I think this video from CGP Grey outlines some of the problems inherent in leading a state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

And then this essay details some game theory level issues of group dynamics in an iterative world:

https://www.wired.com/2004/10/new-tack-wins-prisoners-dilemm...

In the end I think the best we can reasonable wish for, anywhere, is non-demented. Everything else is up to entropy, the whims of organized crime, and the pressures of evolution and information.

So many questions...

Are young women better leaders than old women? Than young men? Old men? Is it truly causation? What prompted you to make this association? Any other countries make the list that don't have young women leaders?

Gender and age probably do matter in lots of things. Usually when I hear it brought up, it's either to grind an axe, an act of defense, or a hidden agenda. Almost universally lacking objective truth seeking.

I also dislike the current US president, but IMO calling him out and then promoting the idea that young women are best just polarizes people... In fact if I was a Trump 50-center that's exactly what I would do to try and alienate as many people as I could under the guise of a "lefty socialist".

I wonder:

Sure, the sample size on female leaders is very small. But what about the sample size of female bosses ? Are female bosses significantly better than male bosses ?

I'm surprised that you think that being in middle or upper management is the same as running a business. Do you have anything to support that equivalence?

>you think that being in middle or upper management is the same as running a business

The parent comment made no such assertion.

My brain farted, I meant 'country' not 'business'. Ugh.

Agreed on Warren, and I'd love to see President AOC someday. The only reason male leaders have been bastards since time immemorial is because, as you rightly point out, they were mostly men. Most good leaders have also been men. I agree women should be given fair opportunity at leadership though.

This is gender stereotyping, not far off from the Google memo.

Non corrupt leadership? Impossible.

The Finnish PM's party got 18% of the vote in the last election. She didn't stand for election, she was appointed and her party has 13% popularity right now.

So literally 13% popularity (party) and unelected.

She had 3 years of experience in federal politics before being promoted (not elected) leader of a nation.

She also has a gushing Goop-like Instagram full of gorgeous pictures of her and her boy at exotic destinations, 'thinspo' shots, glam shots.

She doesn't have any intellectual, academic, or otherwise rigorous credentials.

She's also easily the most attractive person in Finnish politics.

So the real question is - how do intelligent people interpret those who are utterly unqualified and illegitimate in almost every way, who are obviously popular at least due to their visual social media profile and nothing more ... to be 'leaders of integrity, capability, and virtue'?

And of course, arbitrarily picking two leaders from some group (ie female) as somehow evidence of something?

This the exactly the same thing as Trump, just the other side of the coin. It's anti-intellectual & I don't think we want this in politics or real political discussion.

There might be some interesting 'gender' argument somewhere there, but this is not it.

Are they better at knowing who to listen to? Better at requiring their people to narrow their lives, when that is what's called for?

I'd guess that women leaders would not be Churchills, when a fascist's military is attacking their country. Could be wrong though.