That's an unusual take on the technical capabilities of the "old and experienced". I agree that it's generally hard to secure, but many "old and experienced" in governments are not against new technology because they understand it, but because they don't understand it.
Watch any senate/congressional/government hearing about technology related subjects from your country's government and you'll see what I mean.
> [...] many "old and experienced" in governments are not against new technology because they understand it, but because they don't understand it.
I think the thought that perhaps they've seen a proposed "huge improvement" many times before and need a little bit more than breathless enthusiasm to endorse it has merit.
Whole Continuous Improvment process is devoted for such changes. Just follow the process. 5 why's, 3 alternatives, trials, statistically significant statistic, etc.
I recall watching the congressional hearing about the Iphone encryption thing that went on a while back and being incredibly surprised at their level of competency.
It somewhat rekindled my faith in politicians, compared to the daily media circus that only focuses on the worst of the lot.
I'd expect politicians who don't understand something to bring experts that does understand that thing, not to ignore everything they don't understand.
Bringing in actual experts would be at odds with the informal duty of a politician to appease to the donors. That's why you see such obscene amounts of absurdity out of modern politics - they don't ask actual experts for advice, they ask their top donors.
> Watch any senate/congressional/government hearing about technology related subjects from your country's government and you'll see what I mean.
Has anyone done some good study / writing on the subject?
I recall, as a young know-it-all, laughing at that one Congress Critter for his "internet is a series of tubes" comment - but as I've gotten older I really just look at most of these things as plumbing data such that I'm not all that sure he was wrong.
Makes me wonder if your assertion is more based on the superficial media takes of the day, and not reality.
> an Internet [email] was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
> Makes me wonder if your assertion is more based on the superficial media takes of the day, and not reality.
Again, it's based on watching hearings and other media released by my government when they are talking about technology.
I'm in no way laughing at them for not understanding something. But I am laughing at those who pretend to understand something, or who simply ignore something because they don't understand it. It's not that hard to find experts in certain subjects, and it's really bad that they don't leverage this more for subjects they don't understand.
I love technology as much as anyone, but at the end of the day we're humans, and experience in being a human comes with time. I think detracting from the wisdom of old men because they can't post memes on their smartphone is not the best thing we could do as a society.
I'm not saying because they are "old and experienced" they don't have any value nor wisdom. I'm simply saying that don't trust their opinion on things they don't understand. And if they don't understand something, I expect them to bring themselves up to speed on that thing, or bring in others who do understand that thing. I'm not expecting them to ignore that thing simply because they don't understand it, or worse, pretend like they do understand it when it's clear they don't.
They understand something which most of us have no grasp on and small chances of getting up-to-speed about, which is governing masses of people, with the realities of the situation.
How do you even know they don’t understand, misunderstand, don’t have conflicting agendas or just don’t like an idea? It’s easy to assume, especially when one has never stepped in the backstage of politics.
I'm sorry, I'm not making any pro statement for backstage of politics. I'm saying that people who are not exposed to this, could think that they could run a better society, but ultimately they wouldn't. Coming in with high technological hopes of societal improvements while closing a blind eye to how it's actually done at this point will never work, or so I feel.
I would like a bit more context into how you feel my mentioning of backstage of politics, which is indeed how the world is run today, is detrimental to my point that old men have experience in exactly this.
You were making a broader point about expertise in governing many people, which I would consider as a general positive quality. When you then reduce that expertise to what happens behind closed doors, it (to my mind) becomes explicitly about bribery and corruption. Perhaps folks with experience have more experience with that as well, but it's not germane to their general competence in dealing with groups of people.
Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree.
> You were making a broader point about expertise in governing many people, which I would consider as a general positive quality.
I guess this also depends where you lead them. Personally I don't consider it a positive quality, I consider it a dangerous quality.
> When you then reduce that expertise to what happens behind closed doors, it (to my mind) becomes explicitly about bribery and corruption.
I'm sure bribery and corruption are a big part of backdoor deals, but I'm sure also some discussions which would be impossible in the public space are taking place. Could you orchestrate a coup towards a hostile regime out in the public? Could you actually state your support of gay people when in a conservative party? There are a lot of things that can't be said in public space, but must be said in private in order to advance society. I feel.
> Perhaps folks with experience have more experience with that as well, but it's not germane to their general competence in dealing with groups of people.
I feel it is. I've seen a new wave of politicians in my country, they rode off on the excitement of the population for a new political force, but once they managed to get an ounce of power, their holier than thou attitude made it impossible to work with them and kinda crashed them in the polls. They are still getting my vote as they're against the status-quo, but damn it I wish they were a bit more 'backroom' in some aspects.
> Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree.
This is actually where I stand. I am also considering the historical context of my country where in more totalitarian times, a bit of backroom dealing managed to create some form of space for revolution to happen.
Disagreement is healthy and I thank you for stating your views clearly. I hope I managed to do the same.
Experience comes from doing, not time. Just because someone is old doesn't mean they are experienced. It just means there is a greater chance they are experienced.
you expect them to be experienced in things that are your priority, but instead they are experienced in things that are their priorities, like corruption, political games to keep being in their comfy seats etc.
I don't expect them to be experienced in anything remotely related to my current life and work, instead I believe that corruption, political games, comfy seats, backdeals are how things are done today at a human level. Is it good? I don't think so. Can we just uplift this with technology and call it a day? I also don't think so.
Watch any senate/congressional/government hearing about technology related subjects from your country's government and you'll see what I mean.