5 ms·

Now, where is the "wisdom of the crowds" when it comes to decisions that we, "the elites", don't like? This annoys me. There is no doubt the result would have

Now, where is the "wisdom of the crowds" when it comes to decisions that we, "the elites", don't like? This annoys me. There is no doubt the result would have been "very fair" if it had been remain. What we are seeing now is IMO hypocrisy and contempt of ordinary people at a scary level. Now, did I want Brexit? No (I had no opinion). Do I think they should have requested more than 50% of the votes? As a conservative biased person I guess so, -don't take a risk unless there is clear demand, simple as a discriminator in electronics: you want to protect against bounces and wobbling... - but this should have been said up front, not after losing. Edit: upvoted this for the discussion, not for the original article.

brooklyndavs 10y ago
Its hypocrisy and contempt coming from "elites" via the very institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. However, once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. I don't believe mainstream media ever worked in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way. They definitely have not been for the past few decades I've been on this planet. Maybe in the past they were more under control by various "elites", government or otherwise. Now, in the west, they are "free" - which means they actually serve Moloch[0], by writing what sells. That is, the most outrage-inducing, biased misrepresentations (and often outright lies) they can get away with. Not sure what is worse[1], but it doesn't matter much. The point is, media isn't "a place to go for trusted information", it never has been, and if this is an institution "critical to democracy", then we have a big problem right here. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ [1] - "elites" at least care about something identifiably human; metaphorical Moloch does not, so the outcome may be very well something nobody wanted, including any of the "elites"
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > I don't believe mainstream media ever worked in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way. ... they are "free" - which means they actually serve Moloch[0], by writing what sells. That is, the most outrage-inducing, biased misrepresentations (and often outright lies) they can get away with. ... media isn't "a place to go for trusted information" ... I think painting all news media with the same brush is significantly misconstrues the situation. As a comparison, no software developer is perfect and can be absolutely trusted, and some devs are toxic. But I would be wrong to say: Therefore all software developers are toxic. Similarly, there is better and worse news media. Can we absolutely trust any? Of course not; these are human institutions. But there's a long way from The Sun and The National Inquirer to The Financial Times and NY Times.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      I don't think it misconstrues the situation much. To follow your comparison - sure, we don't say software developers are all toxic[0]. But we like to complain that almost all software is shit. There are gems of almost perfect beauty and usability, and we love them, but there are so few of those. Here on HN we sometimes like to discuss dynamics of what makes most of software shit - and we often find similar sort of economic pressures to those mass media faces. The thing is, we put extra care in the software that directly affects lives of people. For anything else, we rarely bother. So if the institution of media is so important to democracy, maybe we should put some extra care here too. (Though I don't know how to do that.) [0] - also note, that I didn't say "all journalists are toxic"; however, the products of the institutions they form are a different story.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > we like to complain that almost all software is shit People like to use hyperbole, but IME I've never met someone who thought all software was bad or equally bad. There is a very wide range of quality.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off... I don't think this is what's happening. Much of the media - especially the Murdoch/Fox empire which includes many of the most popular news outlets in the US and UK - sells anger, distrust of government and 'mainstream media' (which somehow doesn't include Murdoch's companies), and outright lies and propaganda. IMHO, that's where much of the distrust comes from; it's nothing more complex than a propaganda campaign.
maratd 10y ago
> What we are seeing now is IMO hypocrisy and contempt of ordinary people at a scary level. This isn't anything new. It's the justification for all the bureaucratic layering in government. The people are too stupid/bigoted/whatever to make decisions for themselves, so we'll make it for them.
- chimprich 10y ago
  > The people are too stupid/bigoted/whatever to make decisions for themselves, so we'll make it for them. You make this sounds like a bad thing. Of course this is true; this is why we have governments rather than have everyone voting on every decision. Many people are too stupid, or at least misinformed, to weigh up complex decisions. We don't ask people to vote on tax levels and spending plans because they'd tend to vote in lower taxes and higher spending. This was very similar to what was promised by the Exit team: continued access to the internal market but that they would no longer have to pay for it. This was clearly not a viable strategy. Some of the Brexit voters may have had a more nuanced view but the above situation was how most of them saw, and were sold it. (Not that the Remain campaign was that much more honest.) This is why we vote in a government to make decisions for us. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that some decisions are more complex than the average citizen has the knowledge or time and inclination to research so they can vote intelligently.
  - tremon 10y ago
    It's not just about competence though. In the same sense, people are "too stupid" to harvest their own grain, and bake their own bread: we have delegated these tasks to specialists, so that other people in society can pursue different specialisations. This works mainly because of trust: we trust that the baker does not poison us. We are a social species. Our greatest advancement as a species is the ability to create societies that are stable enough for people to specialize. We are no longer hunter/gatherers exactly because at some point, we stopped requiring that every hunter hunts for himself. We don't have to weigh up complex decisions, whether we can or not: we have delegated that task to others. Our task is to make sure that our delegates are doing their job dutifully, not make their decisions for them. That is hard enough in practice.
hackuser 10y ago
> where is the "wisdom of the crowds" when it comes to decisions that we, "the elites", don't like? The crowds wisely thought the sun orbited the flat earth, and have voted for many bad decisions throughout history. Democracy is supporting their self-determination - the crowds have the power. That doesn't at all mean that every decision is a good one. EDIT: As Abe Lincoln is quoted: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Well, I guess there's a little bit of hope there ... EDIT2: Can't believe I forgot this part: Most nations use a republican form of government, where people choose the best of them (or the best person running) to deal with these issues. Direct democracy, where the people decide issues directly, is actually not part of the system. The UK has had 3 nationwide referendums and the US none, AFAIK. There's a good reason for that: The average person has no idea what they're talking about on most issues. They have other jobs and interests, or no interest. Do I want the wisdom of the crowds deciding how the military should be funded and structured, or do I want elected officials who have hearings, a staff of aids, who study the issue and talk to the generals ... egads, I pay a lot of attention to public affairs, but I wouldn't want that responsibility.
- jerf 10y ago
  Ironically, if you want to talk about what the crowd believes, the crowd believes that people used to believe the Earth was flat. The historical evidence that this was ever a widespread belief is quite weak. People generally either didn't think about it, or knew it was round.
makomk 10y ago
The Guardian was arguing that referendums were a bad idea back on the evening of the referendum, when it looked like Remain would likely win: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/23/referendums-answer-wrong-question-politics-destructionolitics-destruction https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/23/refere... What's more, this latest article is an excerpt from a book that's probably been months if not years in the making.

brooklyndavs 10y ago

Its hypocrisy and contempt coming from "elites" via the very institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. However, once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off...

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. I don't believe mainstream media ever worked in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way. They definitely have not been for the past few decades I've been on this planet. Maybe in the past they were more under control by various "elites", government or otherwise. Now, in the west, they are "free" - which means they actually serve Moloch[0], by writing what sells. That is, the most outrage-inducing, biased misrepresentations (and often outright lies) they can get away with. Not sure what is worse[1], but it doesn't matter much. The point is, media isn't "a place to go for trusted information", it never has been, and if this is an institution "critical to democracy", then we have a big problem right here. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ [1] - "elites" at least care about something identifiably human; metaphorical Moloch does not, so the outcome may be very well something nobody wanted, including any of the "elites"
- hackuser 10y ago
  > I don't believe mainstream media ever worked in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way. ... they are "free" - which means they actually serve Moloch[0], by writing what sells. That is, the most outrage-inducing, biased misrepresentations (and often outright lies) they can get away with. ... media isn't "a place to go for trusted information" ... I think painting all news media with the same brush is significantly misconstrues the situation. As a comparison, no software developer is perfect and can be absolutely trusted, and some devs are toxic. But I would be wrong to say: Therefore all software developers are toxic. Similarly, there is better and worse news media. Can we absolutely trust any? Of course not; these are human institutions. But there's a long way from The Sun and The National Inquirer to The Financial Times and NY Times.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I don't think it misconstrues the situation much. To follow your comparison - sure, we don't say software developers are all toxic[0]. But we like to complain that almost all software is shit. There are gems of almost perfect beauty and usability, and we love them, but there are so few of those. Here on HN we sometimes like to discuss dynamics of what makes most of software shit - and we often find similar sort of economic pressures to those mass media faces. The thing is, we put extra care in the software that directly affects lives of people. For anything else, we rarely bother. So if the institution of media is so important to democracy, maybe we should put some extra care here too. (Though I don't know how to do that.) [0] - also note, that I didn't say "all journalists are toxic"; however, the products of the institutions they form are a different story.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > we like to complain that almost all software is shit People like to use hyperbole, but IME I've never met someone who thought all software was bad or equally bad. There is a very wide range of quality.
hackuser 10y ago
> once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off... I don't think this is what's happening. Much of the media - especially the Murdoch/Fox empire which includes many of the most popular news outlets in the US and UK - sells anger, distrust of government and 'mainstream media' (which somehow doesn't include Murdoch's companies), and outright lies and propaganda. IMHO, that's where much of the distrust comes from; it's nothing more complex than a propaganda campaign.

maratd 10y ago

> What we are seeing now is IMO hypocrisy and contempt of ordinary people at a scary level. This isn't anything new. It's the justification for all the bureaucratic layering in government. The people are too stupid/bigoted/whatever to make decisions for themselves, so we'll make it for them.

chimprich 10y ago
> The people are too stupid/bigoted/whatever to make decisions for themselves, so we'll make it for them. You make this sounds like a bad thing. Of course this is true; this is why we have governments rather than have everyone voting on every decision. Many people are too stupid, or at least misinformed, to weigh up complex decisions. We don't ask people to vote on tax levels and spending plans because they'd tend to vote in lower taxes and higher spending. This was very similar to what was promised by the Exit team: continued access to the internal market but that they would no longer have to pay for it. This was clearly not a viable strategy. Some of the Brexit voters may have had a more nuanced view but the above situation was how most of them saw, and were sold it. (Not that the Remain campaign was that much more honest.) This is why we vote in a government to make decisions for us. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that some decisions are more complex than the average citizen has the knowledge or time and inclination to research so they can vote intelligently.
- tremon 10y ago
  It's not just about competence though. In the same sense, people are "too stupid" to harvest their own grain, and bake their own bread: we have delegated these tasks to specialists, so that other people in society can pursue different specialisations. This works mainly because of trust: we trust that the baker does not poison us. We are a social species. Our greatest advancement as a species is the ability to create societies that are stable enough for people to specialize. We are no longer hunter/gatherers exactly because at some point, we stopped requiring that every hunter hunts for himself. We don't have to weigh up complex decisions, whether we can or not: we have delegated that task to others. Our task is to make sure that our delegates are doing their job dutifully, not make their decisions for them. That is hard enough in practice.

hackuser 10y ago

> where is the "wisdom of the crowds" when it comes to decisions that we, "the elites", don't like? The crowds wisely thought the sun orbited the flat earth, and have voted for many bad decisions throughout history. Democracy is supporting their self-determination - the crowds have the power. That doesn't at all mean that every decision is a good one. EDIT: As Abe Lincoln is quoted: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Well, I guess there's a little bit of hope there ... EDIT2: Can't believe I forgot this part: Most nations use a republican form of government, where people choose the best of them (or the best person running) to deal with these issues. Direct democracy, where the people decide issues directly, is actually not part of the system. The UK has had 3 nationwide referendums and the US none, AFAIK. There's a good reason for that: The average person has no idea what they're talking about on most issues. They have other jobs and interests, or no interest. Do I want the wisdom of the crowds deciding how the military should be funded and structured, or do I want elected officials who have hearings, a staff of aids, who study the issue and talk to the generals ... egads, I pay a lot of attention to public affairs, but I wouldn't want that responsibility.

jerf 10y ago
Ironically, if you want to talk about what the crowd believes, the crowd believes that people used to believe the Earth was flat. The historical evidence that this was ever a widespread belief is quite weak. People generally either didn't think about it, or knew it was round.

makomk 10y ago

The Guardian was arguing that referendums were a bad idea back on the evening of the referendum, when it looked like Remain would likely win: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/23/referendums-answer-wrong-question-politics-destructionolitics-destruction https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/23/refere... What's more, this latest article is an excerpt from a book that's probably been months if not years in the making.