The ivory tower intellectual vs the man on the street

[Boris Godunov]

I think you have some bizarre notions about the Roman Government being suitable to todays world. In many ways, the Roman government was terrible, and I think there is a good reason it is not duplicated in the modern era. It was inadequate then, it is inadequate now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




Yeah, and this proved to be a major disaster in the long run and contributed greatly to the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire. Draining the provinces of wealth to feed the central bureacracy was not a good idea.

I agree. I also think that a major problem was that Senatorial estates were not taxed. As time went on, these expanded at the expense of middle-class estates who did have to pay taxes. These latter, over time, simply donated their land and themselves to the Senators. The process was a downward spiral from the tax base point of view and an upward spiral from a Senator's point of view. Thus was feudalism born.

[Ramo]

Why would more education ever lead to someone being less fit to govern?

The educated tend to be richer than the uneducated, and so tend to use the state to promote their interests at the expense of the poor.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I think you have some bizarre notions about the Roman Government being suitable to todays world. In many ways, the Roman government was terrible, and I think there is a good reason it is not duplicated in the modern era. It was inadequate then, it is inadequate now.

I agree that imperfections in the Roman government contributed to its eventual collapse. But I also submit that there are imperfections in our own system which are causing problems.

Our judiciary is appointed. Appoinments are larglely based on merit. The judges serve for life and for this reason are virually incorruptible. They do not have to stand for re-election. They cannot be fired. They can only be removed if they become corrupt.

But our legislatures are highly corrupt. We today have a lot of problems caused simply by the undue influence of special interests. Their leverage is directly related to the need of politicians to raise a lot of money for re-election. We could reduce corruption simply by making at least one of our legislative bodies a "for life" position such as our judiciary.

I merely suggest that we follow the pattern of Rome by making the Senate a for-life position, composed of ex presidents and ex-governors. In Rome, it was ex magistrates, such as consuls and praetors. But since we have no analog of praetors, I suggest substituting governors.

[Lincoln]

In sumary, well rounded educated people with a broad range of practical experience in the real world often make good leaders. There is nothing wrong with ruling from an ivory tower if you have some idea of what the construction workers went through to build it. In the military the best leaders are those who fought in real battle along with their men. Those fresh out of school are not thought of highly until they have been tested in the real world. In the submarine service we used to throw the newby officers over the side as soon as they came on board. This always had a great effect in teaching humility. When I finally earned my dolphins they threw me over the side as well. It is hard to be proud when you are soaking wet. Here was a typical introduction to a fresh officer that came aboard for the first time:

"Crew, (the captain speaking) I have gathered you together this morning in order to introduce you to ensign Leblanc. He is a line officer commissioned by the United States congress. I expect him to be treated with all of the dignity and honor that can be mustered here for one of America's finest -- throw him over the ****ing side!"

Then we got to grab him by his hands and feet and sling him over the side. This was always great fun especially when you were the one being thrown overboard.

[chequita guevara]

Mmmm, toast.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Lincoln
In sumary, well rounded educated people with a broad range of practical experience in the real world often make good leaders. There is nothing wrong with ruling from an ivory tower if you have some idea of what the construction workers went through to build it. In the military the best leaders are those who fought in real battle along with their men. Those fresh out of school are not thought of highly until they have been tested in the real world. In the submarine service we used to throw the newby officers over the side as soon as they came on board. This always had a great effect in teaching humility. When I finally earned my dolphins they threw me over the side as well. It is hard to be proud when you are soaking wet. Here was a typical introduction to a fresh officer that came aboard for the first time:

"Crew, (the captain speaking) I have gathered you together this morning in order to introduce you to ensign Leblanc. He is a line officer commissioned by the United States congress. I expect him to be treated with all of the dignity and honor that can be mustered here for one of America's finest -- throw him over the ****ing side!"

Then we got to grab him by his hands and feet and sling him over the side. This was always great fun especially when you were the one being thrown overboard.

More soviet propaganda confirmed true

[Japher]

never let schooling interfere with your education

[Roland]

Originally posted by Ned


Roland, should be the same test in Austria.

We should have english tests before we are allowed to vote ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland


We should have english tests before we are allowed to vote ?

Only half in jest, Roland. I actually think Europe needs to settle on one language to foster a union. English, of course, is my preferred choice. One way to incent this is to limit the right to vote in any EU elections (do you have the right to vote for something in the EU, right?) to those who pass a test in English.

[Roland]

English as lingua franca is good enough. No need for "one language". Next thing is one Volk, one Reich, one Führer... ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I find this discussion a little bit bizarre. Why would more education ever lead to someone being less fit to govern? Clearly the better educated someone is the more knowledge they can draw from and the more logic they can apply to the problems they face. This can only be a good thing.

What (I think) some of you are really trying to say is that the people who have gone to the lengths to achieve their place in their 'ivory towers' are not necessarily well suited to govern because of the other effects that education has had.

First of all, it is a filtering mechanism. People who do well academically are often people who have put all their time into their studies and therefore may lack social skills or social awareness. That is, they may be the steriotypical nerds, out of touch with the 'common man'.

Also, by being firmly ensconced in academia, they may move in circles which are somewhat different from those of the 'common man'. For example, they may never have experienced the hardships that poverty causes or seen the effects of drug abuse first hand etc. This may leave them in a poor position for governance.

However, while I admit that this may be true for some academics it is not universal. There are plenty of academics who have plenty of experience of life, who have great social skills and who would make excellent leaders. To say that all academics are so socially handicapped is steriotyping in its crudest form, and (speaking as an academic) is frankly insulting. It is just as bad as saying that the man on the street is universally ignorant, greedy and selfish.

I don't think that the people who we elect to govern should necessarily have knowledge of 'abstract nonsense' since it does not necessarily help them govern, but they should certainly not be excluded for knowing about such things. They should instead be chosen by how much relevant experience and knowledge they have - however that is measured - and the most capable chosen irrespective of social class.

I agree that an education should not be construed as a negative factor. However as with most things, without other experiences as a framework to give it context, it is pretty much useless. The lack of connection to the real world by so many social theorists has in fact been the kernel at the center of a lot of misery and destruction, especially in the last century. A lot of social theorists have been very good at knowing what people want, and very bad at delivering it.

A politician works within a series of complex systems. These systems do not fit neatly into any sort of simple mathematical principles (by definition) or social theories.
Politics is best viewed as an art, simply because it is so hard to apply most current science to complex systems. This is changing to some extent, though as yet what is best explained about complex systems through mathematics is a quantification of just how hard it would be to make an accurate prediction of the results of a particular action. Science is not useless here, but it as yet cannot provide the sort of certainty that one expects from the simple systems that have provided so much of the technological advancement of the past 500 years.

Politics is an art, and many of the best artists are not formally trained. Just as a formal education should be no impediment to public service, a lack of a formal education should likewise not imply a lack of ability. I think that presently the system if anything benefits the educated far out of proportion to their numbers in society at large. So while I agree that it is certainly not worthwhile to look down one's nose at someone simply because they have an advanced degree, it is also true that the opposite is more of a problem.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I was surprised to hear though (from a reasonably reliable source) that for many of the Ivy League or major universities in the US it is a big negative for entrance to have taken time off from academics. In contrast, in both Canada and Sweden it is the exact opposite.

I wonder why they don't like "non-traditional" students. I always found them to be much better workers, more organized and motivated, even if they were no more intelligent than the average student.

[Roland]

Most top politicians are lawyers anyway. Never found a good explanation for that though....

"I wonder why they don't like "non-traditional" students."

May have to do with the planned-through schooling style of US unis ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
Most top politicians are lawyers anyway. Never found a good explanation for that though....

It's not illogical that a lawyer would have some advantages from their education as a legislator, though I fear that it is something a bit less useful for the public good in their nature that sees their complete dominance.

Originally posted by Roland
"I wonder why they don't like "non-traditional" students."

May have to do with the planned-through schooling style of US unis ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.