4 ms·

The majority never picks the best and markets do not optimize as much as some people think. Whether it's movies, arts, books, music, politicians, keyboards or p

The majority never picks the best and markets do not optimize as much as some people think. Whether it's movies, arts, books, music, politicians, keyboards or programming languages, the most popular choices are practically never the best ones. Which is probably why a technocracy in which every voter must pass a fact-based proficiency test before being allowed to vote might trump democracy. Not sure, just wanted to chime in with being cynical. :/

smallnamespace 10y ago
Who gets to determine which facts? Why would that group not use that to their advantage, instead of to the benefit of everyone? > The majority never picks the best and markets do not optimize as much as some people think. Whether it's movies, arts, books, music, politicians, keyboards or programming languages, the most popular choices are practically never the best ones. The question is not whether the market picks the optimal outcome, but whether a committee of experts would do better. The experience of central planning within the Warsaw Pact should hint at the answer...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > The question is not whether the market picks the optimal outcome, but whether a committee of experts would do better. The experience of central planning within the Warsaw Pact should hint at the answer... The experience of the entire Internet seems to suggest a different answer, so it's not that central planning is always bad. Note that the best, most reliable, most stable parts of the Internet were invented and codified long ago, when there weren't many people on-line and there wasn't that much commercial interest in it. Today we can rarely if ever agree on any kind of protocol or standard, and if we do, it's usually a huge bloated mess.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    > Today we can rarely if ever agree on any kind of protocol or standard, and if we do, it's usually a huge bloated mess. So the question becomes, how do you know whether you're going to get a huge bloated mess or the Internet, and how do you influence the outcome? As the number of potential 'experts' increases and the number of people involved in choosing them increases, you get something that looks more and more like a market, but without price transparency...
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  Randomly chosen from a democratically determined set, e.g. by a double-blind peer review committee. Also, the facts can be discussed openly and if there was a problem with some of them, there could be a system of revoking or modifying the set of questions similar to the recounting of ballots. For the committee of experts, that was your idea, I never suggested that, because it obviously makes no sense.
eggy 10y ago
You used 'trump' next to 'democracy' ;) The majority and optimizing markets are at odds in your statement. Look at qdb/k, it is very expensive, programmers cost a bunch, but it is used by the big financial houses. I am sure they are glad it is not too popular and affordable. I do agree that I don't like central planning, and design by committee, but those are different than your market statement or technocracy comment. Movies, arts, books, music...horses for courses, best for what moment? I like action films, I like high-brow, arthouse stuff too. Same with books. I am glad I have a choice for the moment at hand. When I was a young intellect, I succumbed to that elitist attitude of 'the best', and 'they don't know what's good for themselves' which is funny because I grew up in a poor, working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn in the late 60s/early 70s. Elitists were the guys from NY as well, but who wore black berets to film class at TSOA/NYU (three in my class alone!).

smallnamespace 10y ago

Who gets to determine which facts? Why would that group not use that to their advantage, instead of to the benefit of everyone? > The majority never picks the best and markets do not optimize as much as some people think. Whether it's movies, arts, books, music, politicians, keyboards or programming languages, the most popular choices are practically never the best ones. The question is not whether the market picks the optimal outcome, but whether a committee of experts would do better. The experience of central planning within the Warsaw Pact should hint at the answer...

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> The question is not whether the market picks the optimal outcome, but whether a committee of experts would do better. The experience of central planning within the Warsaw Pact should hint at the answer... The experience of the entire Internet seems to suggest a different answer, so it's not that central planning is always bad. Note that the best, most reliable, most stable parts of the Internet were invented and codified long ago, when there weren't many people on-line and there wasn't that much commercial interest in it. Today we can rarely if ever agree on any kind of protocol or standard, and if we do, it's usually a huge bloated mess.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  > Today we can rarely if ever agree on any kind of protocol or standard, and if we do, it's usually a huge bloated mess. So the question becomes, how do you know whether you're going to get a huge bloated mess or the Internet, and how do you influence the outcome? As the number of potential 'experts' increases and the number of people involved in choosing them increases, you get something that looks more and more like a market, but without price transparency...
JohnStrange 10y ago
Randomly chosen from a democratically determined set, e.g. by a double-blind peer review committee. Also, the facts can be discussed openly and if there was a problem with some of them, there could be a system of revoking or modifying the set of questions similar to the recounting of ballots. For the committee of experts, that was your idea, I never suggested that, because it obviously makes no sense.

eggy 10y ago

You used 'trump' next to 'democracy' ;) The majority and optimizing markets are at odds in your statement. Look at qdb/k, it is very expensive, programmers cost a bunch, but it is used by the big financial houses. I am sure they are glad it is not too popular and affordable. I do agree that I don't like central planning, and design by committee, but those are different than your market statement or technocracy comment. Movies, arts, books, music...horses for courses, best for what moment? I like action films, I like high-brow, arthouse stuff too. Same with books. I am glad I have a choice for the moment at hand. When I was a young intellect, I succumbed to that elitist attitude of 'the best', and 'they don't know what's good for themselves' which is funny because I grew up in a poor, working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn in the late 60s/early 70s. Elitists were the guys from NY as well, but who wore black berets to film class at TSOA/NYU (three in my class alone!).