I object to the insistence that the person occupying the “executive” function must be “young.” What is young? Biden is old and has serious dementia; Trump is old and his mind is sharp. “Old age” is now the lefties elimination factor because they see Trump in their future and want the naive to believe Biden’s problems are due to old age; they are due to a 2digitIQ and brain disease.
I see your point and also agree that the rule should not be a hard one. Even though it's not a perfect analogy, it's something like sports. In general, young athletes will have more energy and skill, but that doesn't mean that there won't be exceptions among older athletes. In terms of mental faculties, it's just a fact that cognitive abilities peak at a relatively young age and decline with age on average. (And again, that's not to say there aren't exceptions, just that it is a trend.)
For example: "[Alzheimer's disease] is the most common cause of cognitive decline in older adults. The prevalence of clinically diagnosed AD increases exponentially with age. At age 65, less than 5% of the population has a clinical diagnosis of AD, but this number increases to more than 40% beyond age 85. For patients who develop AD, most first demonstrate a subtle decline in memory and new learning, followed by mild changes in executive cognitive function and later changes in language and visuospatial processing. "
Basically, as long as one continues to show good mental performance, age shouldn't be a disqualifying factor. But as soon as such decline becomes apparent, they should be politely retired.
At 76 years of age, I believe the best leaders are of above average intelligence (>2digitIQ) but most importantly possess leadership abilities with an abundance of wisdom borne of successes and failures, both personal and observed.
Yep, and I think Lobaczewski would agree too. He thinks those qualities are better suited for the wise council, and the head of state, though, as opposed to the head minister.
If anybody is convinced that one man cannot possess all relevant skills and knowledge to deftly steer an entire nation of 300 million towards greener pastures then I understand your concerned, and I offer a simple solution to put your worries to rest. Just vote for me, I got this guys, trust me.
I object to the insistence that the person occupying the “executive” function must be “young.” What is young? Biden is old and has serious dementia; Trump is old and his mind is sharp. “Old age” is now the lefties elimination factor because they see Trump in their future and want the naive to believe Biden’s problems are due to old age; they are due to a 2digitIQ and brain disease.
I see your point and also agree that the rule should not be a hard one. Even though it's not a perfect analogy, it's something like sports. In general, young athletes will have more energy and skill, but that doesn't mean that there won't be exceptions among older athletes. In terms of mental faculties, it's just a fact that cognitive abilities peak at a relatively young age and decline with age on average. (And again, that's not to say there aren't exceptions, just that it is a trend.)
For example: "[Alzheimer's disease] is the most common cause of cognitive decline in older adults. The prevalence of clinically diagnosed AD increases exponentially with age. At age 65, less than 5% of the population has a clinical diagnosis of AD, but this number increases to more than 40% beyond age 85. For patients who develop AD, most first demonstrate a subtle decline in memory and new learning, followed by mild changes in executive cognitive function and later changes in language and visuospatial processing. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906299/
Basically, as long as one continues to show good mental performance, age shouldn't be a disqualifying factor. But as soon as such decline becomes apparent, they should be politely retired.
At 76 years of age, I believe the best leaders are of above average intelligence (>2digitIQ) but most importantly possess leadership abilities with an abundance of wisdom borne of successes and failures, both personal and observed.
Yep, and I think Lobaczewski would agree too. He thinks those qualities are better suited for the wise council, and the head of state, though, as opposed to the head minister.
If anybody is convinced that one man cannot possess all relevant skills and knowledge to deftly steer an entire nation of 300 million towards greener pastures then I understand your concerned, and I offer a simple solution to put your worries to rest. Just vote for me, I got this guys, trust me.
You convinced me.
Role of one-man rule
today: Day - 442 Ukraine Russia War
https://prada.substack.com/p/live-blog-russia-invasion-to-ukraine
Um, this is somewhat convoluted you want my humble opinion. I just don't think this sort of thing can be defined nor regulated.
A wise land is one that allows new ideas to emerge. A land in decline is one ruled by a few who have lost touch with what it means to be a human.
So Lobaczewski had a vision and much knowledge and sense of scale, but there are other visions out there - are there not?
At the end of the day, tis as simple as this I think:
Let the best ideas prevail.
If they don't prevail, then we might all be dead, and then I reckon another species will fill the gap?
If they do prevail, then we will all learn about better ideas, and then seriously - what could be wrong about that?