CDZ In what disciplines do you think a President should be an expert or near expert?

[oldsoul]

A President should have scholarly skills, meaning he or she must be able to independently research and analyse any subject and reach decisions after consultations with experts, but after his scholarly research be able to fully understand a topic as presented by advisors and consultants so as to judge the advice they are being given. Analytical skills, academic skills and the ability to objectively make conclusions on a topic before making a decision influenced by politics and emotions are paramount.

If a President had to do his own research and analysis of every issue, nothing would ever be decided. Do you think the CEO of General Motors needs to be an expert on wheel alignment?

One way a person could conduct research is to consult with experts. Are you arguing this would be a hinderance? Just a question for clarity.

 

[320 Years of History]

Use your posts to explain why you chose the answers you did in the poll.

expert?

I'd settle for intelligent and knowledgeable.

I would too in all honesty.

I went with expert mainly because of my having observed so few folks who can deal with things/terms that are at once qualitative and relative. Too many folks, IMO, can only deal with ideas that are absolute or superlative. Such is the pervasiveness of binary thinking among modern folks. So to make the question easier for binary thinkers to answer, I framed the matter in terms of "expert" rather than the language you note above, figuring that folks who are intellectually well endowed would just respond in a post if they took exception with "expert" and its actually denotation.

 

[jillian]

Use your posts to explain why you chose the answers you did in the poll.

expert?

I'd settle for intelligent and knowledgeable.

I would too in all honesty.

I went with expert mainly because of my having observed so few folks who can deal with things/terms that are at once qualitative and relative. Too many folks, IMO, can only deal with ideas that are absolute or superlative. Such is the pervasiveness of binary thinking among modern folks. So to make the question easier for binary thinkers to answer, I framed the matter in terms of "expert" rather than the language you note above, figuring that folks who are intellectually well endowed would just respond in a post if they took exception with "expert" and its actually denotation.

I understand why you used the term. but to me the things that make one a good president aren't necessary "expertise", it's proficiency, a willingness to continue to learn, the desire to surround oneself with people who aren't interested in making the same mistakes over and over and worldliness.

so while I understand why you use the word, that allows people to say "so and so is a businessman, so should be president" (even if that businessman got his money from his daddy and failed at many businesses)

 

[320 Years of History]

to me the things that make one a good president aren't necessary "expertise", it's proficiency, a willingness to continue to learn, the desire to surround oneself with people who aren't interested in making the same mistakes over and over and worldliness.

I agree. What I didn't mean, and what the thread question does not imply (except perhaps to folks having the worst reading comprehension skills -- at some point one has to cease trying to account for "stupid") is that the skills/knowledge areas exclude others, be they among the ones listed or not. For (hypothetical) example, an autistic strategic leadership savant would be a lousy President in my mind, in spite of being better than nearly everyone else in that one dimension.

Being knowledgeable and intelligent (more so than average) are among the traits I'd expect any President to have and routinely exhibit, but they aren't specific skills. My thread/poll question is more about specific skills, but, as I said, it is not about possessing specific skills to the exclusion of overarching intelligence, rigorous/critical thinking skills, and knowledge.

 

[Camp]

A President should have scholarly skills, meaning he or she must be able to independently research and analyse any subject and reach decisions after consultations with experts, but after his scholarly research be able to fully understand a topic as presented by advisors and consultants so as to judge the advice they are being given. Analytical skills, academic skills and the ability to objectively make conclusions on a topic before making a decision influenced by politics and emotions are paramount.

If a President had to do his own research and analysis of every issue, nothing would ever be decided. Do you think the CEO of General Motors needs to be an expert on wheel alignment?

One way a person could conduct research is to consult with experts. Are you arguing this would be a hinderance? Just a question for clarity.

Consulting experts are part of the research. Scholarly skills simply mean being able to look at data objectively and analyse the data without having a preselected agenda. The scholar uses objective data to reach logical end results. He or she is simply preparing to be able to fairly and professionally evaluate the recommendations and advice of his or her top advisors on his or her staff. A President must have the common sense to seek outside input about issues and not rely entirely on the staff, which quickly becomes a bureaucracy with all the infighting and competitiveness of bureaucracies.

 

[Asclepias]

A President should have scholarly skills, meaning he or she must be able to independently research and analyse any subject and reach decisions after consultations with experts, but after his scholarly research be able to fully understand a topic as presented by advisors and consultants so as to judge the advice they are being given. Analytical skills, academic skills and the ability to objectively make conclusions on a topic before making a decision influenced by politics and emotions are paramount.

If a President had to do his own research and analysis of every issue, nothing would ever be decided. Do you think the CEO of General Motors needs to be an expert on wheel alignment?

One way a person could conduct research is to consult with experts. Are you arguing this would be a hinderance? Just a question for clarity.

Consulting experts are part of the research. Scholarly skills simply mean being able to look at data objectively and analyse the data without having a preselected agenda. The scholar uses objective data to reach logical end results. He or she is simply preparing to be able to fairly and professionally evaluate the recommendations and advice of his or her top advisors on his or her staff. A President must have the common sense to seek outside input about issues and not rely entirely on the staff, which quickly becomes a bureaucracy with all the infighting and competitiveness of bureaucracies.

Do you feel that looking at data as prescribed by scholarly definitions has the potential to limit creativity? I talk about this a lot with my daughter who is a wild life biologist. They have a certain method of collecting and analyzing data but I see it as limiting and possibly inaccurate.

 

[flacaltenn]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

 

[Camp]

A President should have scholarly skills, meaning he or she must be able to independently research and analyse any subject and reach decisions after consultations with experts, but after his scholarly research be able to fully understand a topic as presented by advisors and consultants so as to judge the advice they are being given. Analytical skills, academic skills and the ability to objectively make conclusions on a topic before making a decision influenced by politics and emotions are paramount.

If a President had to do his own research and analysis of every issue, nothing would ever be decided. Do you think the CEO of General Motors needs to be an expert on wheel alignment?

One way a person could conduct research is to consult with experts. Are you arguing this would be a hinderance? Just a question for clarity.

Consulting experts are part of the research. Scholarly skills simply mean being able to look at data objectively and analyse the data without having a preselected agenda. The scholar uses objective data to reach logical end results. He or she is simply preparing to be able to fairly and professionally evaluate the recommendations and advice of his or her top advisors on his or her staff. A President must have the common sense to seek outside input about issues and not rely entirely on the staff, which quickly becomes a bureaucracy with all the infighting and competitiveness of bureaucracies.

Do you feel that looking at data as prescribed by scholarly definitions has the potential to limit creativity? I talk about this a lot with my daughter who is a wild life biologist. They have a certain method of collecting and analyzing data but I see it as limiting and possibly inaccurate.

I most certainly can and that is why a President needs a few good springboards to bounce his or her ideas off of. It is a normal weakness of the scholar and must be recognized. The ability of the scholar to use creativity is the difference between good and great, average and exceptional.

 

[blackhawk]

Some knowledge and understanding of all would be good for me it would be history I truly believe those who don't know history will repeat the mistakes of the past.

 

[Picaro]

Our 'system' is woefully outdated for the times, and the idea that the office of 'President' is capable of being handled by one individual isn't a viable one any more. A clear vision of the likely future that a Roosevelt could see and work toward in his times is long gone. So, basically the title question is itself an outdated and unanswerable one.

Throw in an education system that can't produce informed citizens in any significant numbers and you're left with what have now, anarchy and chaos, with hedonism and mindless self-indulgence and self-interest being the primary 'standard' for most of the population.

There is no moral compass for most, and pretending 'rationalism' is an option is ridiculous, as nobody, no single human being, is ever going to be able to have access to enough real knowledge to make anything like a 'rational' decision, certainly not at the level of complexity a President is going to face. We already know the voting public can't, either.

It's one of those unanswerable questions with no real answer, just sophistry and wishful thinking.

 

[Picaro]

Some knowledge and understanding of all would be good for me it would be history I truly believe those who don't know history will repeat the mistakes of the past.

I like the version attributed to Twain a little better: " History never really repeats itself, but it rhymes."

 

[Picaro]

How is one supposed to determine whether somebody is an 'expert' at some discipline without having expertise in the field in question themselves? And, why automatically assume some academic is anything besides just another crank? Credentialism is meaningless as indication of anything, especially in an area like economics, a modern version of astrology and entrails reading at best, complete fantasy at its norm these days, with some exceptions in the econometrics field. Most of the unwashed don't realize just how much backbiting and egotism dominates academia in most fields, and just assume they're all competent, objective professionals. They aren't.

 

[320 Years of History]

A President should have scholarly skills, meaning he or she must be able to independently research and analyse any subject and reach decisions after consultations with experts, but after his scholarly research be able to fully understand a topic as presented by advisors and consultants so as to judge the advice they are being given. Analytical skills, academic skills and the ability to objectively make conclusions on a topic before making a decision influenced by politics and emotions are paramount.

If a President had to do his own research and analysis of every issue, nothing would ever be decided. Do you think the CEO of General Motors needs to be an expert on wheel alignment?

One way a person could conduct research is to consult with experts. Are you arguing this would be a hinderance? Just a question for clarity.

Consulting experts are part of the research. Scholarly skills simply mean being able to look at data objectively and analyse the data without having a preselected agenda. The scholar uses objective data to reach logical end results. He or she is simply preparing to be able to fairly and professionally evaluate the recommendations and advice of his or her top advisors on his or her staff. A President must have the common sense to seek outside input about issues and not rely entirely on the staff, which quickly becomes a bureaucracy with all the infighting and competitiveness of bureaucracies.

Do you feel that looking at data as prescribed by scholarly definitions has the potential to limit creativity? I talk about this a lot with my daughter who is a wild life biologist. They have a certain method of collecting and analyzing data but I see it as limiting and possibly inaccurate.

Bold black:
I believe you do. The reasons why I do will be patently evident from the last paragraphs of the post noted below.

CDZ - Do we really need laws about what restroom transgender people use?

 

[Cassandro]

A President should have scholarly skills, meaning he or she must be able to independently research and analyse any subject and reach decisions after consultations with experts, but after his scholarly research be able to fully understand a topic as presented by advisors and consultants so as to judge the advice they are being given. Analytical skills, academic skills and the ability to objectively make conclusions on a topic before making a decision influenced by politics and emotions are paramount.

If a President had to do his own research and analysis of every issue, nothing would ever be decided. Do you think the CEO of General Motors needs to be an expert on wheel alignment?

One way a person could conduct research is to consult with experts. Are you arguing this would be a hinderance? Just a question for clarity.

I was responding to the idea that a President should independently research and analyze any subject and fully understand every topic. The President's job is to provide broad policy direction and select capable people to carry it out, not spend hours in the library studying for his medical board exams.

 

[320 Years of History]

How is one supposed to determine whether somebody is an 'expert' at some discipline without having expertise in the field in question themselves? And, why automatically assume some academic is anything besides just another crank? Credentialism is meaningless as indication of anything, especially in an area like economics, a modern version of astrology and entrails reading at best, complete fantasy at its norm these days, with some exceptions in the econometrics field. Most of the unwashed don't realize just how much backbiting and egotism dominates academia in most fields, and just assume they're all competent, objective professionals. They aren't.

Red:
One doesn't necessarily need to determine whether a leader is an expert. One need only figure out if they are more, equally or less capable analytically and more knowledgeable in general than is oneself. To do that, one need only obtain from the would be leader an assortment of substantive remarks, listen carefully to them, and then seek out objective information to determine whether what they say "holds water" or doesn't. By doing so, one acquires new knowledge of one's own as well as discovering whether the would be leader knew what they were talking about when they uttered their remarks.

Blue:
Nobody needs to assume any academic -- academics aren't, by the way, the only experts on the planet -- is a crank or not a crank. One need only review their published ideas and the methodology they used to arrive at the conclusions they articulate. The key is not to find one or some minor error(s), but rather to find errors that are material enough to invalidate the conclusion. Absent finding such errors, regardless of what the writer says about other things, what s/he said about the topic in question is valid. Truly it doesn't even matter if the writer is an academic or isn't. What matters is the strength of their observations, tests, analysis, and findings.

Pink:
??? I bid you look at the predictions that economics makes and then perform a test to see whether those predictions hold true. Economics is a social science. The science part of that description means that it's theories must be testable and falsifiable. Astronomy and entrail reading's predictions and theories do not in any way consistently pass that test.

Green:
Most of the "unwashed masses" don't and won't bother to actually read the documentation researchers provide to determine whether any given study was or was not objectively conducted. Believe it or not, and if you don't read scholarly papers, I suspect you don't believe it, the reason researchers explain their approach to performing any research they share publicly is so that others can examine the whole of their process to gauge for themselves whether the study was competently and objectively performed.

You or I can read the documentation just as readily as can anyone else. If we don't understand what we read, we have no place, no right, to say there's something wrong with it. If we do understand what we read, we have an obligation to ourselves and the writer to say precisely what it is we find in error. What none of us has the right to do is arbitrarily assert "this or that" is or is not so based on the anecdotal observations and evidence that's come our way. To do that is intellectually irresponsible, to say nothing of disingenuous.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would say that you left the most important trait or skill out - critical thinking. That would be number one. then, in this order:

Economics, Strategic leadership, politics and then History(cant select the last one as your poll allows a maximum of three selections).

 

[FA_Q2]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

 

[320 Years of History]

I would say that you left the most important trait or skill out - critical thinking. That would be number one. then, in this order:

Economics, Strategic leadership, politics and then History(cant select the last one as your poll allows a maximum of three selections).

Red:
I completely agree it is among the most important skills, for everyone, not just would be Presidents. Truly, I am of the mind that the critical thinking skill, and one's being very good at it, is so central to what a President need be that it didn't actually need to be listed. It's like saying land animals need to be good at breathing or finned fish need to be good at swimming. LOL It's a skill that must be applied to all actions, disciplines and decisions. I am more interested in something a bit more specific than that.

Blue:
Yes. That was deliberate. I'm curious to learn what folks cite as their top three. Frankly, one can make a case for any of the skills listed as well as plenty of others. For me, which ones are most important at any given period may change, thereby making some more important "now" and less important "yesterday" or "tomorrow."

 

[flacaltenn]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

 

[320 Years of History]

Political skills are a definite negative IMO -- because they pervert the logic, reason and objectivity required to do what Camp suggested above. A background in any/many disciplines that promote PROBLEM SOLVING, organization and objectivity with the help of logic and reason is all that is required.

Politicians tend to waste time and energy on CRITICIZING a small set of solutions. Rather than working the problems to reveal NEW potential solutions..

And science, math, and engineering would be BEST place to pick up objective problem solving skills. INCLUDING the important task of weeding thru "expert opinions".. The "process" is more important than the particular advocation.

I think you have mixed up politics and politicians. Politics is essentially the ability to get things done within the government. It is an EXTREMELY important skill for the president to have if you want to get those good ideas actually passed through the myriad of people that need to pass it in order to establish effective governance.

Oh hell no... The objective is to solve problems within the scope of the government's power to do so. If what you call politics stands in the way of solutions or causes solutions to be sub-optimal -- then you change the damn system..

Allowing the political system to constrain solutions is how you end up with duplication, economic inefficiency and poor performing solutions.. You win the consent on the solution by merit. Not by a process dictated by politics.

This half/half compromising is what got us to this point in the first place. If you formulate GREAT solutions, then it is already optimized for cost and effect and performance. That's what FedEx or the Red Cross would do...

Are you actually debating/discussing what Politics is and why it manifests itself as it does, why its nature is what we observe?

Politics is, quite simply, the making, preserving and amending of general social rules. It isn't the rules themselves, it's the process by which they come and go. The people who control the ebb and flow of the rules are politicians. The people who are governed by the rules are the polity (polis), and the politicians are indeed part of the polity.

Pretty much any societal rule that cannot be established by fiat or pronouncement is something that can and often will become politically decided, or not decided if the polity and politicians cannot one or the other agree on the rule's nature and application. For example, whether persons who find themselves in a given jurisdiction are allowed to piss between the hours of noon and three o'clock could become a political matter under the right circumstances.