Alternatively they might be more willing to shut up and multiply than a candidate who was swayed by their emotions, I want a leader who will happily kick a puppy to increase GDP by 1%.
FiftyTwo might be referring to studies showing that sociopaths are more likely to flip the switch in the trolley problem, or as put in the abstract:
"[Experiment participants] who indicated greater endorsement of utilitarian solutions had higher scores on measures of Psychopathy, machiavellianism, and life meaninglessness"
We probably want politicians who will do things like push for iodized salt even though it kills older people in formerly-iodine-deficient areas.
See this Newsroom clip.
Basically, their news network is trying to change the way political debates work by having the moderator force the candidates to answer the questions that are asked of them, not interrupt each other, justify arguments that are based on obvious falsehoods etc.
How big of a positive impact do you guys think that this would have on society?
My initial thoughts are that it would be huge. It would lead to better politicians, which would be a high level of action. The positive effects would trickle down into many aspects of our society.
The question then becomes, "can we make this happen?". I don't see a way right now, but the idea has enough upside to me that I keep it in the back of my mind in case I come up with a plausible way of implementing the change.
Thoughts?