4 ms·

Applied to democracy, this means that politicians are more dishonest once voted into office. Maybe there is a reason why the ancient Greeks drew their leaders

Applied to democracy, this means that politicians are more dishonest once voted into office. Maybe there is a reason why the ancient Greeks drew their leaders randomly from their population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

loup-vaillant 11y ago
Nitpick: Applied to democracy, this means that politicians who are voted into office are more dishonest than all the others who aren't. Being voted into office doesn't cause dishonesty. It's the reverse: dishonesty helps with being voted into office.
- lovemenot 11y ago
  You may have made a valid observation about causes of dishonesty in politics. But that conclusion does not follow from the study. In the study dishonest behaviour is shown to be an effect of winning. Not a cause of winning.
  - loup-vaillant 11y ago
    Oh, that's new. Reading the abstract more carefully, I can see that. But then, why does the title says "predict" instead of "causes"?
- dmichulke 11y ago
  From the abstract: Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that winning a competition increases the likelihood of winners to steal money So while you're not wrong, it doesn't mean my above post is wrong either ;) > Being voted into office doesn't cause dishonesty. It's the reverse: dishonesty helps with being voted into office. This makes intuitive sense (and I even agree with it) but I fail to see this stated in the abstract (didn't read the PDF though)
  - unabst 11y ago
    You're both right. I think the study is on what it is because that is the less obvious of the two, and the more academically interesting. Cheaters winning is rather obvious. But it's also a chicken and the egg situation. Which came first? Cheating or winning? To each their own probably. The stories of our lives...
Gustomaximus 11y ago
In Australia we've had a couple of 'accidental politicians' get in due to lucky preference votes where no-one expected them to be taken seriously. I've seen both good & bad from this. One consistency is they seem to approach things with a more openness and honesty. So while I like democracy, I'd also love to see some experiment where 10% of politicians were taken from the populace at random, kinda like Jury duty. I think it could be a good thing to combat political dynasty and keep things fresh.
- lloyd-christmas 11y ago
  If nothing else, it would make people more conscious about the quality of education.
- ionised 11y ago
  > I'd also love to see some experiment where 10% of politicians were taken from the populace at random, kinda like Jury duty It's called Sortition, and I very much agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
chimeracoder 11y ago
> Maybe there is a reason why the ancient Greeks drew their leaders randomly from their population I've actually advocated doing this in the US, only half-facetiously. As an aside, though, it's common when discussing democracy to look back at Athens as an archetypal, Platonic ideal of democracy (pun intended). However, Athenian democracy actually had a lot of characteristics that we would find completely objectionable and deplorable today. Futhermore, it wasn't particularly long-lasting. It's hard to get an exact date range, because what people mean when they say "Athenian democracy" isn't very well-defined (there were a few different stages that the Athenian democratic systems[0] passed through, so it depends on where you draw the line). But by almost any measure, Athenian democracy didn't even last as long as the US democratic system[1], and it was stable for a lot less time than that[2]. [0] systems - there were more than one throughout Athenian history [1] In before "we have a republic, not a democracy" - this is a contested point that really boils down to which definition of 'democracy' and 'republic' you use. For example, the definitions used by the Federalist Papers were not entirely self-consistent, and you can cite some that would support this belief, but you can also cite ones that don't. And at the end of the day, it's really just quibbling over antiquated definitions of words that don't really represent how they're used today. [2] I've heard one classicist (a Hellenist, to boot!) conclude that the stable period of Athenian democracy was as short as 35-50 years. This is the lower bound of what most classical historians would respond if you ask them, but it's just as easy to measure it in decades as it is in centuries - that's how short it was.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  In response to [1], I must insist that "democracy" has an obvious colloquial meaning, that is, the power of the people. While I reckon the "will of the people" is not exactly trivial to define (if there's even such a thing), we do have a few instances of supposedly democratic government go directly against the wishes of the majority of its people (the adoption of the EU constitution by France comes to mind). Come to think of it, the difference between a democracy and a republic is quite obvious: the first is an ideal, while a republic is a set of institutions. Whether a particular set of institutions achieves democracy or not is the hard question.
tikhonj 11y ago
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Hitchhiker's Guide: “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” It applies to cheating and, more generally, to the fact that political candidates—especially ones that are legitimately "electable"—tend to be incredibly self-selected, in ways that aren't necessarily great for our actual leadership.

loup-vaillant 11y ago

Nitpick: Applied to democracy, this means that politicians who are voted into office are more dishonest than all the others who aren't. Being voted into office doesn't cause dishonesty. It's the reverse: dishonesty helps with being voted into office.

lovemenot 11y ago
You may have made a valid observation about causes of dishonesty in politics. But that conclusion does not follow from the study. In the study dishonest behaviour is shown to be an effect of winning. Not a cause of winning.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  Oh, that's new. Reading the abstract more carefully, I can see that. But then, why does the title says "predict" instead of "causes"?
dmichulke 11y ago
From the abstract: Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that winning a competition increases the likelihood of winners to steal money So while you're not wrong, it doesn't mean my above post is wrong either ;) > Being voted into office doesn't cause dishonesty. It's the reverse: dishonesty helps with being voted into office. This makes intuitive sense (and I even agree with it) but I fail to see this stated in the abstract (didn't read the PDF though)
- unabst 11y ago
  You're both right. I think the study is on what it is because that is the less obvious of the two, and the more academically interesting. Cheaters winning is rather obvious. But it's also a chicken and the egg situation. Which came first? Cheating or winning? To each their own probably. The stories of our lives...

Gustomaximus 11y ago

In Australia we've had a couple of 'accidental politicians' get in due to lucky preference votes where no-one expected them to be taken seriously. I've seen both good & bad from this. One consistency is they seem to approach things with a more openness and honesty. So while I like democracy, I'd also love to see some experiment where 10% of politicians were taken from the populace at random, kinda like Jury duty. I think it could be a good thing to combat political dynasty and keep things fresh.

lloyd-christmas 11y ago
If nothing else, it would make people more conscious about the quality of education.
ionised 11y ago
> I'd also love to see some experiment where 10% of politicians were taken from the populace at random, kinda like Jury duty It's called Sortition, and I very much agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

chimeracoder 11y ago

> Maybe there is a reason why the ancient Greeks drew their leaders randomly from their population I've actually advocated doing this in the US, only half-facetiously. As an aside, though, it's common when discussing democracy to look back at Athens as an archetypal, Platonic ideal of democracy (pun intended). However, Athenian democracy actually had a lot of characteristics that we would find completely objectionable and deplorable today. Futhermore, it wasn't particularly long-lasting. It's hard to get an exact date range, because what people mean when they say "Athenian democracy" isn't very well-defined (there were a few different stages that the Athenian democratic systems[0] passed through, so it depends on where you draw the line). But by almost any measure, Athenian democracy didn't even last as long as the US democratic system[1], and it was stable for a lot less time than that[2]. [0] systems - there were more than one throughout Athenian history [1] In before "we have a republic, not a democracy" - this is a contested point that really boils down to which definition of 'democracy' and 'republic' you use. For example, the definitions used by the Federalist Papers were not entirely self-consistent, and you can cite some that would support this belief, but you can also cite ones that don't. And at the end of the day, it's really just quibbling over antiquated definitions of words that don't really represent how they're used today. [2] I've heard one classicist (a Hellenist, to boot!) conclude that the stable period of Athenian democracy was as short as 35-50 years. This is the lower bound of what most classical historians would respond if you ask them, but it's just as easy to measure it in decades as it is in centuries - that's how short it was.

loup-vaillant 11y ago
In response to [1], I must insist that "democracy" has an obvious colloquial meaning, that is, the power of the people. While I reckon the "will of the people" is not exactly trivial to define (if there's even such a thing), we do have a few instances of supposedly democratic government go directly against the wishes of the majority of its people (the adoption of the EU constitution by France comes to mind). Come to think of it, the difference between a democracy and a republic is quite obvious: the first is an ideal, while a republic is a set of institutions. Whether a particular set of institutions achieves democracy or not is the hard question.

tikhonj 11y ago

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Hitchhiker's Guide: “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” It applies to cheating and, more generally, to the fact that political candidates—especially ones that are legitimately "electable"—tend to be incredibly self-selected, in ways that aren't necessarily great for our actual leadership.