This is a special case of the "they don't make things like they used to" fallacy. You only see the old stuff that was so exceptionally well-made that it survived.

It could be based off the same argument for why there are less polymaths now, and that's simply because we know too much. Politicians need to know more to achieve the same level of well-roundedness as they did in say, the 1700s.

I don't know. I'd seriously consider having a Thomas Jefferson instead of the last ten US presidents even armed only with the knowledge from his era.

He's claiming that politicians were better informed than the rest of us in the past, not that they were informed enough in the past.

So politicians in the past were more informed because they had an easier time informing themselves. Those capable of being more well-rounded may have found politics to be a better fit since it was still manageable at that time. But now with more advancements in every specific area, it's harder to be well-rounded and perfectly up-to-date. So politicians nowadays cannot keep up and become more educated on issues because it requires more effort to thoroughly understand diverse topics. Is that what he meant?

> So politicians in the past were more informed because they had an easier time informing themselves.

"Easier" isn't enough - they had to have it easier than other people.

> Those capable of being more well-rounded may have found politics to be a better fit since it was still manageable at that time.

"may"?

How about some evidence (either way)?

My point was that back then it was probably easier to be more generally educated to a useful degree relative to the general population. So the elite would have occupied the political positions while still being able to maintain a useful degree of general knowledgeness (forgive the made up word), whereas now it doesn't matter who goes into politics because he/she will have a hard time because it's so much harder to be knowledgeable about everything to the same useful degree as they did back then.

My original point was that this doesn't need evidence because it can be reasoned out. But I guess that depends if my reasoning is faulty or not.

> My point was that back then it was probably easier to be more generally educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.

That's not the same as "So politicians in the past were more informed because they had an easier time informing themselves." let alone "Those capable of being more well-rounded may have found politics to be a better fit since it was still manageable at that time."

However, they do share common theme - you think that they favored those in political positions or the reverse more than they do now.

> My original point was that this doesn't need evidence because it can be reasoned out.

You're making claims about the relative ease of being a 1700s well informed farrier and 1700s politician and the relative ease of being a w2000s ell informed programmer and 2000s politician. How can those claims be evaluated without evidence?

"So politicians in the past were more informed because they had an easier time informing themselves."

I didn't mean that they were, quantitively speaking, more informed than they are now. I assumed it to be relative to the general population.

"Those capable of being more well-rounded may have found politics to be a better fit since it was still manageable at that time."

This is simply a related hypothesis to the selection of politicians back then based on the postulate that it was easier to be educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.

You're right, they can't be evaluated to an absolute, or even close certainty, without the necessary facts. But you can still come up with a hypothesis sufficiently close through deduction from facts we can both agree on. I was suggesting the latter for my argument.

Anyways I find this argument quite pointless. If you could do me a favor, let's stop discussing it.

> This is simply a related hypothesis to the selection of politicians back then based on the postulate that it was easier to be educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.

Even if it was (and I see no reason to believe that it was or wasn't), it doesn't necessarily follow that politicians then would have availed themselves of it more than they do now.

> Anyways I find this argument quite pointless.

My apologies. I thought that you made those claims because you found them interesting, which surely includes whether or not they're true.

And post 2008 as well.