Hi Billy,
I think it is more than that, though outdoorsness helps. The one thing I've
learned from watching the computer industry is that intelligence by itself is
almost completely useless.
The most concise statement I have of what actually works is:
"humble expertise owning the whole problem"
That is, you need simultaneously:
a) be really knowledgeable about a particular topic
b) acknowledge your limits and be willing to ask for help
c) be obsessed with finding a workable solution
I think people who actually deal with nature, aka the real world, *do* need to
have those characteristics. As do soldiers who survive combat. Alas, lots of
smart people confuse (a) with (c). :-(
-- Ernie P.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 8:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I won't disagree. However, "one of the" is important. You mentioned GWB,
> but there was also Carter, not to mention --even if his term was abbreviated--
> Gerald Ford. I would add Clinton if this was about morality in office,
> but the subject is more about effectiveness.
>
> There is a problem which no-one seems to have addressed. Why some
> intellectual presidents
> do really well while other brains in office, despite much hoopla, turn out to
> be flops.
> Jefferson and Madison were world class brains, and so was TR. Each was a
> roaring success.
> JFK might be added even if he did not have a full term.
> Alas, think of Wilson, Carter, and now BHO.
>
> What is the difference ? I have a theory, namely, that the successful
> intellectual presidents
> were men of outdoor action, sometimes military, but could be, as in the case
> of Jefferson,
> because of his activity as an outdoorsman generally, his interest in
> horticulture, in hunting,
> in a variety of such things.
>
> That is, if the substance of one's intelligence is essentially desk bound it
> is so divorced
> from the real world that all kinds of existential mistakes are inevitable.
>
> For sure, a couple of corollaries may be needed. The would-be president should
> have a primary profession that is obviously relevant to the office, and have
> a global
> outlook, from whatever source. Maybe you can add something or another, but
> as a general proposition this seems to add up.
>
> Billy
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> message dated 9/18/2011 7:13:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
> Yeah, right up there with missing the whole WMD thing with Bush. What do we
> pay them for anyway? Oh, wait; now they wonder why nobody wants to pay for
> news...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:01, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the
> > American presidency.
>
> --
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
> <[email protected]>
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
>
>
> --
> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
> <[email protected]>
> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
