We all can - right now, emphasized by the NCov-2019 crisis - observe this: all over the world politicians are "surprised by the dynamics of the situation", or are "reacting to the unfolding crisis", etc.pp.
Sure, there are more complex aspects involved. If you shutdown your economy now, will that cause more deaths in the long run than letting it run for just a bit longer and then shut it down?
But the events were unfolding like a train crash in slow motion. At least as soon as the Chinese Gov't was building new hospitals in record-breaking time, it should've been known to any capable intelligence agency on the world that there are things happening which are serious and require immediate action.
So, here is my question: Shouldn't it be required that people with authorities affecting significant parts of the population are intellectually able, i.e. be approved to at least have an above-average IQ? A degree in politics or sociology or any other "soft" degree would be ruled out, since in those fields relationships, networks etc. can get you very far.
How are the known racial and social biases in IQ tests mitigated?
Can the people in power change things to use IQ tests which, for example, result in higher scores for people from a white, rich, European background?
Why should we trust this process would result in any improvement?
Who decides what is "soft"? Because I degree with you about sociology.
As the old phrase goes, "A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that anything that calls itself a science probably isn’t". Can we assume that "computer science" is a soft science?
Wouldn't testing whether politicians are psychopaths be a better use of resources? Or have we already realized they all are?