Cognitive biases. Behavioral Science (let's shorten it to "BS") plays on our biases. This piece written by a brilliant legal philosopher six decades ago shares advise and counsel about leadership relying on the pseudoscience of BS built on a foundation of cognitive biases instead of wisdom:
Law and Behavioral Science by Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
(the first 14 pages - p186-198 - are an exercise in judicial game theory; the legal and philosophical reasoning struggle with applying BS as a legal governing system is in the remaining 14 pages - p199-212)
"a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved - at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
- "What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
FF - Wisdom. We suffer from leadership that lacks wisdom. The wisest among us aren't typically the most popular ones who become homecoming kings and queens...or politicians. We reward glad-handers who make us *feel* good with leadership roles. Wisdom and competence don't even enter the conversation. Until we change the criteria for leadership from popularity contests to substantive deliberative skills we will continue to suffer from leadership that lacks wisdom, and the prospects for "scientific" tyranny are bright.
Cognitive biases. Behavioral Science (let's shorten it to "BS") plays on our biases. This piece written by a brilliant legal philosopher six decades ago shares advise and counsel about leadership relying on the pseudoscience of BS built on a foundation of cognitive biases instead of wisdom:
Law and Behavioral Science by Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
(the first 14 pages - p186-198 - are an exercise in judicial game theory; the legal and philosophical reasoning struggle with applying BS as a legal governing system is in the remaining 14 pages - p199-212)
"a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved - at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
- "What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
FF - Wisdom. We suffer from leadership that lacks wisdom. The wisest among us aren't typically the most popular ones who become homecoming kings and queens...or politicians. We reward glad-handers who make us *feel* good with leadership roles. Wisdom and competence don't even enter the conversation. Until we change the criteria for leadership from popularity contests to substantive deliberative skills we will continue to suffer from leadership that lacks wisdom, and the prospects for "scientific" tyranny are bright.