Discussion in 'Politics' started by usmbguest5318, Oct 1, 2017.
Obama for the win.
That's not exactly what "real" leaders do; it is what strong analysts do. Strong leaders need not be the one to perform the in-depth analysis, but if they aren't the person who does, they must have the perspicacity to accurately evaluate the work of those who do. Having the requisite acumen to do that is discipline-/topic-specific, or multidisciplinary, for the matters on which a POTUS must make decisions.
Were I presented with the paper "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?", Einstein's first paper deriving e=mc^2 (Einstein didn't write it exactly that way; he wrote m=L/c^2, which is a different, albeit less simple/elegant, way to say the same thing.)
Any number of high school students can follow the math in that paper; there's no particularly complex math there. What they cannot do is know whether the operations used are apropos to the situation and claim the paper makes. As it turns out, the math used in that 1905 paper is inapt; it is not valid for establishing obtain E=mc^2 from considerations starting with a body emitting light isotropically in all directions. Indeed, a guy named Poincaré had, in 1900, stated that to obtain the result E=mc^2 it is necessary to use a parabolic mirror in order to focus and send light in one direction, thus eliminating the universality of the statement E=mc^2. 
Einstein, in "The Principle of the Preservation of the Center of Gravity and Motion the Inertia of the Energy" (1906), fixed the problems in his 1905 derivation. That paper became the one on which proofs and subsequent derivations, among them Max Born's, of E=mc^2 were based. 
A simpler example is found as in the following observation. One can know the length of two sides of a triangle and apply the Pythagorean Theorem (PT) to calculate the length of the third side, but if the triangle in question is not a right triangle, the PT is inaptly applied.
What makes the second example simpler? Mainly the fact that anyone who's taken algebra already knows the proof and use of the PT; thus one can assume one's audience knows the "complexity" that underlies the assertion I made, and those who don't know it simply are not among the intended audience for the statement/conversation.
That distinction aside, what strong analysts do is not simplify the problem, but rather the solution to it, most often by, after having come to understand the full nature of the problem, developing tactical elements of the "to-be" solution that eliminate varying aspects of the complexity in the "as-is" situation that is the problem. Truly, at the POTUS-level, there are very few, if any, problems that are simple.
in 1900 the ubiquitous Henri Poincaré stated that if one required that the momentum of any particles present in an electromagnetic field plus the momentum of the field itself be conserved together, then Poynting’s theorem predicted that the field acts as a “fictitious fluid” with mass such that E = mc2. Poincaré, however, failed to connect E with the mass of any real body. (Source)
Given modern society's disdain for complexity, most people even considering anything longer than a tweet "too much trouble," I cannot imagine that anyone can do justice to any national problem in the amount of space it'd take to prove E=mc^2, which isn't at all a complex proof.
It's probably worth noting that a teacher's job is to make the complicated be readily, if not easily, understood, but politician's isn't to teach, it's to explain. I know the distinction is subtle, but it's nonetheless there -- teaching necessarily include explaining, but explaining need not include teaching. On need only read any of the papers I linked above, with possible exception of Born's. Their authors explained plenty, but they had no explicitly didactic aims in publishing their ideas; the rhetorical purpose was to say "Hey. Look at what I've discovered. Given what I've found, we can be confident that "such and such" is so and, accordingly conclude/predict "thus and such...."
Separate names with a comma.