Thread 513623088

https://www.ft.com/content/261a0eaa-7fb9-4052-ac78-f4d8d9969e72
Do you agree with the theory that China is able to get things done so fast, and is constantly able to engage in solutions to massive scale issues that would take the west decades to deal with, due to the engineering and STEM background of pretty much all high ranking party cadre?
Meanwhile the argument is that the West is led mostly by Lawyers, who are by their nature trained to be argumentative, combative, have little to no grounded values and argue what is personally best for them, while dragging it out as long as possible for most gain.
Would the west have better leadership if STEM was more represented, in leadership roles?

>>513623088 (OP)
>china
do you mean West Taiwan?

Lawyers have one job and one job only:
>If you open your mouth, you're lying.

>>513623088 (OP)
It shouldn't all be lawyers but it shouldn't all be engineers either. People who've studied history and philosophy would be a good contribution, as would war college graduates. Such an approach would actually produce the fruitful "diversity of perspectives" that libs love to croon about and pretend that just shoving niggers and women into everything produces

>>513623088 (OP)
China gets stuff done quickly because they are playing catch-up for the most part. Government by lawyers suits the west anyway because its more about resolution disputes between private enterprise

>>513623088 (OP)
STEM is the science. It is objective towards an object of study. If the material is shit, material engineer will say outright "It's shit"

Humanities are not science. It is discipline. If you ever have read social studies articles, you'd notice that they are heavily using politcorrectness to not offend "shit" groups

>>513626324
And this way of thinking is deeply embedded in the heads of experts in these fields -- ignore bad evidence. Even if some of them are aware of it, this bad evidence will be omitted in the discussion

>>513626324
Sociology isn't inherently bullshit, the problem is how the western academy does what you describe in employing dishonest methodology to provide a veneer of objectivity to their ideological biases