Testing our leaders

[cytg111]

There was a bill recently in the US that suggested that employers could enforce employees to genetic testing - or face penality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.50f018347022

Speaking of personal traits, what about our leaders aka CEO's ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/

But what makes a psychopath?
https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer#t-370037

Given we have a test that predicts psychopathy reliably, should we not demand that our leaders sumbit to testing?

 

[Younigue]

But anyone who wants to lead on such a dramatic scale has to be a bit touched in the head. Being a thankless job aside the scope and responsibility would overwhelm most. There certainly has to be a significant hunger for power.

Yeah, I'm sticking with anyone who wants the job never being capable of passing.

It's just that this time we wound up with someone likely clinically unstable.

 

[cytg111]

But anyone who wants to lead on such a dramatic scale has to be a bit touched in the head. Being a thankless job aside the scope and responsibility would overwhelm most. There certainly has to be a significant hunger for power.

Yeah, I'm sticking with anyone who wants the job never being capable of passing.

It's just that this time we wound up with someone likely clinically unstable.

For the record, this was *not* about Trump...

 

[cytg111]

But anyone who wants to lead on such a dramatic scale has to be a bit touched in the head. Being a thankless job aside the scope and responsibility would overwhelm most. There certainly has to be a significant hunger for power.

Yeah, I'm sticking with anyone who wants the job never being capable of passing.

It's just that this time we wound up with someone likely clinically unstable.

No matter at what level, as a leader I dont want someone that is, at a genetic level, unable to feel other people. One thing is to play chess and sacrifice pawns for the greater good, another is to sacrifice pawns cause you want a bigger paycheck and/or to get laid.

 

[Younigue]

Alright then, disregard the last bit if you like.

 

[Younigue]

I agree, neither do I but I maintain it takes a certain type to even want to lead. Especially on the grander end of the spectrum.

We see it in Religious Leaders, Business Leaders... etc. I think very few of those in power currently would do well if tested.

It would be a better world if the people who "feel" the impact of bad government, bad policy, bad people and so on would step up to lead.

 

[cytg111]

I agree, neither do I but I maintain it takes a certain type to even want to lead. Especially on the grander end of the spectrum.

We see it in Religious Leaders, Business Leaders... etc. I think very few of those in power currently would do well if tested.

It would be a better world if the people who "feel" the impact of bad government, bad policy, bad people and so on would step up to lead.

I understand that concern; what if I need my ultimate leader to be xxx to fight off xxx from other countries or whatever. That being said, I refuse to submit to the idea that on some level I need a psychopath in charge cause "so do they". We should all be striving to do better.

 

[Younigue]

Absolutely agree.

I wasn't suggesting the crazy meet crazy philosophy. In fact I think if the majority of Leaders were psychologically 90% sound ('cause come on, who is a100%?) it wouldn't be too difficult to unseat the nutty ones.

I guess I haven't stated clearly yet, I would absolutely love for Leaders to have Psyche Evaluations before ever being allowed to take a grab at power.