33%

What a blast. It seems I am not nearly as
ill as some others may have thought...

Define ill please Ian.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Now there's a thought! Any "good" chemists amongst our lot?

Well, I'm a chemical engineer. Not the same, but I do have second-year chemistry behind me. My country might profit from a good leader with a chemistry background. Our current one has no formal schooling at all. And it shows!

Interestingly, highly educated Modern American President's, Wilson, Bush Jr. (Harvard), and Obama, were/are failures.

Perhaps Practical (make things work) Educated Persons - Chemists, Engineer's, etc., will be better.

Who says Obama was a failure? Despite the obstruction of the right wing he got a lot of things done. He fixed the economy that Bush Jr broke. He made a start at fixing your healthcare system. He is working on fixing your broken immigration system

For fixing a economy that was in such a deep hole alone he should get credit. He saved your asses.

By omitting Wilson and Bush Jr. - you agree with 2/3 of my statement?

:) :) :)

I agree that Bush Jr. was a failure. I don't know much about Wilson so I can't comment.

What I do know is that there are too many lawyers in politics. I think we need some Astrophysicists, such as Neil de Grasse Tyson in charge.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Interestingly, highly educated Modern American President's, Wilson, Bush Jr. (Harvard), and Obama, were/are failures.

Perhaps Practical (make things work) Educated Persons - Chemists, Engineer's, etc., will be better.

Ehm, that would still count as highly educated. Besides, look at the high profile politicians with such a background. A politician like Merkel has significant drawbacks as well.

In the end though, I'm certain that your education is irrelevant to how well you function as a politicians. They are unrelated skill sets.

Some introspection once in a while is actually very good, not evil:))

Just remember that a test consisting of a dozen questions is hardly telling of anything in a significant way. At its best, its a mildly entertaining waste of a few minutes of time.

Interestingly, highly educated Modern American President's, Wilson, Bush Jr. (Harvard), and Obama, were/are failures.

Perhaps Practical (make things work) Educated Persons - Chemists, Engineer's, etc., will be better.

Ehm, that would still count as highly educated. Besides, look at the high profile politicians with such a background. A politician like Merkel has significant drawbacks as well.

In the end though, I'm certain that your education is irrelevant to how well you function as a politicians. They are unrelated skill sets.

Probably more actor/actress than competency.

Very much so. The ability to lie and make people believe your lie is perhaps a politician's only necessary skill. Well, maybe putting the bribe money in the bank too.

---

Define ill please Ian.

I was just joking about the fact that even with my some what effervescent
personality, I still come up sort of normal in that Psycho test.

---

Now there's a thought! Any "good" chemists amongst our lot?

Well, I'm a chemical engineer. Not the same, but I do have second-year chemistry behind me. My country might profit from a good leader with a chemistry background. Our current one has no formal schooling at all. And it shows!

Interestingly, highly educated Modern American President's, Wilson, Bush Jr. (Harvard), and Obama, were/are failures.

Perhaps Practical (make things work) Educated Persons - Chemists, Engineer's, etc., will be better.

Who says Obama was a failure? Despite the obstruction of the right wing he got a lot of things done. He fixed the economy that Bush Jr broke. He made a start at fixing your healthcare system. He is working on fixing your broken immigration system

For fixing a economy that was in such a deep hole alone he should get credit. He saved your asses.

By omitting Wilson and Bush Jr. - you agree with 2/3 of my statement?

:) :) :)

I agree that Bush Jr. was a failure. I don't know much about Wilson so I can't comment.

What I do know is that there are too many lawyers in politics. I think we need some Astrophysicists, such as Neil de Grasse Tyson in charge.

So your saying Neil deGrasse Tyson should be the next Pm of Canada?

---

[/quote]

Old James

What I do know is that there are too many lawyers in politics. I think we need some Astrophysicists, such as Neil de Grasse Tyson in charge.

That would be a waste of his time and abilities. The guy is an awesome astrophysicist, but that does not make people awesome politicians. In fact, Im sure he would be horrible at it. Hard science deals in absolutes, in singular truths, in singular optimal solutions. Those things do not exist in politics. Its one giant grey mess, solutions do not exist and if they do exist you still need to convince enough people, with entirely different interests and agendas that your solution is better and benefits them as well.

And whats wrong with lawyers in politics? A huge part of politics is dealing with law or creating new law. Having a legal background can help a lot there. And there are other skills that politicians and lawyers share. The ability to argue for your clients behalf, framing the issue in such a way that it makes your client look like the one with the law on his side, presenting skills, etc, those are really useful skills for a politician.

Perhaps you shouldn't judge politicians based on their background, or assume that having a certain background is indicative of a politicians quality.

Very much so. The ability to lie and make people believe your lie is perhaps a politician's only necessary skill. Well, maybe putting the bribe money in the bank too.

I wouldn't say only necessary skill. Someone who is a great liar but an idiot otherwise is still going to fail in politics. You guys give politicians far to little credit.

Adolf was a Political Failure?

Just a point.

Can't speak for European Politicians. But here in America: I wouldn't have enough time to list the Personally Successful, Lying, Idiot Politicians.

:) :) :)

Adolf sadly was much more than a liar. Say what you want about the guy, but he did have a vision (a terrible one, but a vision non the less) and he knew perfectly how to gauge the public sentiment, and what he could get away with from the existing political top before he became a dictator. Also, he got lucky, the preconditions all favored him and his Nazi gang of thugs.

Now there's a thought! Any "good" chemists amongst our lot?

Well, I'm a chemical engineer. Not the same, but I do have second-year chemistry behind me. My country might profit from a good leader with a chemistry background. Our current one has no formal schooling at all. And it shows!

Interestingly, highly educated Modern American President's, Wilson, Bush Jr. (Harvard), and Obama, were/are failures.

Perhaps Practical (make things work) Educated Persons - Chemists, Engineer's, etc., will be better.

Who says Obama was a failure? Despite the obstruction of the right wing he got a lot of things done. He fixed the economy that Bush Jr broke. He made a start at fixing your healthcare system. He is working on fixing your broken immigration system

For fixing a economy that was in such a deep hole alone he should get credit. He saved your asses.

By omitting Wilson and Bush Jr. - you agree with 2/3 of my statement?

:) :) :)

I agree that Bush Jr. was a failure. I don't know much about Wilson so I can't comment.

What I do know is that there are too many lawyers in politics. I think we need some Astrophysicists, such as Neil de Grasse Tyson in charge.

So your saying Neil deGrasse Tyson should be the next Pm of Canada?

I never thought of that. How long would it take to make him Canadian? We'd have him like a shot.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Now there's a thought! Any "good" chemists amongst our lot?

Well, I'm a chemical engineer. Not the same, but I do have second-year chemistry behind me. My country might profit from a good leader with a chemistry background. Our current one has no formal schooling at all. And it shows!

Interestingly, highly educated Modern American President's, Wilson, Bush Jr. (Harvard), and Obama, were/are failures.

Perhaps Practical (make things work) Educated Persons - Chemists, Engineer's, etc., will be better.

Who says Obama was a failure? Despite the obstruction of the right wing he got a lot of things done. He fixed the economy that Bush Jr broke. He made a start at fixing your healthcare system. He is working on fixing your broken immigration system

For fixing a economy that was in such a deep hole alone he should get credit. He saved your asses.

By omitting Wilson and Bush Jr. - you agree with 2/3 of my statement?

:) :) :)

I agree that Bush Jr. was a failure. I don't know much about Wilson so I can't comment.

What I do know is that there are too many lawyers in politics. I think we need some Astrophysicists, such as Neil de Grasse Tyson in charge.

So your saying Neil deGrasse Tyson should be the next Pm of Canada?

I never thought of that. How long would it take to make him Canadian? We'd have him like a shot.

He was born in New York city. I dont know Canadian law on who can be a PM. In the US you have to be natural born to be elected President. I like him a lot. I think he'd make a great science adviser to a President. And the heat he took for helping to demoting Pluto shows he can take the heat of political office:)

---

[/quote]

Old James

You don't have to be born Canadian to be prime minister, just a Canadian citizen.

Somebody send the invite off please.

Neil deGrasse Tyson should be the next Pm of Canada

Vote Tyson for PM.

Vote yes for Tyson!!

---

Netherlands Person Correctly Pointed Out:

That would be a waste of his time and abilities. The guy is an awesome astrophysicist, but that does not make people awesome politicians. In fact, Im sure he would be horrible at it. Hard science deals in absolutes, in singular truths, in singular optimal solutions. Those things do not exist in politics. Its one giant grey mess, solutions do not exist and if they do exist you still need to convince enough people, with entirely different interests and agendas that your solution is better and benefits them as well.

Obviously you are Ignored/Filtered or they Don't see The Perfect Reasoning.

Typical.

Besides NdGT showed His Political Stupidity During The New Cosmos and Some Other Mishaps of Personality during Interviews/Shows.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

In the end though, I'm certain that your education is irrelevant to how well you function as a politicians. They are unrelated skill sets.

Strong conclusion, indeed. Being on education side, can you prove this scientifically? ;) Did you do enough controls (or can refer corresponding investigations?), that is, taking same political situation, same leader characters, same ALL but their base education level and compare? I'm sure not cause no one so far was able to do this :)

Then just "IMO". And should be treated as such.
Another IMO - education level greatly influences on political and leader abilities, along with character of leader, his childhood impressions, his environment and many other factors.

EDIT: and some thought to support this IMO.
Being scientist means to try to be as objective as possible, to be able to see and admit being wrong if proves are provided, to be honest in own conclusions (at least in them ;) )... all these factors can be good for leader (of course if goal is right, there are many "ifs" as always).

Strong conclusion, indeed. Being on education side, can you prove this scientifically? ;) Did you do enough controls (or can refer corresponding investigations?), that is, taking same political situation, same leader characters, same ALL but their base education level and compare? I'm sure not cause no one so far was able to do this :)

No, but the fact remains that the skillsets you gain from an education are not required to be a good politician. A good politician needs to have people skills, and those are not taught at school. Thats all. Someone who knows how to deal with people, who knows what to say at the right moment, who knows how to make people like him/her, who knows how to set up a network, who knows how to be seen by the right people and who knows when to cut ties with people once they become a burden. Thats what makes a politician a good politician and non of those things are taught at school.

That said, an education can of course help and possibly make you a better politician. But they cannot ever compensate for the lack of people skills and someone who just has a very good education but not a lot of people skills will never become a good politician.

EDIT: and some thought to support this IMO.
Being scientist means to try to be as objective as possible, to be able to see and admit being wrong if proves are provided, to be honest in own conclusions (at least in them ;) )... all these factors can be good for leader (of course if goal is right, there are many "ifs" as always).

Yeah no. In an idea world you want that to be your leader. In this world? Nope, those are hindrances. Admitting that you are wrong as a politician? Well thats risky business, because your enemies will use that against you and you will lose the next elections. And being honest in your own conclusions, well thats nice but if your conclusions make you look bad, well then again, you might lose the next elections.

So again, politics and science are pretty much polar opposites.

And being honest in your own conclusions, well thats nice but if your conclusions make you look bad, well then again, you might lose the next elections.

So again, politics and science are pretty much polar opposites.

Well, indeed, if aim of politic just to manipulate of crowd, then definitely yes, scientist will fail very soon on such task.
But in general your examples just show how great is role of education in whole picture of the world. Crowd remains crowd while it's un-educated. It looks on bad or good "sound" of conclusions not on conclusions per se for the same, being uneducated to see little further.

So, we can admit that in current world state to educate nation is to work against himself for any leader with current political skills. But next the question arise is it right flow of things or not?

Some time ago there were many things that seemed right for centuries. And all at those times argued that it's "the natural flow of things, that's how should be and can't be anything another". That's the big difference between how it is, and how it should be...

Your
score 18%




You are warm and empathic with a heightened awareness of social responsibility and a strong sense of conscience. You like to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of a situation before you act and are generally averse to taking risks. You are very much a ‘people person’ and dislike conflict. ‘Do unto others…’ are your watchwords. But, although you avoid hurting others, those residing at the higher end of the psychopathic spectrum might not be as considerate, so stay vigilant to avoid being hurt unnecessarily.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Netherlands Person Correctly Pointed Out:

That would be a waste of his time and abilities. The guy is an awesome astrophysicist, but that does not make people awesome politicians. In fact, Im sure he would be horrible at it. Hard science deals in absolutes, in singular truths, in singular optimal solutions. Those things do not exist in politics. Its one giant grey mess, solutions do not exist and if they do exist you still need to convince enough people, with entirely different interests and agendas that your solution is better and benefits them as well.

Obviously you are Ignored/Filtered or they Don't see The Perfect Reasoning.

..

or maybe we realised he just doesn't know who Neil de Grasse Tyson really is? He's a big celebrity in North America, but not so widely known in Europe. Anyone who knows of him knows that he is not "just" an astrophysicist. He is an extremely on-the-ball man who speaks out very clearly and understands a lot of the issues that face us today.

---

Reality Internet Personality