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.

ChristianKl 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: ChristianKl 25 October 2014 05:06:21PM 0 points [-]

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

You can easily tune your fluid intelligence test in a way that gives woman an advantage or in a way that gives men an advantage.

But Raven's progressive matrices for instance is completely objective.

No, performance on that test is trainable.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 October 2014 06:33:55AM *  2 points [-]

If typically male forms of fluid intelligence are more important for government, then all other things being equal there should be more men in government.

If typically female forms of fluid intelligence are more important for government, then all other things being equal there should be more women in government.

Perhaps you would want a female foreign minister and a male minister of defence?

No, performance on that test is trainable.

I was also thinking that most people take the IQ test at 16 or 18, in the same way you have the SATs in the US. In fact, in the US you could just use SAT scores instead. This way, everyone would train for the test.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 October 2014 11:10:07AM 0 points [-]

Perhaps you would want a female foreign minister and a male minister of defence?

Who's the "you" you are talking about?

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 October 2014 02:17:26PM 1 point [-]

I probably should have written 'one'.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 October 2014 03:14:37PM 0 points [-]

I probably should have written 'one'.

That doesn't solve the issue. Who get's to make that decision?

A lot of mental tests benefit some heuristics over other heuristics. Maybe you find a heuristic that correlates with openness to experience. If your test favors people with high openness to experience you get less conservative people in your government.

Test design is highly political if the results of the test matter.