New world leaders should be hand selected

Pragmatic Aristocrat: We tend to be under the false assumption that everyone can lead. Well not everyone can and not everyone has the natural ability to do so. One might argue that some could be trained to lead even if they are not good at it but clearly some people do a much better job at it than others.

Yes how do we choose politicians? We vote for people and a lot of times we vote for stupid reasons. Like "I saw him on tv omg!" Which is really dumb. Not to mention who really gets to put these people up for office? Do we have any idea most of the time or just assume they must be the two best candidates for the job.

I believe we should give everyone a chance to prove they have what it takes to lead. There is a lot of untapped potential that we never notice. I believe schools should have a program where they let students at the age of 11-13 volunteer for a program and be put through a series of tests. If they can prove they can lead or have leadership potential they will sent to a school that will train them to be put in leadership roles such as political office, teachers and so on.

Test one: Establish them as leaders of a small group of children and give them a task and see how the leader performs.

Test two: None established leader. Give them a small group and see if they can make the people listen to them anyways.

Judging will be based on

How effective their methods are at problem solving
How well they could make others listen when they were not assigned leadership
How well did they accomplish the task

Now if someone does well in two but not all areas they will be given a partner which they will work with to help balance them out or just go along with their career. For example if one leader is not as rational but can get people to follow and there is one who is very good at problem solving but cant make anyone like them they will be paired up in teams. Maybe be put in positions where you need two people like president and vice president for example.

davidk14: .

Prince...

If the media likes you...you get elected.

If the media does not like you...you do not get elected.

It's all about the media. Currently the media is liberal progressive except for a few. The current US President would never have been elected if the media did not support him. He had no credentials to be president yet he was overwhelming elected and re-elected. It's all about media exposure. Most people are low information consumers and the media works with that as well as with the unions.



.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @david: I understand that but my point is that this system does not work. Just because the idiot showed up on tv does not mean I should vote for him! There is more to being a good candidate than that!

davidk14: .

Prince...What exactly is the system you refer to?

.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: This system does not exist anywhere else. It was an original idea. I thought that would be obvious. It would be more of a program designed to educate youth to become good future leaders. As I strongly believe in the saying "Children are the future". We honestly dont give enough people a chance to better themselves and we always stack the deck against people. Having a good successful life is like winning a lottery. I think we should fix those odds and give everyone the opportunity to succeed. Its well known that those who come from successful families or family with businesses and more money are probably going to have more chances/opportunity than an average joe. When we have good leaders those they lead are successful so we would be helping everyone with this.

davidk14: .

Prince said:

It would be more of a program designed to educate youth to become good future leaders.....Having a good successful life is like winning a lottery....I think we should fix those odds and give everyone the opportunity to succeed.

David responds:

I understand your last post.

Everyone 'should' also live in suitable housing, eat nourishing foods, have a stable 2 parent environment in affordable and safe neighborhoods going to good schools where teachers care.

That's all great and good. But most of all, it's about the kids. They have to want to choose to be good leaders with integrity and personal honor. These types of qualities humans are not born with. They are learned mostly from roll models. However, many of the role models are not exact...honorable.

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."

W. Shakespeare

We need more people and companies to start over with the basics such as honor, respect, and enthusiasm for personal integrity.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Yes that is why the program will be optional where kids can volunteer and any kids who is qualified will stay and be sent to a special school. Having good leaders would fix those problem since we would have people who are some what rational, know how to lead, and not some idiot we gave the honor of leading us since "Oh my god I saw him on tv! *squeel*. We also will be able to separate the leaders who are nothing but talk. Our leaders are suppose to be organizing things so these problems do not occur but our leaders are often very stupid.

lori100: They are already hand selected..don't believe the public puts them in office...the illuminati chooses their minions to do their evil......all the U.S. presidents are related to the British Queen....not an accident....they are one bloodline...no outsiders need apply....

davidk14: .

I'll leave that response to Prince.

.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Lori: They are selected by those with money and not everyone is given a fair shot. I say we let all the American school children try to see if they can make something of themselves. You think most of these presidents come from poor or middle class family's? Fat chance.. Most of them come from very known and wealthy families. America is the land of Opportunity or at least that what they said it was suppose to be. So I say give everyone an opportunity not just someone with money! We are part of America too are we not?

Outbackjack: ". If they can prove they can lead or have leadership potential they will sent to a school that will train them to be put in leadership roles such as political office, teachers and so on. "

This raises many more questions than answers.
How do these kids prove that they can lead?
By whose standard?
The standards where ethics are involved or social Darwinism?

It is well known that most leaders are actually psychopathic by nature and possess narcissistic traits that make them push others out of the way.They have no empathy but this can make them reckless.Any fair minded person sees this nastiness for what it is, dangerous, But in the corporate world it is seen as a plus.

Who will train these kids at the "other" school?

davidk14: .

Training to lead 100 million people. You need to have leaderships skills obviously. You also need great organizational skills and a great memory as well. As a matter of fact, you need these skills if it were 100 people.

How about morals? Integrity? Charisma?

If they believe in "God"? Does that nix them from the job? What if they don't believe in God since most of the world does?

Does the candidate need to be straight? Gay? Both?

How about being Jewish and believes that Israel has the right to exist? Does that nix them from the job?

.

.

Outbackjack: You should know Davidk that if they believed otherwise the Jewish lobby groups would have them queuing up for food stamps quicker than you could say soup kitchen.

davidk14: .

How about the Christian or Muslim lobby or the gay lobby or straight lobby?

It's a fact that there are 47 million Americans on food stamps...or about 15% of the population.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Outback Jack: You have to read the original post up above as I already explained the process. Try reading more than the title next time. If you believe its too long to read perhaps you should not participate in discussions such as these.

Test one: Establish them as leaders of a small group of children and give them a task and see how the leader performs.

Test two: None established leader. Give them a small group and see if they can make the people listen to them anyways.

Judging will be based on

How effective their methods are at problem solving
How well they could make others listen when they were not assigned leadership
How well did they accomplish the task

Also no not all leaders are psychopaths who lead by hurting other people. Some people are simply good at managing others and some are not.

@David: We already have lobbyists. We dont need more of them. Lobbyist only care about money not good leadership potential. They have lobbyists for a number of things right now.

Outbackjack: "@Outback Jack: You have to read the original post up above as I already explained the process. Try reading more than the title next time. If you believe its too long to read perhaps you should not participate in discussions such as these. "

Process??? Not participate in discussion?

This is a public forum.You have made yourself quite clear what kind of leadership qualities you aspire to.A dictatorship.

Best you stay away from children.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Outback: you asked "How do these kids prove they are good leaders" that was already went over in the original post. How does that raise more questions if some of answers the questions you already asked were in the original post? After which you top it off by saying all leaders must be psychopaths.

Outbackjack: This is all about the basics.Call it Philosophy 101 if you like.

So back to my basic questions.

How do these kids prove that they can lead?
By whose standard?
The standards where ethics are involved or social Darwinism?

It is well known that most of our leaders,Ceos and bosses display psychopathic traits.Many psychologists have written papers on it.

R E B E C C A: "Like "I saw him on tv omg!" ....never voted for that reason and dont know anyone who has.

"Test one: Establish them as leaders of a small group of children and give them a task and see how the leader performs. ".....Prooves nothing other than they are able (or not) to capture children's attention. It doesnt even say for how long they must do that

Test two: None established leader. Give them a small group and see if they can make the people listen to them anyways. ....this amounts to nothing more than having a discussion with a few people

Judging will be based on

How effective their methods are at problem solving what problem?

How well they could make others listen when they were not assigned leadership? How would you measure how well they'ed done? Like how you gonna determine if people actually listened aand took on board what the person said or were they sat day dreaming?

How well did they accomplish the task ....this basically covers the first two!

Furthermore, who judges?? Hand selected sounds like you want to be the judge and going off your overall plan i'd not want you making any decisions for me! This idea of yours is what you might expect from a child....how old are you?

Heres an idea if the problem is that the media has too much influence remove them from the equation. Make a law that prevents the media from showing political bias. Ensure they give all respective leaders equal amount of media coverage for which they can use to promote their own policies rather than belittle the others. Also any election promises should be set in motion the moment they are in power so that they cant lie.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: Its simple they give the kid a problem to solve(and yes this has been done before) and have them solve it. We give students problems in school all the time. Math problems, science problems, English problems, and some classes hold debating.

If you do not understand why someone would listen to an unassigned leader you obviously have no understanding of sociology. Sociology is the study of how groups of people interact with each other and why. Psychology is the study of the individual and how they react. Now some people are going to understand how this works and can use it but some people (Like you) might not. I will give you the basics though.

A.You are likable
B.They believe you are trustworthy
C.You are the most dominant/Competent person in the room

For assigned leaders

A.I have to listen or I will get in trouble
B.He is the boss we all must listen to the boss
C.I dont feel like leading so I will follow him/her

It might also help if you did research into dog(Pack mentality) as it does seem to have some similarities to how people work.

Well actually your idea about blocking media is a good idea. However that would still leave the public ignorant since if media is not telling people what to think I doubt that most of them are going to go out of their way to research it. So that still does not really fix anything.

Also you mock the idea since you dont have an adequate understanding of sociology. I hope my points explained it well enough for you to understand. Its silly to believe that people dont have group dynamics even within groups without an assigned leader. If you pay attention you will notice the patterns and you will notice the roles each person is given.

For leaders I think leaders who are already competent. Maybe risk assessment workers could be good candidates.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/improving-group-dynamics.htm
en.wikipedia.org/?title=Group_dynamics

Here are links. Hope that helps explain the process more. We have group dynamics even in groups of friends.

R E B E C C A: Well I never said block the media I said ban political bias by the interviwer and allowing each candidate equal air time. There's a difference. And I have studied sociology and also politics. I also know that wiki is not a source worth referencing

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Rebecca: Oh I thought you meant to not allow political pushing on the media. Which would make a lot of sense. Also we cant simply tell the media they cant be bias since what constitutes a bias? Does saying "Obama won" come off as bias for democrats or is it simply a fact that he won?

Also a lot of media networks cherry pick so what they are saying is not necessarily inaccurate its just not the entire picture. As well as that a lot of people make up fake polls and skew the numbers so you dont know which side is being honest ever the democrats or the republicans.

Now you can say "I think Republicans because Fact, Fact, Fact" but again they could still argue that you are Bias for that particular side. So simply making a law saying you cant be bias is a little difficult. It makes more sense to say that media is not allowed to back either side. Like Nick telling the kids to vote on who they want to win the presidency "Mccane" or "Obama".

Also you obviously dont understand group dynamics. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/481 So I dont see why you think you can complain about the source when you could have learned this stuff on your own. However here is another link not from Wiki. I also put another link before Wiki. However I believe the way Wiki explained it was a bit more simple and easy to follow. Here is a third link.

R E B E C C A: Stating facts is not bias. Perhaps you should study how the media influences public opinion..

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Rebecca: That is not really the point. How do we determine what is bias or not. Anyone can say anything is bias for any reason even if it isnt really bias. Also you can state facts and be bias its called cherry picking.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
Cherry picking is picking only details(Facts) which support your claim. So lets say that there is 20 positive facts for Democrats and 20 positive facts about republicans. Yet there is 15 facts that are negative for each side. If you cherry pick you can only highlight the good facts for one side and highlight only the bad facts for another. Does that mean that you "Lied"? No of course not these are facts, however you are being intellectually dishonest since you are only showing facts that support your case and tossing out the facts that dont. So in a way you are cheating.

So how do we determine if someone is actually being bias? How do we enforce everyone not be bias. In fact trying to force people to not be bias ends up making everything much more bias. Which simply does not work.

Lets say that certain company's were accused of hiring too many same race workers right? So its said they must hire so many whites, brown, blacks, ecs. So that means that they have to judge people based on race and skills but even if for example a black person has the skills they need for the company they will not hire them. The reason they cant hire them is that they met the quota for the number of black people in that company. Which honestly is very unfair. Since race/color should not be a factor in who you hire.

R E B E C C A: You can waffle some shit....what should I of expected from some one calling himself "adorable prince."

Outbackjack: You do have some fair points about how groups of people can separate into unassigned leaders and followers but this is because of social conditioning. Nothing else.In the majority of cases it is entirely down to the first half of point 3 you made "You are the most dominant/Competent person in the room "

As for the being the most competent this is not always or even usually the case.Again this is social conditioning and perceptions of a majority of people who are brought up in a society where it is every man for himself.This is not to say that people don't cooperate.Far from it. People have different perceptions on how to survive in a society such as this.Try to lead or play the small target strategy and follow others.Competency plays no part.It's all about confidence and who can bluff with a poor hand.That is why we have so many incompetent leaders who are really just mediocre managers.

Which brings us back to my original questions which you keep avoiding.