Actually the main question it raises is why we seem to fill important decision-making posts on the basis of irrelevant qualities, such as scripted speech-making, glibness, media presence, seriousness™ and visual appeal.

Would you fill an engineering position without evidence of competence? Would you hire a plumber because of their charm?

Why do we set the bar so low for politicians, economists and bankers?

Let's be clear about this - this isn't about dining room discussion. This is about selecting individuals who are given powers that include ecocide, genocide, state-sanctioned violence of all kinds including economic violence against their own populations, and international war-making.

Should we not select the people who make these decisions on the basis of aptitude, emotional stability, basic competence and ability to accurately model consequences?

How many more people have to die because of preventable wars and preventable poverty before the risk of a false positive becomes acceptable, in your opinion?