TrickyRicky
Senior Member
I've given some of these issues you guys are discussing on the general nature of politics and the appeal of the Fords some thought over the years. I still think you guys are missing something. I believe that politics is fundamentally about dealing with vested interests where more than one interest conflicts. Humans are also social creatures so we assign value to and form identity around shared vested interests.
Here's where it gets personal so I mean no offense but failure to see why people would vote for say Doug Ford or pursue interests that you don't agree with is a failure of your own ability to a) understand yourself and your own vested interests b) understand the vested interests of others.
When I say that I'm not saying those things are easy. No, they are fundamental. In an entire human life time you would be hard pressed to understand a) yourself b) is mostly left to a few of histories greatest sages
The other thing is that the universe has a distain for wasted energy. Why that is important is that it implies that people are not wasting energy supporting things that you don't. It's not spurious behaviour.
So on the topic of educational requirement for leadership it would follow that if you care about this it's because you are defending your vested interest. If politicians get elected who are not academically inclined or gifted it tells you that a) that is not a requirement of leadership b) other people do not share your vested interest or shared value of having educated leaders c) the vested interest of those who don't care about educated leaders is not spurious.
Personally I have advanced degrees and share the desire for leaders to be educated and knowledgeable. That's my "tribe". But one thing I've realized on the soccer pitch is that I'm not a team player. This is atypical behaviour. I care about fact and am a servant to meaning (and annoyingly being "right"). Every team has it's douche guy, it's captain, it's yes man etc. I'm not the guy whose going to defend my team douche guy when he sucker kicks another player in the back.
Here's where it gets personal so I mean no offense but failure to see why people would vote for say Doug Ford or pursue interests that you don't agree with is a failure of your own ability to a) understand yourself and your own vested interests b) understand the vested interests of others.
When I say that I'm not saying those things are easy. No, they are fundamental. In an entire human life time you would be hard pressed to understand a) yourself b) is mostly left to a few of histories greatest sages
The other thing is that the universe has a distain for wasted energy. Why that is important is that it implies that people are not wasting energy supporting things that you don't. It's not spurious behaviour.
So on the topic of educational requirement for leadership it would follow that if you care about this it's because you are defending your vested interest. If politicians get elected who are not academically inclined or gifted it tells you that a) that is not a requirement of leadership b) other people do not share your vested interest or shared value of having educated leaders c) the vested interest of those who don't care about educated leaders is not spurious.
Personally I have advanced degrees and share the desire for leaders to be educated and knowledgeable. That's my "tribe". But one thing I've realized on the soccer pitch is that I'm not a team player. This is atypical behaviour. I care about fact and am a servant to meaning (and annoyingly being "right"). Every team has it's douche guy, it's captain, it's yes man etc. I'm not the guy whose going to defend my team douche guy when he sucker kicks another player in the back.