4 ms·
The problem as I see it is that it's hard to form rules to discourage bad thinking and practices. It's not like we can imprison people for engaging in stupid a
by yequalsx 16y ago
The problem as I see it is that it's hard to form rules to discourage bad thinking and practices. It's not like we can imprison people for engaging in stupid arguments. Else, everyone - myself included - would be in prison. Short of such draconian consequences it's hard to find a system of incentives that encourage good thinking in the long run.
It's sort of like the bill being proposed in Congress that would limit lawmakers' ability to be lobbyists. It's a noble gesture but doomed to failure. A congressman wrote the part of the Medicare Prescription Plan that prevents Medicare from negotiating prices of drugs. He's now a $2 million a year lobbyist. If he couldn't be a lobbyist he'd be a 'consultant' or a 'researcher'. It just doesn't work.
The essence of the problem is that it's tough to fight apathy, ignorance, and stupidity. Collectively we are easily manipulated. Look at how many people think Sarah Palin is smart. If you don't tackle the issues of apathy, ignorance, and stupidity then you get the current system and no set of rules is going to change this.
As voters, we need to collectively focus on the qualities of a candidate and not which party they are in. Is the candidate smart? Does the candidate show signs of loving to learn? Is the candidate willing to say something like, "You know what? I'm not an expert in nuclear proliferation. There are lots of them around and I'll listen to their counsel and make a good choice." Is the candidate able to see through bullshit?
We've got it all wrong and in this sense I agree with Gowers. He has a creative solution. In the long run it won't help. Greed, incompetence, ignorance, and stupidity are too rampant.
- dagw 16y agoGreed, incompetence, ignorance, and stupidity are too rampant. And unfortunately many of the greedy ones are neither incompetent, ignorant nor stupid. If they where they would be a lot easier to stop.
- yequalsx 16y agoNice point. I wish I had written that in. That does seem to complete the picture I was trying to paint. Thanks.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoShort of such draconian consequences it's hard to find a system of incentives that encourage good thinking in the long run. Decision markets (ala Robin Hanson's futarchy) attempt to do this. In short: we vote on our goals. We then bet on whether Policy X or Policy Y achieves this goal. We select the policy with the highest odds of success (say X). Then anyone who bet on Policy Y gets their money refunded, and anyone who favored Policy X loses money if it doesn't work. Thus, anyone who favors bad policy loses all their money. The main drawback to such a market is that it might not be deep enough; if one bets 1 million dollars on policy "transfer 2 million dollars to me" and causes that policy to be enacted, they lose money on their bets but still make out like a bandit.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mnemonicsloth 16y agobets 1 million dollars on policy "transfer 2 million dollars to me" and causes that policy to be enacted, they lose money on their bets but still make out like a bandit. This glosses over the difference between prediction markets (markets for bets on outcomes) and futarchy (voting on results we want and automatically enacting the policies prediction markets endorse to achieve those results). Also, wouldn't a market thin enough to be gamed by interested parties attract investors like a stock trading at less than 1x earnings?
- yummyfajitas 16y agoIt's very true that irrational bettors actually attract speculators (who are able to take their money). So it might be the case that interested parties can't push decision markets too far. I.e., the cost of influencing "policy give me 2 million bucks" might be 3 million dollars. Robin Hanson certainly believes this is true, but Mencius Moldbug believes he has found a real world case where it isn't. I don't understand the issue well enough to offer an informed opinion. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/pipe-shorting-and-professor-hansons.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/pipe-sh...
- CWuestefeld 16y agoIf you don't tackle the issues of apathy, ignorance, and stupidity then you get the current system and no set of rules is going to change this. It's all a question of costs and incentives. Right now, it is rational to be ignorant an irrational when you vote. It takes a lot of work to understand all the issues. On the other hand, if you guess wrong, the marginal cost (because your one vote has such a small effect on the outcome) is fleeting. So the cost to each individual voter to be well-informed far exceeds his the benefit from so doing. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter http://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+myth+of+the+rational+voter http://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+myth+of+the+rational+voter ). So you've got to either lower the cost of rationality, raise the cost of ignorance, or raise the benefit of rationality.
- jquery 16y agoI am no Sarah Palin fan, but I highly doubt she is dumb... out of her depth sure, ruthlessly ambitious yes, a poor ad-lib interviewee definitely, but not dumb.