Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset2

like 0

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\"." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww)." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION", ">\n\nHow about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION", ">\n\nHow about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime.", ">\n\nHe makes the exact same facial expression as Kyrsten Sinema in like every photo he's in." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION", ">\n\nHow about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime.", ">\n\nHe makes the exact same facial expression as Kyrsten Sinema in like every photo he's in.", ">\n\nWhy not let his constituents decide?" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION", ">\n\nHow about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime.", ">\n\nHe makes the exact same facial expression as Kyrsten Sinema in like every photo he's in.", ">\n\nWhy not let his constituents decide?", ">\n\nHis constituents did decide...on a person that doesn't exist." ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION", ">\n\nHow about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime.", ">\n\nHe makes the exact same facial expression as Kyrsten Sinema in like every photo he's in.", ">\n\nWhy not let his constituents decide?", ">\n\nHis constituents did decide...on a person that doesn't exist.", ">\n\nSucks to be them. They voted Republican, what did they expect?" ]

[ "Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.\nHis campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.\nAll this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want.", ">\n\nFines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do.", ">\n\nIncome Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws.", ">\n\nThis would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is.", ">\n\nMate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.", ">\n\nYeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.", ">\n\nThat's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.\nThe correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.\nIt's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%.", ">\n\nSpeeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income. Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000.", ">\n\nI honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet.", ">\n\nHe will be soon. In Brazil.", ">\n\nI think someone on his campaign was impersonating McCarthy's chief of staff to get campaign donations so.... possibly in the US too", ">\n\nYes, he got paid 100k to impersonate him.", ">\n\nGreat, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office. Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam. At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government. \nSince I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.\nIf not then why the hell not. \nStandards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. \nStandards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.\nAre we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776?", ">\n\nWell said. Its absurd that you can have well educated people in the professions you mentioned yet any idiot can become a lawmaker and literally govern and legislate what they can and cannot do.", ">\n\nPart of the challenge is keeping those standards from creating a caste system/being used to keep rich white male landowners in power.\nStill, 'must pass minimum classified material handling standards' shouldn't be too tough.", ">\n\nUnder this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't?", ">\n\nDepends on how well they know bird law", ">\n\nOh my God! Nobody look!!", ">\n\nDid you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle.", ">\n\nI love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy.", ">\n\nLike Santorum.", ">\n\nHe fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become.", ">\n\nI don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act", ">\n\nI think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it", ">\n\nSantos L. Halper", ">\n\nLol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker", ">\n\nIt's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!<", ">\n\nImpeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices.", ">\n\nThe house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior.", ">\n\nCan they pass an act to punish candidates who lie about what they \"stand for\" and what they \"promise\" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's football shit.", ">\n\nNope. And here's why.\nThe entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.\nThe problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the \"libs\" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.\nAs far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for.", ">\n\nSantos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy", ">\n\nRight above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass!", ">\n\nCrazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide.", ">\n\nHow long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms?", ">\n\nIs this like a Lemon Law for Congress?", ">\n\nWhat a legacy!", ">\n\nI’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo!", ">\n\nJesus that’s so embarrassing", ">\n\nMy last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us!", ">\n\nsame", ">\n\nDoes he get to vote on it?!", ">\n\nBut how sure are we that is in fact his name?", ">\n\nYou know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake.", ">\n\n\"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker\"", ">\n\nThis should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless.", ">\n\nOnly a couple hundred years late. Some \"leadership\" we've had in this country.", ">\n\nOnly a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents??", ">\n\nFines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line. The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want. $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. \nFuck this. Fines should be % based.", ">\n\nMcCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions", ">\n\nIf McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House.", ">\n\nThat's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy. \nTheir majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. \nAfter four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices. They deserve exactly that they're getting.", ">\n\nI can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, \"Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth\".", ">\n\nCongratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww).", ">\n\nTo be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.\nSuper irksome that he's displaying no shame.", ">\n\nIs that actually his face?\nIs there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop?", ">\n\nWe now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved. Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is.", ">\n\nPerhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.\nDisclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals.", ">\n\nJoke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name!", ">\n\nIt's Soros!! \nSecret Democrats plot!!!", ">\n\nMy read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths?", ">\n\nThe punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public.", ">\n\nJesus the Trump act would be a better name.", ">\n\nDon't flatter him.", ">\n\nCandidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues!", ">\n\nI’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters.", ">\n\nSupposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted.", ">\n\nAll that \"accountability\" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where.", ">\n\nThis bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it.", ">\n\nMan it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that!", ">\n\nIirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius”", ">\n\nImagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO.", ">\n\nThe Dick Whitman Act", ">\n\nSo they can pay to lie? Got it.", ">\n\nI don’t even know who this guy really is.", ">\n\nI hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking.", ">\n\nHow badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? \"If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor\" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one.", ">\n\nIs he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert!", ">\n\nThere goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing.", ">\n\nI was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.\nSo, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize.", ">\n\nHow about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it.", ">\n\nHow was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail.", ">\n\nBecause criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. \nLong list", ">\n\nSo why are the gop actually pissed at him?", ">\n\nHe's making them look like fools. He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him. You'd have thought they learned this lesson with \"orgies\" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool. But they just keep on signing them up.", ">\n\nIT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?\nWhy is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF", ">\n\nWhy not jail?", ">\n\nThis won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment.", ">\n\nLol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro”", ">\n\nYes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick.", ">\n\nFines are for poor people. So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.\n.", ">\n\nLook, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people. The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future. It's simple.", ">\n\nI can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION", ">\n\nHow about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime.", ">\n\nHe makes the exact same facial expression as Kyrsten Sinema in like every photo he's in.", ">\n\nWhy not let his constituents decide?", ">\n\nHis constituents did decide...on a person that doesn't exist.", ">\n\nSucks to be them. They voted Republican, what did they expect?", ">\n\nIf they punish him, then they’ll have to punish all the politicians who lie about who they are….and then, no more politicians?" ]

[]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person)." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital.", ">\n\nI think the bigger problem is that there is no absolute truth." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital.", ">\n\nI think the bigger problem is that there is no absolute truth.", ">\n\nunfortunately its really REALLY hard to shut down that part of our brain, and equally easy to trigger it. Unless you are specifially engaging with it in a way to mitigate it, Politics is marketing these days." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital.", ">\n\nI think the bigger problem is that there is no absolute truth.", ">\n\nunfortunately its really REALLY hard to shut down that part of our brain, and equally easy to trigger it. Unless you are specifially engaging with it in a way to mitigate it, Politics is marketing these days.", ">\n\nDo you think the primal instincts that we give into when voting may also be a factor that effects the way they are able to interact with other leaders? And thus remains an important factor to consider." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital.", ">\n\nI think the bigger problem is that there is no absolute truth.", ">\n\nunfortunately its really REALLY hard to shut down that part of our brain, and equally easy to trigger it. Unless you are specifially engaging with it in a way to mitigate it, Politics is marketing these days.", ">\n\nDo you think the primal instincts that we give into when voting may also be a factor that effects the way they are able to interact with other leaders? And thus remains an important factor to consider.", ">\n\nHow people feel about you is an inseparable part of leadership. Leaders lead people, not machines. Subjective, illogical elements have to come into play when leading subjective, illogical beings.\nDo you feel the same way about charisma as you do about height and vocal depth? \nSay a short, high-voiced person is very charismatic and rises to a position of leadership because if it. Would that situation be better than if they had gotten there on height and vocal depth?\nIf so, why? \nWhy does it matter whether it’s something that someone is, or something that someone does? \nBeing a leader is, in no small part, about being someone that people feel like following. Shouldn’t any unharmful ability or quality which make people feel comfortable with your leadership be considered a valid criterion for leadership potential?\nInevitably, because it involves humans, leadership relationships carry highly subjective and emotional components, which you seem to be throwing out completely, or expect can be easily rewritten.\n(Edit: am devil’s advocate)." ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital.", ">\n\nI think the bigger problem is that there is no absolute truth.", ">\n\nunfortunately its really REALLY hard to shut down that part of our brain, and equally easy to trigger it. Unless you are specifially engaging with it in a way to mitigate it, Politics is marketing these days.", ">\n\nDo you think the primal instincts that we give into when voting may also be a factor that effects the way they are able to interact with other leaders? And thus remains an important factor to consider.", ">\n\nHow people feel about you is an inseparable part of leadership. Leaders lead people, not machines. Subjective, illogical elements have to come into play when leading subjective, illogical beings.\nDo you feel the same way about charisma as you do about height and vocal depth? \nSay a short, high-voiced person is very charismatic and rises to a position of leadership because if it. Would that situation be better than if they had gotten there on height and vocal depth?\nIf so, why? \nWhy does it matter whether it’s something that someone is, or something that someone does? \nBeing a leader is, in no small part, about being someone that people feel like following. Shouldn’t any unharmful ability or quality which make people feel comfortable with your leadership be considered a valid criterion for leadership potential?\nInevitably, because it involves humans, leadership relationships carry highly subjective and emotional components, which you seem to be throwing out completely, or expect can be easily rewritten.\n(Edit: am devil’s advocate).", ">\n\nRegarding your fifth paragraph: it sounds like meritocracy is a front then? \nCharisma isn’t a physical trait, so actually no I don’t. Charisma is important in leadership. Inspiring devotion can be learned. \nI don’t disagree with any of this, and while we’re not machines, there are people working in artificial intelligence that are creating automatons to eliminate human error.\nIn certain instances I think human error is important for personal growth, but being aware that a feeling is irrational or just a feeling, is something we all experience and we check ourselves.\nI’m sure our girlfriends and wives go outside and find other men attractive. They feel attraction, but do they act on it? We keep our feelings in check all the time; why do we give in in this case?" ]

[ "/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nYou’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. \nSo, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. \nIf you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question.", ">\n\nBut as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right?", ">\n\nSure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.\nIf it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate.", ">\n\nI understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.\nWhat if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?\nI think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually \"break,\" and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego.", ">\n\nThat wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.\nAn alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. \nSocial movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.\nSo, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” …", ">\n\nHow do you propose we change human nature?\nWhy would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?\nOf course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals.", ">\n\nThank you for your reply.\nWe are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone \"younger,\" if you catch my drift, etc.\nMaybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that \"Character Counts,\" but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.\nAs for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.\nEdit: doo doo formatting lol", ">\n\nfirstly, you yourself invoke value in \"stronger\". A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here. Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3\" is going to be stronger than a 5'9\" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)\nsecondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height. I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a \"hiring problem\" when it's really a chicken and egg problem. That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow? This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the \"should\" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense.", ">\n\nCould you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence?", ">\n\nThis might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...\nIf you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into \"Choosing by Advantages\" by Jim Suhr, and \"Thinking Fast and Slow\" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history.", ">\n\nI actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? \nAnd thank you for the book recs.", ">\n\nIt's \"no one's fault\" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of \"I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?\"\nThe bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of \"weighing pros and cons\" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with \"low gas mileage\" on one side, and \"high gas mileage on the other.\" As Kahneman showed, this \"double counting\" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.\nEven accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their \"fast\" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our \"slow\" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the \"fast\" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or \"moral.\" It would only be by engaging their \"slow\" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.\nEdit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to \"build a wall.\" People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of \"immigration reform\" often don't sound concrete enough, and their \"fast\" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration.", ">\n\nI don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.\nDoesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.\nIn a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.\nSo Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.\nSide note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nLeadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable.", ">\n\nI think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience.", ">\n\nAppearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both.", ">\n\nLMAO!! So you're saying they were \"distinct,\" looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice?", ">\n\nNo, \"~~district~~ distinct\" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.\nThere are maybe a few exceptions.", ">\n\nSorry, I think if you look again, my word was \"distiNCT\"", ">\n\nSorry, auto-correct error. \"Distinct\" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with \"funny-looking\"", ">\n\nThe truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.\nCorporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.\nGiven how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.", ">\n\nJust so I'm not assuming, when you say \"these imbalances,\" are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.", ">\n\nMost of the factors that I mentioned were the ones that are outwardly perceptible in every person - but there are certainly many other subtle forms of privilege and disenfranchisement. \nTake nationality for example - the country of your birth and upbringing has such a colossal effect on your access to education, individual freedom, healthcare, and eventually, employment opportunities. Former colonial powers, their allies, and white settlements still control an obviously disproportionate level of the world’s wealth. The leadership composition of the largest MNCs, trade alliances etc. clearly reflect this. \nEven countries that seemingly broke through these constraints have tons of systemic discrimination within them. India has a caste system that made education, property ownership and generational wealth virtually impossible for a massive segment of the population until the 20th century - and it’s hardly gotten much better since then. The oligarchic tendencies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR have completely taken over in the post-Soviet era. China has pretty much the same problems in addition to being an information vacuum with dystopian government oversight. The political and financial leadership of these countries is leaning heavily into cronyism, nepotism and all-around corruption. I don’t think that any of these systemic issues are beyond saving, but they need to be addressed at the root level - we need to better equalize the baseline for everyone and install checks and balances that prevent corrupt incentives from taking hold of the economy and policy sphere.", ">\n\nDoesn't it matter how other people perceive our leaders, particularly our elected leaders? \nIf the data you provide is true, then wouldn't we want a president, for example, who can take advantage of this phenomenon? Certainly it is not the only metric of a good president, but it isn't like it is nothing either. You want foreign leaders to take the president seriously and this is a factor, right?", ">\n\nI do agree with you though I think there are some other factors that might need to be considered. In theory, I think some individuals conform to certain roles/occupations because of their appearance or physical attributes and so there are likely more candidates of that nature. And so even growing up, I never would have taken basketball seriously because I knew I wouldn't fit the bill. This is highly correlated in physical occupations and sports, like basketball, because as we know being larger or stronger has a perceived benefit in this domain. \nSo the ultimate question here is, does being larger or stronger make you a \"better\" leader? I think it does, but that's entirely based on innate primal instincts and our current social/cultural understanding of the world, as you've kind of suggested yourself. In individual circumstances, I would therefore say that if I was a chairman and could choose the next CEO of a company, it would be justified if physical appearance would be part of my criteria, because this may be strongly perceived by internal or external stakeholders and could yield additional positive effects.\nWhat you're effectively challenging is whether we should change societal standards such that all stakeholders in society don't consider physical demeanor a determinate factor in evaluating leadership. I think the vast majority of people would agree with you here, and I would too. But that would require unravelling years of history to the point where I'd say what you're advocating for is almost theoretical as opposed to practical.", ">\n\nThanks for your reply.\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. He was boasting about his height and muscles and was talking about how people take him more seriously because of these things. \nAfter an hour of delving into that protein-powdered wormhole, I thought, \"wow, he's really just playing on everyone's instincts.\" \nAnother commenter made a great point that people are just following what benefits them, but how many great people are being tossed aside in favor of what we think are great leaders? Would Andrew Tate be possible with this thinking? Would Hustler's university exist? I think not.\nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.", ">\n\n\nWhen you said, \"it does,\" my mind went to a clip I watched when learning about the Andrew Tate phenomenon. \nI think if Andrew Tate was 5 foot 3 inches and a flyweight kickboxing champion, he wouldn't be as popular as he is/was.\n\nExactly. I don't think Andrew Tate is a good person but his pure physical demeanor allows him to be perceived as confident, persuasive, etc., which allow him be effective at what he does, and in essence, a better leader for people that believe in him. And so I think it's fair to say that his physical demeanor, therefore, does make him become perceived as a better leader. And as a result of being perceived this way, that does make him a better leader by result.\nBy the way, I should clarify so that when I say \"better\" leader I don't mean if they are good or bad (Like how Hitler exuded very strong leadership characteristics but is undeniably a terrible person).", ">\n\nI think you may be disregarding the feedback loop of aesthetic advantage.\nIt's not just that people with these qualities pop into the world yesterday with a full spectrum of ability. People who have the aesthetic qualities associated with leadership- as shallow as they may be- don't just get assigned the CEO job out of the blue. As unfair as it may seem, they get thrust into places of authority early in life. The feedback loop is that early trust and respect gives them more confidence and more experience, and those qualities ARE important in leadership.\nThere was a great study a while back on hockey players in Canada. They found that an extraordinary number had birthdays clustered into the same few months. How could this be? It turned out to coincide with the cutoff for starting school. Kids who were at the older end of their grade level would be bigger and have better motor skills than their slightly younger peers. They would have more early success on the ice than their peers because of the advantage of a few months of age, so they would enjoy it more, practice more, be more likely to envision a future as a player. Parents and coaches would see that early success and dedication and funnel more energy into training those kids.\nBy the time they were grown, that few months of age meant nothing by itself, but it had started a cascade, in a fairly merit attuned system, which made them better hockey players.\nBecause of the month they were born in.\nSo even if the selection of CEOs and world leaders were done entirely blinded to height and tone of voice, I fully expect that most leadership would still have those qualities to some extent, because whatever biases make them preferred for leadership, likely actually made them better leaders.\nMaybe you could say we should rid the world of these biases at every level. I think that's a great ideal, but also a tall order. We've been trying to teach kids to \"never judge a book by it's cover\" for a long time now. And I suspect hammering it even harder would have the backlash effect that \"Just say no\" did. It's likely not a very moveable set of biases.", ">\n\nYeah you're quoting Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which is an excellent read.\nAnd man, you've almost changed my view, but I don't think we can accept that our biases can't be molded. It sounds live giving in and a shortcut from hard work, which is what our society preaches; to think hard and work hard to create a better world. That can't be done if we're handing out important roles to people that just \"look,\" the part.", ">\n\nI'm not as much saying our biases can't be molded.\nBut what I am saying is that aesthetic bias works in a broader, more systemic way that wouldn't be eliminated even by blinded voting and hiring.\nCertainly some things can be done to lessen the effect to some extent.\nBut if we get down to the roots of it, human's first experience of authority is their parents- who are much taller and deeper voiced than them. I don't think we'll erase the effects of the very earliest childhood experience.\nWe could compare it to other problems that are as baked in and systemic. Take for example, greed. I'm sure we can agree that greed is not a good thing (Unless you're Gordon Gekko). And we can have educational systems in place that seek to lessen greed and teach kids to be better. But we're not going to get rid of greed entirely. And if someone were to post a CMV that said \"We should get rid of greed\" I'm not sure how to even address that.", ">\n\nΔ! The parents being taller and deeper voiced, or more physically imposing is an EXCELLENT, excellent point. \nI still stand by my post but I will amend my future thoughts on this topic with this point. Thanks!!\nAnd love the Wall Street reference.", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (86∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA leader isn't someone with a genius plan to increase revenue. It's someone who can command other people. A plan means nothing without execution, and coming up with plans is not leadership. Anyone can do that. In fact, being able to take in and enact other people's plans is a leadership skill", ">\n\nFair point. I didn't mean to say that's the only factor; my point was that what a smaller man/woman brings to the table will be overlooked. Height and a deep voice does not equal \"commanding.\"", ">\n\nI mean, you are saying here both that it's unfair that tall people with deep voices are universally automatically considered to be more \"commanding,\" and also that that exact qualities is important for leadership \nNot that it really matters because CEOs are bullshit jobs anyway, but if that's the argument on the table, let's go with it. If someone is naturally shy and an introvert, but otherwise has qualities that would potentially make them a good leader, that doesn't necessarily make up the difference", ">\n\nI think there’s a bit of mistranslation here. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I used height and voice pitch as examples but my overall point is the post title. \nWhy are CEOs bullshit jobs lol!? I don’t disagree that just really funny to read out loud and I’m curious of your thoughts there.", ">\n\nno, people with more money have a stable supply of food, which means they can grow taller, and healthier, you can see it in north Korea where they are all midgets because of food shortages for several generations\nif height was the factor the dutch would rule the world", ">\n\nBut how do you explain most of our world and corporate leaders being taller than the average person of their respective country? We want well-fed people in leadership positions?", ">\n\nbeing taller isn't the cause of leadership positions, its a symptom of being well fed for one / multiple generations, which correlates with being financially well off, which correlates with being able to provide proper education, which makes one more eligible for leadership positions, people in leadership positions tend to be well off, so their children tend to be well of, but they are now also connected to powerful people, which makes leadership positions more likely. \n​\nhow many ceo's have wealthy parents, i would bet that would also be above average", ">\n\nIf you are a 5 foot tall manlet super genius why wouldn't you want a 7 foot tall adonis to be the CEO fall guy of your company? People natutally trust him more than you and a big part of being CEO is just managing relationships and talking to other people. They don't actually have time to do any work or research their job is just to sell it in 99.9% of companies.", ">\n\nBut people naturally trusting him is based on what? Is it based on a higher-level of thinkin? And not having the time to do the work and research is the antithesis or making well-rounded decisions.", ">\n\nI think you are overestimating how smart the average person is and underestimating halo effect..\nThe taller people are at an advantage as people are more intimidated by the said person and strive to take their advice more seriously, and therefore have more productivity, which again creates an impression that they are better leaders.\nThough exceptions exist,and there are few short people who do command a strong presence, a tall man can and will exude a presence without even trying.", ">\n\nIt’s funny you say that…my Mom used to tell me, “you give ppl too much credit, son.”\nIt just seems like a sad and honestly unproductive way to live life. I can understand attraction to certain characteristics, but business, politics and organization, unless it’s vanity oriented, should be about critical thinking and production.\nIt’s also ironic that we have free will but some of us are slaves to our hindbrain.", ">\n\nI do agree with you for the most part. Though our primal instincts are there for a reason, evolution did not spend years ‘developing’ intuitive biases without good reason to do so. In a sense one should respect primal instinct as well, as there is fundamental truth in all instinct. I’m not disagreeing that we should attempt to be as objective as possible when determining leaders, but as a general stance instinct is not something to be overcome but vital.", ">\n\nI think the bigger problem is that there is no absolute truth.", ">\n\nunfortunately its really REALLY hard to shut down that part of our brain, and equally easy to trigger it. Unless you are specifially engaging with it in a way to mitigate it, Politics is marketing these days.", ">\n\nDo you think the primal instincts that we give into when voting may also be a factor that effects the way they are able to interact with other leaders? And thus remains an important factor to consider.", ">\n\nHow people feel about you is an inseparable part of leadership. Leaders lead people, not machines. Subjective, illogical elements have to come into play when leading subjective, illogical beings.\nDo you feel the same way about charisma as you do about height and vocal depth? \nSay a short, high-voiced person is very charismatic and rises to a position of leadership because if it. Would that situation be better than if they had gotten there on height and vocal depth?\nIf so, why? \nWhy does it matter whether it’s something that someone is, or something that someone does? \nBeing a leader is, in no small part, about being someone that people feel like following. Shouldn’t any unharmful ability or quality which make people feel comfortable with your leadership be considered a valid criterion for leadership potential?\nInevitably, because it involves humans, leadership relationships carry highly subjective and emotional components, which you seem to be throwing out completely, or expect can be easily rewritten.\n(Edit: am devil’s advocate).", ">\n\nRegarding your fifth paragraph: it sounds like meritocracy is a front then? \nCharisma isn’t a physical trait, so actually no I don’t. Charisma is important in leadership. Inspiring devotion can be learned. \nI don’t disagree with any of this, and while we’re not machines, there are people working in artificial intelligence that are creating automatons to eliminate human error.\nIn certain instances I think human error is important for personal growth, but being aware that a feeling is irrational or just a feeling, is something we all experience and we check ourselves.\nI’m sure our girlfriends and wives go outside and find other men attractive. They feel attraction, but do they act on it? We keep our feelings in check all the time; why do we give in in this case?", ">\n\nWhy is a physical trait less valid than charisma? \nThey both serve the same function, and neither makes you better at, say, planning, or any other practical part of leadership. They only serve to make people comfortable. Why does one being learnable matter? What’s wrong with simply being gifted?" ]