3 ms·

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 thi

by 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.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Consider the case where everyone can generally agree that the leader is qualified to make good decisions, but they cannot agree that everyone is so qualified.
    - js8 11y ago
      OK. If the 2nd proposition holds, why do you think the agreement in the 1st proposition is correct? If they do think they are not qualified to decide as a group, why do they think they are qualified to correctly select the leader? But that aside, as I already explained, this is pretty easy to do with voting. All that's needed is that everybody (including the leader) voices their opinion. The people who feel that they are not qualified to make the decision can just vote for what the leader would vote for. Maybe what you mean is that there is a person A who thinks that person B should get no vote, because they are not qualified enough (or perhaps that some other person C should get more votes, it's a similar deal). But this is already reflected in the "objective" probability of B making the correct decision. So either A's opinion agrees with the probability (through his own probability to make good judgement), in which case it doesn't matter. Or, it disagrees with the probability, and then following A's opinion can only make the result worse.

by js8 11y ago

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.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Consider the case where everyone can generally agree that the leader is qualified to make good decisions, but they cannot agree that everyone is so qualified.
  - js8 11y ago
    OK. If the 2nd proposition holds, why do you think the agreement in the 1st proposition is correct? If they do think they are not qualified to decide as a group, why do they think they are qualified to correctly select the leader? But that aside, as I already explained, this is pretty easy to do with voting. All that's needed is that everybody (including the leader) voices their opinion. The people who feel that they are not qualified to make the decision can just vote for what the leader would vote for. Maybe what you mean is that there is a person A who thinks that person B should get no vote, because they are not qualified enough (or perhaps that some other person C should get more votes, it's a similar deal). But this is already reflected in the "objective" probability of B making the correct decision. So either A's opinion agrees with the probability (through his own probability to make good judgement), in which case it doesn't matter. Or, it disagrees with the probability, and then following A's opinion can only make the result worse.