Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...
haydenplanetarium.org
haydenplanetarium.org
As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
NDT falls into the same trap as nearly everyone since the framers of the constitution. You're never going to elect the right leaders. They don't exist. The reason our government was set up the way it was, and not the way it exists now, was precisely because the greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time realized that people are inherently flawed, weak, and susceptible to the intoxicating effects of power. Because you'll never have the "right leaders", you must structure the system to prevent abuse by the inevitable "wrong leaders" that will be elected.
NDT, like so many others, misses this point completely, even though nearly the entire letter pays lip service to the idea that the leaders are not the problem to focus on. While he's right, the solution won't appear even if he "enlightened the electorate" to Tysonian heights.
Why didn't they institute proportional representation? Why did they have an electoral college?
Why didn't they abolish slavery and institute women's vote right away?
This FF worship has got to stop. It gives Republicans some slack to spew their lies about gun control and other constitution-backed tomfoolery.
Canada's a pretty free place, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have the well-thought-out constitution that America has, which means every once in a while you get things like the October Crisis - where habeas corpus was suspended, thousands of warrantless searches were conducted, and almost five hundred people were arrested in nighttime raids and held without charges, in some cases for weeks.
Americans really don't appreciate what they've got. Historically, civil liberties are the exception, not the rule, and there's certainly no guarantee they'll stick around in the future.
He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote in someone worth their salt for each position.
I'm positing that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. A society that knows more is better able to wield that knowledge to make decisions than a society that doesn't have that knowledge. I fail to see how there is any negative to educating more of the general public. Sure, it's gonna' be damn near impossible to measure anything on a political leader vs. general knowledge scale, but intuitively I think education is good.
The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good system is irrelevant if no one bothers to implement it, or if the electorate seeks to undermine it.
I think the logic is unsound in either locus.
And it's based on that that they have created the first (and only, for some people) democratic system ever. Ironically, the person that have created our current democratic system knew exactly this Athenian system but explicitly rejected it because it was ... democracy, and that is was a system were the people really has the power. It's only since Tocqueville has started to call it democracy that we think about it has democratic, Tocqueville who explicitly said that he wasn't afraid of election because people would vote what we told them to vote, something impossible in the Athenian system.
-----
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
Platos The Republic, (and especially his "five regimes") is interesting stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes
______________
[1] Young man, as you perambulate down the pathway of life toward an unavoidable bald head bordered with gray hairs it would be well to bear in mind that the cemeteries are full of men this world could not get along without, and note the fact that things move along after each funeral procession at about the same gait they went before. It makes no difference how important you may be, don’t get the idea under your hat that this world can’t get along without you —Abilene Reporter, 1909.
We have a dysfunctional political system that provides voters with leaders who are compromised. Who then pander, rabble-rouse, and pick narrow issues to speak loudly about to raise money. Who then lose our trust and respect, corrupting the institution. Voters are not too "dysfunctional" or ill-informed to make reasonable decisions. Approval of the US Congress was at %10 in August, the lowest in 38 years. The electorate isn't smiling through the failures of government.
The People are not the problem. I think Tyson would have answered different after a few hours with Lessig. Blaming governement's failures on a ill-informed electorate is second-rate at best.
The 10% approval with Congress is only half the story. Those same people will tell you that they're 80-90% satisfied with their own congressional representatives. The reason the electorate is so dissatisfied with Congress as a whole is because they think either things aren't getting done, or they aren't going their way. Both are true.
And yes, voters are ill-informed and unlikely to make reasonable decisions. One needs look no further than Glenn Beck and the conspiracy material he peddled for several years to see how far the news has gotten from reporting actual news. I remember the "cash 4 gold" advertisements being prominent during his show; do you think that informed people were the ones making that business viable enough to advertise like they did?
A media that relies more on data, that provides context and scope; this is what we need to have to get informed voters, but a lot of people aren't smart enough to place value on that when they can get a daily dose of things to rage about and blame for their issues with the world. (I would further argue that people of lower socioeconomic status simply don't have the time or energy to deal with complex information when they're mostly focused on making ends meet, but that's a separate argument).
Very good point, reminds me of the Demotivational poster, "Meetings - none of us are as dumb as all of us."
This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant.
No.
If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
It's not the ignorance or the intelligence of the American populace that upsets me. It's the inability to imagine that they might be wrong.
That's the entire purpose of government and has been since the dawn of time. Even authoritarianism is a "creative way [to] resolve those conflicts of interest".
I agree with the author that most people lack the ability or desire (I'm not sure which) to _seek_ an objective reality even if it's unlikely a truly objective reality exists. I think this is what he characterizes as "scientifically literate". And while you can argue up and down that data can be used to mislead people just as easily as rhetoric, I'd prefer the latter to the former because at least then there's something tangible to discuss (methods for data collection, data presentation, etc).
There comes a point where merely learning to resolve our differences is (although necessary) not sufficient. Some things (such as, for example, Democracy imho) require a baseline education and scientific literacy.
You put crap into a democracy, you are going to get crap out. The process works pretty well for executing the will of the people, but it really does next to nothing as far as data sanitation goes; it simply was not designed to do that.
(On the other hand, the constitution itself was designed to be a crap-filter of sorts. Instead of just putting every single issue to a vote, the constitutions makes some things unusually hard to push through. The first amendment is basically a filter to prevent the "will of the people" from being executing if it violates certain principles (of course a strong enough "will of the people" can remove these filters).)
Though really that just makes it a question of if the politicians and their constituents are in need of a better education, or just their constituents.
Whichever is the case, I think an increased emphasis on science education is important.
So to call it tactical stupidity is messed up on a scale I'm not prepared to level at such a large number of my fellow citizens (as an American), or anyone really. I'd rather think someone willfully ignorant than that willfully mean.
Depriving others (particularly your own children) of factual information starts sliding into the "true belief" side, so far as I'm concerned.
It may be messed up, but it's also fundamental human nature. As Heinlein observed: man not a rational animal, he's a rationalizing animal.
As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "brilliant in their own way" is a cop out, a platitude that's no better than saying nothing at all. Intellectual curiousity, love of learning and scientific rigor are real things, and a large number of the humans on this planet don't possess them. If you object to the idea that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is more brilliant than most, then you're in danger of losing touch with reality.
If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature. You can teach people how to think, but you can't make them like it.
A laughably small number of americans vote in presidential, much less local elections. And many of those voters have only the shallowest understanding of the issues being decided upon. deGrasse Tyson has a point...education may be democracy's only hope.
ASIDE: I'm noticing rampant selection bias on hn. It's important to remember that most of the people on this planet are nothing like us. Working at tech companies and hanging out at tech events it's easy to believe that everyone is as intelligent, reasonable and hard working as our family and coworkers. Most people just don't have the same love of learning and/or hacking that we do. While we value knowledge and intelligence above all, most humans don't and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't disagree with you here, per se, but I think a lot can be done with education. Maybe not "change the basics of human nature", but we can probably get them to enjoy thinking and we can probably raise the level of public discourse by a significant degree.
I'm not saying it would be easy or quick, but I think that it's possible. Indeed, it seems to me to be the arc of history, to paraphrase a bit, even if it is irritatingly long.
The problem isn't lack of access to information or the motivation to exercise your freedoms, it is the rampant apathy of the masses.
I do not believe I am better than anyone or that I care more for the welfare of the world, but I just try to learn and contribute as much as I can.
I am saddened by the fact that most people do not realize how long it took for life to emerge and how much longer for liberty to be considered a birthright.
We really need a perspective shift on our planet if real change is going to happen from within the populace. It is also discouraging that most people put the burden on the shoulders of a few to lead and fix the world and get angry when they find out they have little or no say in the direction of society. It's a double-edged sword.
There is definitely a selection bias on HN, exactly why this is one of my top five news sources. I strive to get a 360-degree perspective on the happenings of the world.
If this were true, then Jews as a demographic wouldn't have a reputation for being well-educated and literate. What you're talking about is as much cultural as it is inherent, if not moreso. And if it's cultural, then education can change it.
Certainly it is possible to make the population as a whole dumber (just stop public education for instance), so it makes sense that, unless we happen to be doing everything brilliantly right now, we can do better as well.
I'm sorry but it's not logical to waste time with something which has no impact. If there was any incentive, people would come. Like $5 or tax reductions, I don't know. It's not rocket science to increase the participation. But I guess the vote of the pragmatic is not desired. Actually the fact there is no incentive at all shows they want as few people to vote as possible, globally.
Maybe it's because opposition mobilizing themselves more is what allows the country to alternate leadership easily instead of being stuck in the same ideology forever, at the expense of the other 48%. Or maybe the alternate leadership is like our beating heart, a constant source of ideological thought, instead of the slumbering effect of an eternal monolithic party like in China. Be careful what you wish for.
Anyway when the choice you have is Blue or Red, "educating the masses" has little impact. But maybe masses having little impact is actually perfection...
And there's the crux. There is a forum just like this one somewhere on the Internet that is entirely devoted to Justin Bieber. It probably has more users than HN.
To you and Mr. Tyson, they're ignorant twits because ...
> They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships.
To me? It's just a conflict of interest. They're different. Apples and oranges.
Are apples better than oranges? In some cases, but not in all. Anyway, I don't want to live in a world filled with only apples. Variety is the spice of life. Go spend some time with an orange.
2. People think of them as 'ignorant twits' because they don't realize that by ignoring such things decisions that affect them are being made for them. It's too easy to find yourself in a situation you don't like because you were too busy ignoring what was going on to realize what was happening. E.g.:
“There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All
the planning charts and demolition orders have been on
display in your local planning department on Alpha Centauri
for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time
to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to
start making a fuss about it now.”When was the last time you saw someone nail a cat's tail to the ground and pelt it with rocks? Back... oh, not that long ago, evolutionarily speaking, that was just the height of entertainment. The absolute limit.
Now, only a few generations of First Worlders not having seven kids and getting to keep two, a few generations of public education and most people knowing how to read, a few generations of not starving because of locusts or drought or Act of Monarch, we have a population of people even the /b/-tards of which will step in to defend a cat.
It takes a long time. It is a long, slow, agonizing crawl. But we are making it.
Seems fairly unlikely that the majority the 200,000,000+ eligible voters are nearly as brilliant, in any way, as this particular astrophysicist who graduated from Harvard and earned a PhD at Columbia.
>Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.
Getting everyone to vote in the direction that's actually in their own best interests would be a huge step.
He's an educator and scientist. He has knowledge, knows how to process systematic knowledge (qualifications of a scientist). He can express and explain his knowledge, and enjoys doing so (qualifications of an educator).
He's probably much less skilled and/or interested in politics, negotiating, electioneering, campaigning, and leading, all required of a politician / statesman. He may actually be able to do these things, but very likely dislikes doing them.
I know that my own preferences and skills lean similarly, though I can fill a leadership role in a pinch / emergency situation.
Arrogance need have nothing to do with it. Sounds much more like an accurate self-assessment in my book.
As to the problems we're facing: some result from ignorance, some from tactical stupidity, and yes, many from divergent / conflicting interests.
NdGT is suggesting his own ability/interest in negotiating such conflicts may be insufficient to fill a political role.
People are mind-bogglingly ignorant, and it is demonstrably so. I don't know how one could even claim otherwise.
>If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
These ways obviously don't lend themselves to scientific literacy, knowledge of international politics or human rights, or rational appraisal of facts. Maybe an individual has an amazing ability to console those in distress - that's GREAT, but it doesn't grant them immunity from criticism for ignorance of important worldly issues.
Frankly your attitude is typical of American "everyone is special" bullshit. In other cultures if you're uneducated you are looked down upon. While it's probably deeply unsettling to sensibilities that promote understanding and tolerating differences in individuals' capacities to contribute to society (which I do support), perhaps that outlook has some merit after all.
Do you really know we're talking about NDT, right? One of the most hard-working scientists when it comes down to educate people. And you're saying this:
> If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
He's saying that our subjective opinions of what the facts SHOULD be (often our very notion of what is in our best interest,) should be investigated until we come to an objective reality of what is in our best interests. He's saying science provides those answers if we can get beyond ourselves.
He says we should not elect people only to chastise them for being both too smart, or too dumb. How, from that, do you get "he's saying we're dumb!" He's not saying someone is dumb, and someone is smart. He's saying as a scientist, it's his job to hunt for objective truths, and that as an educator, he seeks to teach everyone to find those truths.
Should scientists and educators not... Educate and seek objective truths? Isn't that kind of the point in those professions? What's arrogant about that? What's EXTREMELY arrogant about that?
I think it is easy to do this at the local and state level. These populations are small enough that variations in general political leaning are small (e.g. Californians are a more unified electorate than the US as a whole). It is also easier because some polarizing issues are out of states' hands (e.g. defense spending, immigration, abortion). It is harder to get a whole country to agree on one leader
The point isn't for the whole country to agree. The point is to raise the lowest common denominator, so to speak.
Notes and audio (and non-free video) are available here:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jun/05/if-mayors-ruled-wor...
I do agree that county and state legislatures are much more effective places for real change if only our federal judiciary would quit hamstring their efforts.
What if we had an AI-like system instead of representatives? Imagine this: "Pennsylvania-One" is an AI. Every day, from their smartphones or another device, PA citizens vote on issues, ranging from small to big. Using this data, "Pennsylvania-One" creates a model of what its constituents want, and then, using its vast knowledge of political theory, history, economics, etc., makes a decision. This decision can be double-checked by constituents or by some other "watchmen"-like individuals.
Of course, this would never happen (people trust people much more than machines), and it's more of a sci-fi idea, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.
IMO the government has embraced far too little technology in the legislative process. Transparency in terms of openness of the law and changes made to it(see some European countries using git), as well as truly enabling the concept of one vote per person on an issue(instead of counting towards an aggregate) could do leaps and bounds for actual representation of the people.
The Senate does not represent the country well. California has two senators, so does Wyoming.
The next two years will be gridlock. It's unlikely Democrats retake the House and get sixty seats in the Senate, so divided government is what we have to look forward to.
The Senate is a strong architectural advantage for Conservative politics in the US.
This situation is unlikely to change. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate and that is nigh impossible in the US.
Because of this big change only happens once a generation or so.
Filibuster reform is not a constitutional crisis. If Senate Democrats refuse to tackle it when they hold the Upper chamber it's on them. Senator Jeff Merkley's gang of nine [0] seem enthusiastic about getting it done.
My hope is that states will begin to take proactive roles to fill the vacuum and it is one of my greatest aggravations the extent to which the federal judiciary has expanded the power and meaning of the commerce clause to cover basically everything in order to prevent states from taking action.
If you really want to change the system, the president should be chosen at random from the people of the United States, same for the House of Representatives and State Houses. If any of us could become president that is over 40, we'd pay a lot more attention.
obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama)
X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy
Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$ sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their problems and so does everyone else.
Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S. government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even. The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.
Or are you simply claiming that it's more important? Economies go up and down, and on the whole the president seems to have very little influence on them. Introducing a proper healthcare system will, we know from other countries, be a major long-term improvement.
So I'm not seeing obsession in Obama's focus on healthcare. I'm seeing sense.
What is the basis of this statement?
> so let's call it even
Uh, let's not. Your single anecdote does not refute the statistical correlation between education and liberalism.
also, from 2008: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-zogby-poll-of-512-obama-v...
I understand that "let's call it even" implies average (50/50), but my point was that there are enough uneducated voters from both sides to call it a draw, imo.
As The Dad says: "Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."
But I don't know that there is something inherently wrong with the voters either.
I think it is the electoral process that does not represent voter's interests. I can't select who will represent my interests. I have to pick between two false choices.
And then ALL of the power is handed to whoever wins the popularity contest. And then my concerns are ignored for four years.
Proportional representation would solve that problem. You can even use it in the executive branch (Switzerland does).
THEN Tyson could say the mistakes are our fault.
The question was, "If I were president..." If he'd answered the question straight instead of the way he did, I doubt we'd see his answer as arrogant. The context matters quite a bit.
"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." -Joseph de Maistre
Cynicism may feel good, but if it's causing you to jump to uncharitable conclusions while ignoring other likely explanations, then it's a problem.
Please do not simply project your assumptions of cynicism onto me as it is unwarranted and unwelcome. I have read and studied extensively in the history of science and in was particularly fascinated at one time with the rise of "Big Science" in the US following the Great War. My healthy skepticism of technocratic pretension to political authority is born of the recognition that almost universally (albeit with a few notable exceptions) scientists and in particular physicists when given freedom and political power (and most importantly budgetary discretion), generally within a short timeframe become technocratic monsters. They are myopic in single-minded purpose, dismissive of "outside" uncredentialed critique, and politically naive and insensitive. Usually the only saving grace is that they are extremely jealous of their rivals success and engage in petty bickering of each other's qualifications and actual work so that progress towards their ultimate aims break down before becoming institutionalized. They generally pay lip service to popular science education but in general the greatest fear of science administrators that you find in their private writings is having to justify budgets to an actually informed and educated populace and polity. They much prefer the "hero" model of the history of science for this reason.
If you want to read more about this topic you might be interested in reading about the life and career of Robert Oppenheimer [1], the roots of the interaction between science and the federal government in the 19th century and the 20th century and in particular the NRC and NAS in the work of A Hunter Dupree [2]. There is a very excellent article by Peter Galison in the larger volume "Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research" [3] that is exceedingly well-written. Finally, if you want to understand what actually happens inside a particle physics laboratory from an anthropological perspective in which some of these trends are made visible you should investigate the work of Sharon Traweek [4]. All are very good and readable introductions and I can recommend each wholeheartedly to you.
As for Neil deGrasse Tyson in particular... In order to celebrate those who made the ultimate sacrifice to achieve independence from what they viewed as tyranny and to also celebrate a crowning experimental achievement that took many years of international effort, this is what a potential political leader would choose to remark to an audience of hundreds of thousands of Americans and even more globally? And you call me cynical? In my view, upset by the lack of funding of the Texas SSC (a prototypical case of "Big Science" gone awry) and after getting a taste of how science politics really works from the inside and failing to have much impact during the Bush administration, he has turned to railing at nearly any occasion about the failure of science in America, without regard to significant American achievements in fields other than his own with much greater utility and contributions to progress in human understanding. When questioned about this tendency, he resorts to bringing up things like the Scopes trial or obscure Boards of Education fights in minor jurisdictions with regards to the teaching of evolution without proper context or brings out what he feels are the big guns and talks about the stupidity of a tiny minority of Americans wrt to extreme climate change deniers and makes huge generalizations to the public at large with no real basis in fact and refuses to engage when confronted with genuine, authentic skepticism wrt to anthropomorphic causation and the complexity involved in forming policy.
And to be clear, adopting the role of popularizer and chief simplifier and contributing generally nothing to the advancement of actual human understanding other than generating hate mail to the Hayden for striking Pluto as a planet (lol) has been quite good to Mr. Tyson. Don't get me wrong, the role of science popularizer/educator is a very necessary and not an easy job but it has also one that has been rewarding financially and in the entrepreneurial spirit I say kudos.
However, when I say "his Ego" would prevent him from being a legitimate candidate for the office of POTUS, I am stating a conclusion based on actual observation and my understanding of how his persona fits into the larger context of the dynamics of research science and contemporary American politics in the federal government. It is also true, that a candidacy would also entail giving up a fairly lucrative speaking fee in order to divert funds from his pocket to a campaign chest for several years and involve interacting in a genuine fashion with people he thinks are obtuse, stupid and unworthy of his time. Something he simply cannot seem to do if you have ever witnessed him speaking in person with someone who is not simply gushing in praise but genuinely conversant.
You may choose to interpret this as deriving from some motivation on my part for character assassination, but I can only assure you it is not. I could see some sort of "real science" super PAC or some absurd thing generating alot of attention in line with his persona, but a legitimate candidacy? It would be almost as likely as a Jesse Ventura ticket. Stranger things have happened, I guess :)
[0] http://i.imgur.com/i1nhk.jpg [1] J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life by Abraham by Pais/Robert Crease [2] Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities by A. Hunter Dupree [3] Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, Peter Galison/Bruce Hevly (eds) [4] Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, Sharon Traweek
That... actually makes sense.
It is my understanding from reading presidential biographies that ambition has not usually been a key factor in making The Big Decision(tm) to run in recent elections at least since Nixon. But who knows, not like you can really trust the sources either. Saying it's better to be King is not much of a way to create an historical legacy :)
> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.