Should Presidents Be able To Spot Three Move Forced Checkmates? - Page 6

David Sklansky · #51 10-09-2007, 03:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, here in the states, we have 3 republican nominees who openly admit to not accepting evolution. Our current president thinks God gives him advice.

My point is, I don't care how quickly any of these guys can solve for mate. I'd rather have someone in office who couldn't pass a high school algebra test (but who knows how to delegate), than any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just way way wrong. Making the two reasonable assumptions that the person in question had a year of algebra and brushed up on it and that he hadn't taken courses in molecular biology and anthropology.

But it is even wrong without these assumptions. There are millions of smart people who doubt evolution. There are no smart people who fail algebra tests after attending classes in it. If you can't do elementary algebra you are bound to make errors that the ability to delegate can't overcome. Meanwhile I am quite sure that very few of our presidents would have had much problem with either algebra or simple chess problems. I can think of only one or two.

bluesbassman · #52 10-09-2007, 08:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Read his autobiography if you want to really get a handle on how smart he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that depends on what the definition of "is," is.

bluesbassman · #53 10-09-2007, 08:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There are millions of smart people who doubt evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd guess there are also many smart people who deny the holocaust. Sometimes even smart people can believe irrational things (though it's less likely than not smart people).

This is besides your original point, but it can be argued that smart people who believe dumb things are even less qualified to be president than dumber people who are more rational. That is because the former type of person can do more harm.

manbearpig · #54 10-09-2007, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read his autobiography if you want to really get a handle on how smart he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that depends on what the definition of "is," is.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

DblBarrelJ · #55 10-09-2007, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read his autobiography if you have more spare time than anyone ever should.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that depends on what the definition of "is," is.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

nightwood · #56 10-09-2007, 03:22 PM

I consider myself a somewhat trained chess player (elo ~2050 or so). What solving mates in 3 basically boils down to is pattern recognition.

I definitely want a president to be good at that. But if he fails at chess I don't think it directly disqualifies him. Let him fail at one or two similar tests and he becomes a no-go (or no-vote) for me.

hitch1978 · #57 10-09-2007, 03:44 PM

I think the problem I have with this theory is this.

Yes, I agree that the skills that this shows are extremely important in a position of decision making power. The problem comes from a giant sweeping statement ; "If you cannot do it, you should be dismissed out of hand regardless of any other factors."

That's the bit that makes it less arguable, in terms of whether the skills are important. You've set the rules of the game up in such a way that you are not asking how important these skills are, you are saying there is not room for them to be anywhere less than 100% important. Like say, 99.99% important.

And yes I am aware that quantifying it as X% important is ridiculous.

ZeeJustin · #58 10-09-2007, 04:00 PM

So you came up with the chess example to serve as a test of logic? You know what else tests logic? IQ tests. Why not just have all candidates take one? I know it's an unreasonable change that won't happen anytime soon, but I would be very unlikely to ever vote for a president with an IQ below 130.

nightwood · #59 10-09-2007, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem comes from a giant sweeping statement ; "If you cannot do it, you should be dismissed out of hand regardless of any other factors."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit tiresome to argue about percentages. As history has shown you can become president without having basically any qualification.

In order for this whole topic here to have any sense we would need to define which qualities a "good" president must have at first.

hitch1978 · #60 10-09-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem comes from a giant sweeping statement ; "If you cannot do it, you should be dismissed out of hand regardless of any other factors."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit tiresome to argue about percentages. As history has shown you can become president without having basically any qualification.

In order for this whole topic here to have any sense we would need to define which qualities a "good" president must have at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not really sure what you're trying to say.