4 ms·

Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem ? It basically says that eno

by js8 11y ago

Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet's_jury_theorem ? It basically says that enough independent people voting can give better results than any single of them, which contradicts your theory. Your thinking is underlined by assumption there is one correct solution to arrive at. But maybe that's actually rarely the case.

afarrell 11y ago
To quote that article: """ This version of the theorem is correct, given its assumptions, but its assumptions are unrealistic in practice. Some objections that are commonly raised: ... * The theorem doesn't directly apply to decisions between more than two outcomes. """ Additionally, it does not take into account the cost of making the decision, which, under direct democracy, rises quadratically with the number of people that must debate and agree to the decision.
- js8 11y ago
  I don't think they are that unrealistic. I think you would find, if you have n options, one of them is the correct one, and there is slight bias towards the correct one among the decision-makers, a similar theorem still holds (from the central limit theorem). Regarding the transaction costs, this is a different issue, but I would say that is an issue in any project regardless how things are decided. Nothing in the theorem itself requires the people to actually communicate, they can just become biased towards the correct solution on their own. It should be also noted that, in the real world, people can decide not to take the vote if they don't feel qualified to decide, further improving the results of the theorem. (I actually rediscovered the CJT myself when I was interested in how democracy works.) I think it would be nice to try this on college students, give them some knowledge test (or perhaps two - one in their area of expertise and the other outside their area), and compare the best individual results with the interpretation of the results through voting. I haven't seen anybody trying that, but I think many people would be surprised how well it works. :-)
  - afarrell 11y ago
    > I think you would find, if you have n options, one of them is the correct one, and there is slight bias towards the correct one among the decision-makers, a similar theorem still holds (from the central limit theorem) You are making too many simplifying assumptions. One of these is that the decision-making process involves a simple up-or-down vote. That is rarely the case in complex discussions. Instead, as the number of folks who can bring up additional points for debate or an n+1th option grows, the length of time spent debating grows quadratically unless there is some procedure (For example, a presiding officer who can cut off debate) to stop it. > I would say that is an issue in any project regardless how things are decided. This is definitely incorrect. Decision procedures have a massive impact on how long things take to decide. I have empirically observed this. Student organizations at my university had a word for it: wanking. It was incredibly common at student group meetings.
    - js8 11y ago
      > This is definitely incorrect. Decision procedures have a massive impact on how long things take to decide. What I meant was that the quadratic transaction costs apply to any large scale project anyway, because no one can fully understand it. In other words, I see the longer debate as a sign of project complexity, not choice of decision making process. I agree that bad procedures can lead to indecision, but it's not different from indecisive leader really.
logfromblammo 11y ago
So the contributors appoint a project leader according to relevant expertise, and that leader has final authority in decision-making. But prior to making any decision, the leader solicits independent input from each contributor.
- js8 11y ago
  I am not sure I understand how do you think this is going to improve the probability of making correct decision. In fact, I think it would be bad to select this "leader" according to his expertise; he should rather be selected according to his ability to produce good consensus by incorporating those different inputs. However, we already have procedures (such as voting) that do that and that we can understand; why then bother selecting a person to do it in a black-box fashion? In short, if you can reliably decide who is an expert, you can also reliably decide the issue itself. If nothing else than by following the expert in his opinion.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    The leader is not producing consensus. The leader is choosing the best of all suggested solutions--including the leader's own solution--without regard to the popularity of any given solution. Presumably, if the leader is an expert in the field, that person should be able to recognize a good idea, even when it comes from somewhere else.
    - js8 11y ago
      > The leader is not producing consensus I am sorry, that's what he effectively does. The more other person is an expert, more likely is he to agree with the leader if he made the correct choice. You seem to think that good solutions are somehow unpopular but that's contradictory (unless there is somebody acting in bad faith). The best solution actually has the highest probability of being the popular one (otherwise the probabilities of the experts are incorrect). > Presumably, if the leader is an expert in the field, that person should be able to recognize a good idea This is exactly what I said. You say "presumably", but it is an assumption. The point is, you don't actually need him. Everybody can voice their opinion about the best solution, and then they can have a vote. If you think it through, this procedure encompasses your proposal too, because your proposal is just a special case where they all follow (in the voting phase) the opinion of the person they agreed on. And the restriction that they need to agree on the person doesn't help you any.

by js8 11y ago

afarrell 11y ago

To quote that article: """ This version of the theorem is correct, given its assumptions, but its assumptions are unrealistic in practice. Some objections that are commonly raised: ... * The theorem doesn't directly apply to decisions between more than two outcomes. """ Additionally, it does not take into account the cost of making the decision, which, under direct democracy, rises quadratically with the number of people that must debate and agree to the decision.

js8 11y ago
I don't think they are that unrealistic. I think you would find, if you have n options, one of them is the correct one, and there is slight bias towards the correct one among the decision-makers, a similar theorem still holds (from the central limit theorem). Regarding the transaction costs, this is a different issue, but I would say that is an issue in any project regardless how things are decided. Nothing in the theorem itself requires the people to actually communicate, they can just become biased towards the correct solution on their own. It should be also noted that, in the real world, people can decide not to take the vote if they don't feel qualified to decide, further improving the results of the theorem. (I actually rediscovered the CJT myself when I was interested in how democracy works.) I think it would be nice to try this on college students, give them some knowledge test (or perhaps two - one in their area of expertise and the other outside their area), and compare the best individual results with the interpretation of the results through voting. I haven't seen anybody trying that, but I think many people would be surprised how well it works. :-)
- afarrell 11y ago
  > I think you would find, if you have n options, one of them is the correct one, and there is slight bias towards the correct one among the decision-makers, a similar theorem still holds (from the central limit theorem) You are making too many simplifying assumptions. One of these is that the decision-making process involves a simple up-or-down vote. That is rarely the case in complex discussions. Instead, as the number of folks who can bring up additional points for debate or an n+1th option grows, the length of time spent debating grows quadratically unless there is some procedure (For example, a presiding officer who can cut off debate) to stop it. > I would say that is an issue in any project regardless how things are decided. This is definitely incorrect. Decision procedures have a massive impact on how long things take to decide. I have empirically observed this. Student organizations at my university had a word for it: wanking. It was incredibly common at student group meetings.
  - js8 11y ago
    > This is definitely incorrect. Decision procedures have a massive impact on how long things take to decide. What I meant was that the quadratic transaction costs apply to any large scale project anyway, because no one can fully understand it. In other words, I see the longer debate as a sign of project complexity, not choice of decision making process. I agree that bad procedures can lead to indecision, but it's not different from indecisive leader really.

logfromblammo 11y ago

So the contributors appoint a project leader according to relevant expertise, and that leader has final authority in decision-making. But prior to making any decision, the leader solicits independent input from each contributor.

js8 11y ago
I am not sure I understand how do you think this is going to improve the probability of making correct decision. In fact, I think it would be bad to select this "leader" according to his expertise; he should rather be selected according to his ability to produce good consensus by incorporating those different inputs. However, we already have procedures (such as voting) that do that and that we can understand; why then bother selecting a person to do it in a black-box fashion? In short, if you can reliably decide who is an expert, you can also reliably decide the issue itself. If nothing else than by following the expert in his opinion.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The leader is not producing consensus. The leader is choosing the best of all suggested solutions--including the leader's own solution--without regard to the popularity of any given solution. Presumably, if the leader is an expert in the field, that person should be able to recognize a good idea, even when it comes from somewhere else.
  - js8 11y ago
    > The leader is not producing consensus I am sorry, that's what he effectively does. The more other person is an expert, more likely is he to agree with the leader if he made the correct choice. You seem to think that good solutions are somehow unpopular but that's contradictory (unless there is somebody acting in bad faith). The best solution actually has the highest probability of being the popular one (otherwise the probabilities of the experts are incorrect). > Presumably, if the leader is an expert in the field, that person should be able to recognize a good idea This is exactly what I said. You say "presumably", but it is an assumption. The point is, you don't actually need him. Everybody can voice their opinion about the best solution, and then they can have a vote. If you think it through, this procedure encompasses your proposal too, because your proposal is just a special case where they all follow (in the voting phase) the opinion of the person they agreed on. And the restriction that they need to agree on the person doesn't help you any.