Why is it that scientists, mathmaicians and engineers are considered the elite brain powers of the world...

why is it that scientists, mathmaicians and engineers are considered the elite brain powers of the world, but they aren't the presidents or congress ?

they are smarter than everyone else, correct? so it onky makes sense for them to be the leaders

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Yb5ivvcTvRQ
youtube.com/watch?v=I1IXWnS6vwk
huffingtonpost.de/2016/07/20/spd-politikerin-gesteht-lebenslauf-gefaelscht-zu-haben_n_11079326.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Technocrats run the EU and look how that's turning out

Knowing Maxwell's Equations has ZERO impact on one's ability to govern.

zimbabwe

They're not good at everything but one or two things.

>blaming the brexit on EU

They're not the "brain powers of the world". They're complete autists and more prone to autistic, delusional groupthink than any other demographic. Everything they touch turns to a new age religion that they demagogue.

>Technocrats run the EU
But they don't.
Career politicians run the EU.
People on the commission are Ex-PMs and the people in the parliament are usually lesser politicians.

>Talks about intelligence
>posts picture of stupid autist character by stupid show written by autists.

Please die.

Because being correct doesn't equate to being popular. DUH.

The logical mind has no place in politics. Politics require a balance of emotion and reason, an extreme of one or the other will only lead to ruin. Instead of trying to merge the two different communities (which would only lead to constant bickering) the politician should be groomed with science and humanity in mind. The internal divide of those two egos will bear a more substantial fruit than a singular mind grounded in one and only one ideology.

>politicians are good at everything

Scientific people hate political jobs because they realise its catering to a bunch of bias tribalistic morons.

They arent. They are the biggest cucks getting milked for their brainpower and in most cases die bitter and lonely

he wanted to make sure people would respond to this thread, for the sake of their mothers

They aren't smarter, they're just far more specialized than the average person in one narrow field.

STEM people run China worked out ok

My background is physics, and here is my take:

Most serious scientists get so involved in their work that they don't have the time for politics and whatnot. Most of your scientists who are good at what they do also fail to apply even a modicum of the scientific method to their political beliefs. Their minds are bifurcated that way. At work, evidence, facts and logic, good. In daily life, it's muh feelz for a lot of them. Seriously, ask your average scientist why the dollar is valuable. If you're lucky you'll get legal tender laws, but they'll know fuckall about the petrodollar system.

>Specialize in a specific field
>Ability to run a country

exactly

Effective Politicians need three qualities

1. Know how to conceal your true intentions/motivations
2. Know how to judge if others are lying to you
3. Know how to judge if others are competent at their jobs/roles, even jobs you don't know how to do yourself

That's it.

Intelligence is not important, unless more intelligence supports doing one of those three things better.

The job of the politician is to manipulate people. Manipulate his allies to do his will, manipulate his enemies to be less effective, all while concealing his true intentions; all while working inside the OODA loop of everyone else.

I would love to see a mathematician as a president.
The state's deficit is x, the group draining us down is y. If we kill y x will get lower.
It's logical. Prove me wrong. Checkmate.

Any scientist will tell you dollars valued because humans believe they have inherent value.
No user STEMfags are intellectually superior.

A lot of US senators and house reps have science PHDs. Look it up; I was quite surprised myself.

I'm an engineer I'm good at engineering things. Dealing with people makes me want to shoot myself in the dick. /thread

>They aren't smarter, they're just far more specialized than the average person in one narrow field.

actually, math/sci/eng people tend to have higher IQ than average, which means they are in fact smarter than general people.

> inb4 "emotional intelligence"
> inb4 "IQ is a myth"

Well written IQ tests approximate very well, "g", the "general intelligence" factor. SAT and ACT also highly correlate with IQ, and therefore, g. Finally, all these exams also predict pretty well how successful /affluent someone will be in American society.


But intelligence isn't as important to be successful in politics.

The smartest US president in a long while was Jimmy Carter. He had high intelligence, and specific engineering expertise; he worked in the US Navy Nuclear Reactor program.

He was, despite being smart and despite having some engineering background, a very ineffective president.

Because scientists and engineers live an incredibly sheltered life, only working with other scientists and engineers. While they may have a knowledge of the world, they rarely have a working understanding of the intricacies of government and economics.

The ones I know also tend to be very close minded. They have that typical "well if you don't agree with me about racial policy, it must be because you are racist because my solution is perfect and can't be faulted. Why would I need other peoples opinions on things when I am so perfect?" attitude.

Businessmen are more suited to being politicians because running a country is like running a business (to an extent).

Which is a bullshit answer. It's so vague as to be correct, but tells you nothing about why it is valuable. The same answer could be given for anything that was used as currency in the past.

People get the leader they deserve. People elect leaders that they can relate. Majority don't or can't relate to intelligence.

As a result, we get sociopaths, narcissists, and a few well intentioned public servants as a result.

Because they have actual job to do?

Having a high IQ is not what makes a good leader or manager at all, it's not even worth considering. It's like assuming a guy with a 700lbs squat would make a great tribal leader.

Having a low IQ isn't what makes a good leader as well. Of course they should have leadership abilities, but the high IQ would help.

Very easy answer.
Money in politics.

Also they tend to be more sane and based human beings so go figure they don't want the fucking job of being a politician

I would say that being reasonably intelligent is a necessary condition to, but not sufficient for being a good leader.

Not in this political climate anyway. But yeah, you have to be somewhat not right in the end to even want the job in the first place. Not always but most times.

I'm actually mathematician. I do research and write papers for a living.

>inb4 im lying

I know a lot of mathematicians and very few of them would be suited for any sort of public office. Most mathematicians have some sort of mental quirk or disability. They are exceedingly weird and unfit for many aspects of life, but their mental disorders (see: autism) allow them to think in just the right way to be good at math. Their people skills are nearly zero, so that even if they have good political ideas, they could never win an election to put those ideas into practice.

ITT: Reddit-refugees jacking off to the "superiority" of science.

Scientists should be scientists and people good at leading should lead.

>but they aren't the presidents or congress
Because they are busy running China and the EU.

It's important for leaders to understand and accept science. It certainly doesn't help when we elect leaders that don't even accept evolution. Belief and policy making are connected.

Because scientists love what they do while politicians are usually money grubbing cock suckers who can't wrap their head around maths beyond the elementary

>Because they are busy running China and the EU.

Merkel.

Intelligent, benevolent people are not appreciated.

You are not even taken seriously unless you have a meme degree from an ivy league school.

pic related would be a better president than any president ever and he is probably one of many above average, caring white men. The system selects against good people.

>Lord Kek's doubles

This, geniuses are busy doing their jobs and basically don't give a fuck about the inefficient political system.

Merkel is a chemist.

if he can do a 700lb squat i dont think you can stop him from being tribal leader... i dont think the tribe can stop him from being tribal leader. i mean if he wants to bend you over and split you in half with his dick in front of every one i doubt they will act like he did something wrong

just saiyan

Because being a technology expert doesn't make you an expert in running a country.

Cause leading isn't what they are interested in.
Also leaders usually are pretty smart too.

Yup, and she's busy cucking your country up.

Would you trust a mathematician to treat you if you had kidney failure? Fuck no, they're just good at maths. A good politician (not the unflushable shit that floats around elections these days) should have a firm grasp on politics, leadership, and communication. Maths is still important for the people working out finances/budget/taxation, but not necessarily the prime minister or president.

Important to you.

It's not an imperative to running a successful country. Somehow science advanced during the days when evolution was outright banned in schools.

Science has and always will be against the grain, and that's how I like it.

good at leading (controlling) people

>He fell for the leg day meme

Autism.

that's obviously the reason u fucking mong what other possible reason is there

>not knowing that science math and engineering are all the same thing

Intelligence isn't completely required for a leader. Charisma, confidence, and the ability to inspire people are all more important traits. They have to be social and comfortable with delegating and reading others. Scientists, while intelligent, lack emotional IQ and can't relate as well to others. They can't manipulate, inspire, or control people.

So basically autism. Knowing the right answer doesn't mean shit if you can't actually get to it.

Sure, but the tribe will fail unless it's a tribe of olympians and he shows them the whey.

I'm trying to get the idea that the strongman or specialist is just an underling to someone, the leader, who can better manage them and apply them to their specific strengths.

Their talents would be wasted in the shithouse that is political theater.

most scientists are complete idiots outside their fields.

Maybe you're taught that they are in your arse backwards country, but looking at your education system I'd take those lessons with a pinch of salt. I bet you even had lessons that were just called "science", didn't you?

But a good leader should be capable of applying the scientific method. That doesn't mean that he needs to know PDEs and linear algebra, but he should have a basic understanding of looking at the evidence, formulating hypotheses, and, depending on time available, either acting on them or further delving into the issue and testing those hypotheses.

'Twas simply a jest, old chap.

This is the only guy who gets it.

Politics is equal parts being an orator and a paper pusher. Our best and brightest shouldn't be doing it.

Because scientists and academics work in a world separated from the rest of society.

Because both parties are a cabal of people who simply want power and privilege.

I think that's the most important lesson of 1984 when Richard Burton tells John Hurt this.

So they're not going to let a bunch of highly intelligent, civilised, logical and good natured men replace them.

Anyway seem most IT guys are cucks these days anyway. Massive faggots. Engineering is where I would go to get real men.

It certainly is imperative when your nations students are being taught lies.

That somehow was due to the acceptance of science in clusters. There would be no STEM careers if all students learned bullshit about life science.

You don't do any good for the advancement of science by keeping people ignorant. You waste potential.

youtube.com/watch?v=Yb5ivvcTvRQ
youtube.com/watch?v=I1IXWnS6vwk

They are basically cradle. Engineers specially. Socially inept cradle that actually intelligent people use for their benefit (capitalists).

Being STEM doesn't make you smart. Being smart makes you smart. Trump, for example, has an IQ higher than 99.9% of the population.

huffingtonpost.de/2016/07/20/spd-politikerin-gesteht-lebenslauf-gefaelscht-zu-haben_n_11079326.html

TLDR: Politician has no credentials, lied on her resume - still works and will probably get large retirement money

Most STEMs are too noble and honorable to be a politician.

leaders rule, not scientists
if scientists would rule, the world will end because they don`t know how to govern men

>having a vast amount of knowledge in one subject means you know everything about everything

yea no

I think everyone can come to the conclusion of the scientific method without calling it that. I don't have to believe in the "scientific method" to reason how things work, to inspire people to do great things, to know who to trust or how to help his people

>see all civilization before the rise of Rationalism.

checked em and keked em

As a scientists and an engineer, I reluctantly but irrevocably concur to this.

No actually i didn't, my teacher taught me philosophy and everything fell into place.

Because traditionally, it was the warriors that were leading its people.

Because most are spazs and are socially autistic so they can't rule a country. Also, just because you know a lot of shit about one thing doesn't mean you know everything

Any smart scientist doesn't stay in science for very long.

Your argument contains no factual observations; it's anti-science.

You are implying that we'd be closer to a utopic society if high IQ (top 5% or higher, perhaps?) was a requirement for holding public office.

What are you, a fucking racist?

>Implying they aren't too smart to run for office
>Implying that the masses wouldn't prefer to vote for professional swindlers (which is why they get elected in the first place)

>why is it that people who don't know jack shit about influence, negotiation, management, or legal theory aren't our leaders

I don't know OP, it's a mystery why leadership gravitates towards lawyers and businessmen (and medical/dentistry doctors for some reason).

SIDDHARTHA

Because being good at 1 field doesn't make you good at any other. Real world full of irrational thinking and irrational people, while scientists spend their whole life in a fucking ivory tower. All of them would rush to build communism(because it works just fine in their ivory tower reality disconnect zone), but they'd be devastated by harsh reality.

Exactly. It's hard to think of a place that is better suited for the brightest than the sciences, private or public.

>Environment where things get tested and thoroughly documented, saving time for future generations to test x concept, enabling them to replicate experiments to see if they hold
>Lots of incredibly uncertain information just begging to be explored or reexamined
>Some tendency for small discoveries to snowball with other small discoveries into one major discovery
>Major discoveries can print bank for society several times over

>Having a high IQ is not what makes a good leader or manager at all

This is obvious to me now, but for years I thought the world should be the way I wanted it to be

The reality is that persuasive people and leaders are often the least logical. Most people will respond to emotion over reason any day of the week.

>(controlling)
Really made me think

this really activates my autsim

Politics hasn't advanced that much since the Greeks invented democracy and the Romans instituted a Republic. Science has.

>stemlord autists
>smart

apex kek

> (((considered)))
For reasons. Science is worthless. The only knowledge that matters is "how to rule people?". If you do not know how to calculate shit you find mathematician, pay him 5 bucks and he will calculate fucking everything.
If you do not know how to rule people you will have to find the Man, who can, fight off 10 other retards like yourself and humbly ask the Man to give you 5 bucks for your calculations or anything.

They have ethics and morals and scruples and beliefs.

Unlike people who run for office.

Scientists pursue knowledge and the truth

politics has nothing to do with knowledge and the truth

in addition mama merkel is a scientist, she has a phd in chemistry/physics

Ha ha, well said my friend, nice joke!

Mayonnaise with that hamburger, please

>le superior STEM man
How? What about science ensures ethics and morals? What about the Japs who tested on humans in WWII

Most people in office are reasonably intelligent actually (obvious exceptions would be black democrats and some of the women). It's true that STEMfags are probably smart, but this doesn't mean you'll be a good lawmaker or leader.

Name one single technocrat. They're all career politicians, that's NOT a technocrat. I'm all in favor of a meritocracy/technocracy over our current democratic system which is inherently flawed because you give retarded people a vote.

>Technocrats run the EU and look how that's turning out

brexit meme, most decisions in the EU are taken by the head of the member states

>Implying raw intelligence is a defining factor of statesmanship

Some of the stupidest political and philosophical opinions I've ever heard have come from the mouths of my fellow STEM colleagues.

>Knowing Maxwell's Equations has ZERO impact on one's ability to govern.
Basically this.

What field?
Also, I've made quite the opposite experience. While you do have a bunch of autists, more than in the general population, the majority seem to be well rounded, emotionally healthy individuals. They also tend to have more personality than physicists and engineers.