You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Non-standard politics - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: NancyLebovitz 24 October 2014 03:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (231)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 24 October 2014 07:11:42PM *  5 points [-]

From what little I know, Imperial China was a highly functional civilisation, and as you say, any system that can last a thousand years is impressive.

Of course, far more thought would be needed to set the system up. Perhaps the examination-writing body should be separate from the rest of government? Perhaps it alone should have some form of democratic oversight? Would there be a constitution as well? Overall, I think the best thing is to have fluid intelligence as an essential component of the tests - if the tests focus on Shakespeare and medieval Europe then they can be accused of cultural bias, or if they mainly recruit experts from elite universities then the administration process there wields tremendous political power. But Raven's progressive matrices for instance is completely objective.

Anyway, isn't democracy somewhat aristocratic? The current UK prime minister is the 5th cousin twice removed of the Queen, and politicians tend to come from very posh public schools (one school in particular produced 19 PMs). In the US, the Bush line has been described as aristocratic, and it takes a lot of money to run a presidential campaign.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 October 2014 07:22:02PM 0 points [-]

In the US, the Bush line has been described as aristocratic

You misspelled "Kennedy".

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 24 October 2014 08:08:17PM 9 points [-]

I never said that the same thing didn't apply to Kennedy.