvement in that thread was to counter @gurugeorge's usual self-martyring racist bullshit, I'm not sure it had any relation to voting behaviour.
My first instinct was to say that that's not education in the relevant sense, but I have another theory, that actually spells out the relevant aspect of education that is lacking.
People vote for arseholes, because they are arseholes. That's democratic representation at work.
That should be on the front of every political science textbook... And then all the other pages blank.
So, you have a situation where intellectuals are dismissed on the basis of being against progress and growth, because they themselves cannot agree on what path is best to achieve it (or not again).
So, therefore, intellectualism is dismissed on grounds of being anti-(growth and progress).
Did I get it right?
So, in other words, the interests of the intellectuals will never align with our own (because they don't value what we do) so we must bash them into oblivion.
The system is an arsehole created by arseholes educated to be arseholes.
I digress.
Just re-read the thread, and I feel that we need to make a blanket ban on any topics trying to draw any racially or gender based correlations between IQ and gender or race. Phew!
I believe we already have a ban on racist posts, but obviously no-one wants to be too heavy-handed so some sail a little close to the wind but remain. My main complaint about that particular exchange though was the idea that people like Charles Murray and Jordan Peterson are being 'slienced'. Both have lucrative publishing contracts and Peterson is barely out of the media for five minutes. If that's what they think silencing is, I dread to think what sort of coverage the unsilenced versions would get.
"Education" (h.s. diploma, b.a. degree, ma/phd, etc.) is one feature of the electorate and the elected. A given level of educational attainment means something, but that something might not translate into a well run or badly run civil society.
The U.S. is governed in the interest of the "ruling class" (shorthand for those with the most concentrated political power). Their interests are served quite well, and it isn't a recent development. Most governments are servants of their ruling classes.
One can look at our government as a conspiracy for the interests of the ruling class, and still find room for popular measures. After all, "the people" -- that 85 or 90% who are not and never well be in the ruling class -- need to be kept on board. It's much easier to control a few hundred million people if they think they are beneficiaries of 'the system' than if they feel like victims of a racket.
Quoting Pseudonym
I'm not supporting the theory that 'education' is the critical factor. The critical factor is class loyalty, and 99.9% of all politicians display loyalty to the ruling class. A very large share of the electorate also displays loyalty the ruling class too.
We have had a few episodes in our history where progressives trimmed the claws of the ruling class, and their efforts had enduring benefits. We had a long period of economic expansion after WWII and that was a pleasant experience for most people. But IF you want a country governed in the interests of all the people and not just the ruling class, then you are looking for revolutionary change.