4 ms·

To quote that article: """ This version of the theorem is correct, given its assumptions, but its assumptions are unrealistic in practice. Some objections that

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.

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.