• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Discussion (not debate): Are they cognitively up to the job

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I really liked this informative discussion about age and mental ability. This does not address the issue of dementia but of ability to do the job as one ages.

Biden and Trump may forget names or personal details, but here is what really matters in assessing whether they’re cognitively up for the job

I’m a cognitive psychologist who studies decision-making and causal reasoning. I argue that it’s just as important to assess candidates on the cognitive capacities that are actually required for performing a complex leadership job such as the presidency.


Research shows that these capacities mainly involve decision-making skills grounded in extensive job-related knowledge, and that the types of errors made by Biden and Trump do increase with age, but that doesn’t mean either candidate is unfit for office.
...

Intuitive vs. deliberative decision-making

There are two types of decision-making: intuitive and deliberative.

In intuitive decision-making, people quickly and easily recognize a complex situation and recall an effective solution from memory. For example, physicians’ knowledge of how diseases and symptoms are causally related allows them to quickly recognize a complex set of patient symptoms as matching a familiar disease stored in memory and then recall effective treatments.

A large body of research on fields from medicine to military leadership shows that it takes years – and often decades – of effortful deliberate practice in one’s field to build up the knowledge that allows effective intuitive decisions.

In contrast to the ease and speed of intuitive decisions, the most complex decisions – often the kinds that confront a president – require conscious deliberation and mental effort at each stage of the decision-making process. These are the hallmarks of deliberative decision-making

Psychological scientists who study these topics agree that people need three key thinking dispositions – referred to as “ actively open-minded thinking” or “wise reasoning” – for effective deliberative decision-making:
  • Open-mindedness: Being open-minded means considering all of the choices and objectives relevant to a decision, even if they conflict with one’s own beliefs.
  • Calibrated confidence: This is the ability to express confidence in a given forecast or choice in terms of probabilities rather than as certainties. One should have high confidence only if evidence has been weighted based on its credibility and supportive evidence outweighs opposing evidence by a large margin.
  • Teamwork: This involves seeking alternative perspectives from within one’s own advisory team and from stakeholders with conflicting interests.

Applying this to the candidates

As for the 2024 presidential candidates, Biden has extensive knowledge and experience in politics from more than 44 years in political office and thoroughly investigates and discusses diverse viewpoints with his advisers before reaching a decision.

In contrast, Trump has considerably less experience in politics. He claims that he can make intuitive decisions in a field where he lacks knowledge by using “common sense” and still be more accurate than knowledgeable experts. This claim contradicts the research showing that extensive job-specific experience and knowledge is necessary for intuitive decisions to be consistently effective.

My overall interpretation from everything I’ve read about this is that both candidates show aspects of good and poor decision-making. However, I believe Biden regularly displays the deliberative dispositions that characterize good decision-making, while Trump does this less often.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The culture of the United States has a... let's call it a problem with ageism. That's probably being kind about it, but ageism is one of the very few "acceptable" prejudices remaining in this country. See:


That's part of why these conversations are happening. It's not all a problem of prejudice, mind; lack of education about age and aging is probably the main factor that contributes to the acceptability of and existence of these prejudices. As far as I'm concerned, while the age discussion (as well as similar prejudicial fixations that happen about a candidate's race, sex, or gender) are just the low hanging fruit to attack in superficial criticisms of candidates for office. If you are concerned about how age impacts cognition of your candidate, you should also be thinking about:

  • Who your candidate's successor is. Especially relevant for the office of the Presidency and yet I see very little discussion about the Vice President and the very real possibility that this individual would take over given the average lifespan of a white caucasian male is ~76. We can, granted, expect politicians who have access to the best health care possible to edge out over the average.
  • What your candidate's psychological profile is. More specifically, what mental health and personality disorders does the candidate suffer from and do those render them unfit for office regardless of age-related cognitive changes. If a candidate is a textbook case for both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder that should disqualify them for public service.
  • What your candidate's experience is. Setting aside that it is utterly ridiculous that there are no real substantive job qualifications for most elected offices (and there should be), a human's past makes them who they are. Here, age is a tremendous asset because age translates very directly into experience. More public service experience generally equates to a better candidate.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
The culture of the United States has a... let's call it a problem with ageism. That's probably being kind about it, but ageism is one of the very few "acceptable" prejudices remaining in this country. See:


That's part of why these conversations are happening. It's not all a problem of prejudice, mind; lack of education about age and aging is probably the main factor that contributes to the acceptability of and existence of these prejudices. As far as I'm concerned, while the age discussion (as well as similar prejudicial fixations that happen about a candidate's race, sex, or gender) are just the low hanging fruit to attack in superficial criticisms of candidates for office. If you are concerned about how age impacts cognition of your candidate, you should also be thinking about:

  • Who your candidate's successor is. Especially relevant for the office of the Presidency and yet I see very little discussion about the Vice President and the very real possibility that this individual would take over given the average lifespan of a white caucasian male is ~76. We can, granted, expect politicians who have access to the best health care possible to edge out over the average.
  • What your candidate's psychological profile is. More specifically, what mental health and personality disorders does the candidate suffer from and do those render them unfit for office regardless of age-related cognitive changes. If a candidate is a textbook case for both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder that should disqualify them for public service.
  • What your candidate's experience is. Setting aside that it is utterly ridiculous that there are no real substantive job qualifications for most elected offices (and there should be), a human's past makes them who they are. Here, age is a tremendous asset because age translates very directly into experience. More public service experience generally equates to a better candidate.

It is not ageism when we are talking about one of the important jobs in the entire world.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Biden has always known how to work with others and make them part of the team He is willing to listen to sage advice. He also has far superior morals.

Trump is a very loose cannon and under certain conditions that can be very effective. Reagan was a loose cannon too and our enemies respected us because they did not know when he would go off. His attack on Khadafi cowed quite a few of our foes. But that time is not this time. Thankfully most of the world is a bit more civilized and the days of the loose cannon are hopefully over.

I do not think that Trump was ever qualified for the job. He was lucky with the economy because he inherited a growing economy from Obama. Where he failed was both in immigration and even worse with the pandemic.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I am really unqualified to opine on their relative cognitive (dis)abilities. Yet, the way the rules are set up as of now, one of the two of them must win the Presidency. I'm left looking only at their legislative accomplishments (Biden wins hands-down), their focus (Biden outward, Trump on Tump), their experience (again, Biden by 40 lengths), their basic character (Biden may be hiding heinous faults, but Trump isn't hiding them at all).

Biden may tell lies -- heck, every politician has to, there's no way out of that -- but has Trump ever told the truth? That's a question everybody should ask themselves at least once!

No, from my point of view, there's no contest at all here. Biden yes, Trump, God please-pretty-please forbid.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
It is not ageism when we are talking about one of the important jobs in the entire world.
Wrong. Sexism is sexism, racism is racism, ageism is ageism. If you want to rationalize it to yourself, go on ahead, but it's still ageism regardless.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Wrong. Sexism is sexism, racism is racism, ageism is ageism. If you want to rationalize it to yourself, go on ahead, but it's still ageism regardless.

We are talking about an individual whose actions will affect up to billions of lives that must therefore be both physically and mentally fit for the job, to say the least, neither of which are synonymous with being of old age. Because we know for a fact that health, in all aspects, declines with old age. We are not talking about an ordinary job.
 

anna.

colors your eyes with what's not there
I really liked this informative discussion about age and mental ability. This does not address the issue of dementia but of ability to do the job as one ages.

Biden and Trump may forget names or personal details, but here is what really matters in assessing whether they’re cognitively up for the job

I’m a cognitive psychologist who studies decision-making and causal reasoning. I argue that it’s just as important to assess candidates on the cognitive capacities that are actually required for performing a complex leadership job such as the presidency.


Research shows that these capacities mainly involve decision-making skills grounded in extensive job-related knowledge, and that the types of errors made by Biden and Trump do increase with age, but that doesn’t mean either candidate is unfit for office.
...

Intuitive vs. deliberative decision-making

There are two types of decision-making: intuitive and deliberative.

In intuitive decision-making, people quickly and easily recognize a complex situation and recall an effective solution from memory. For example, physicians’ knowledge of how diseases and symptoms are causally related allows them to quickly recognize a complex set of patient symptoms as matching a familiar disease stored in memory and then recall effective treatments.

A large body of research on fields from medicine to military leadership shows that it takes years – and often decades – of effortful deliberate practice in one’s field to build up the knowledge that allows effective intuitive decisions.

In contrast to the ease and speed of intuitive decisions, the most complex decisions – often the kinds that confront a president – require conscious deliberation and mental effort at each stage of the decision-making process. These are the hallmarks of deliberative decision-making

Psychological scientists who study these topics agree that people need three key thinking dispositions – referred to as “ actively open-minded thinking” or “wise reasoning” – for effective deliberative decision-making:
  • Open-mindedness: Being open-minded means considering all of the choices and objectives relevant to a decision, even if they conflict with one’s own beliefs.
  • Calibrated confidence: This is the ability to express confidence in a given forecast or choice in terms of probabilities rather than as certainties. One should have high confidence only if evidence has been weighted based on its credibility and supportive evidence outweighs opposing evidence by a large margin.
  • Teamwork: This involves seeking alternative perspectives from within one’s own advisory team and from stakeholders with conflicting interests.

Applying this to the candidates

As for the 2024 presidential candidates, Biden has extensive knowledge and experience in politics from more than 44 years in political office and thoroughly investigates and discusses diverse viewpoints with his advisers before reaching a decision.

In contrast, Trump has considerably less experience in politics. He claims that he can make intuitive decisions in a field where he lacks knowledge by using “common sense” and still be more accurate than knowledgeable experts. This claim contradicts the research showing that extensive job-specific experience and knowledge is necessary for intuitive decisions to be consistently effective.

My overall interpretation from everything I’ve read about this is that both candidates show aspects of good and poor decision-making. However, I believe Biden regularly displays the deliberative dispositions that characterize good decision-making, while Trump does this less often.

I saw your thoughtful OP distilled down to a brutal observation by another psychologist, Dr. John Gartner:

"Biden's brain is aging. Trump's brain is dementing."


My own observation: One of the most important things to me is the third key thinking disposition you listed:
  • Teamwork: This involves seeking alternative perspectives from within one’s own advisory team and from stakeholders with conflicting interests.


There is no comparison between the competent, dedicated, and experienced team assembled around president Biden, and the past, present, and future circus of prosperity gospel opportunists, grifters, white nationalists, racists, theonomists, waffling failed politicians, and disbarred lawyers circling Trump.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Doesn't sound like it since the facts contradict what you claimed, but okay. Ageists gonna ageist. :shrug:

What part of the article specifically addresses my concerns with electing very old people to one of the most important jobs in the entire world?

I am very much in favor of hiring the elderly in general. There are obvious advantages, and the disavantages can easily be offset by either being able to fire or suspend the employee when/if the health problems start becoming too much of an issue, but there is simply no parallel when it comes down to electing the president.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What part of the article specifically addresses my concerns with electing very old people to one of the most important jobs in the entire world?

(Come to think of it, Marjorie Taylor Green is some 16 years older than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
There is no comparison between the competent, dedicated, and experienced team assembled around president Biden, and the past, present, and future circus of prosperity gospel opportunists, grifters, white nationalists, racists, theonomists, waffling failed politicians, and disbarred lawyers circling Trump
But Trump has Rudi and MTG. :shrug:
 

anna.

colors your eyes with what's not there
6w8LpQr.jpeg
 
Top