Remi, you need to take into account what works. If telling the truth
and being objective and rational got a person elected, more
politicians would have these qualities. If the people voting were
educated and rational, better leaders would be elected. The present
system is the result of a bad combination of these limitations.
As for innovation, it has no effect on society if the person does not
know how to put the idea into the system. Many people are quietly
innovative in their personal lives, but make no effort to change
society. You only know about those people who had the skill or wish to
get noticed.
Ed
On Sep 20, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote:
Education is important but being scholarly doesn't well correlate to
being
innovative. Too many people make this mistake.
Inventors are typically lazy and eclectic. By switching off in class
and not
doing prep they tend to half learn things and come up with their own
systems. It is a very male trait. Maybe this is why men have the
advantage
because we are so arrogant, competitive and risk takers, the
opposite of
blue stocking types. The cocksureness of the new recruit who on day
one can
see how to do something better. Most are f..k.g annoying d.cks but
the good
ones are an asset once you get over the personality.
The very diligent tend to end up hyper-specialized and writing the
reference
books. There is probably good correlation between elder siblings,
diligence
and a more controlling type personality and the more happy-go-lucky,
rebellious younger ones.
Also the more autistic type, or single child, non city dwelling type
tend to
be those people tinkering away, focused and disinterested with
social play
and games.
Let's have a game of listing people:
Edison (single child)
Tesla (driven, focused, bachelor)
Einstein (probably mild autism)
The Wright Brothers (technical knowhow)
Dirac (very intense)
But then
Feynman, Heisenberg very gregarious. (You see science doesn't only
list the
cases in its favour, you must list all the data)
Please list more and list their attributes.
The point being that these people don't like meetings, call a spade
a spade
(i.e. non PC, likely to get in trouble in today's climate), are
independent,
skillful, resourceful, logical, proud, against the superficial. In
short
your populist politico and the people they appeal to are the polar
opposite.
Using science to tell lies goes against the grain of these people.
Many
think man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. Sure take on
board its
suggestions make provision but don't call it fact.
