37 ms·

I don't see any reason to believe that the ability to recite pointless facts correlates significantly with good decision making. I know many smart people who ma

I don't see any reason to believe that the ability to recite pointless facts correlates significantly with good decision making. I know many smart people who make very poor decisions, including in the voting booth. On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. But I think voting is about preventing violent conflict and maintaining social stability. People who get to express themselves in the voting booth are (hopefully) less likely to express their frustration by grabbing the nearest minority or outcast and stringing them up from a tree. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. All of Africa has been a violent mess since the introduction of universal suffrage. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870, but decades of politicians vying for power by blaming an outcast group turned anti-semitism into a terrible disease. Democracy universally makes ethnic conflict worse. Read Amy Chua World on Fire. To put it another way: can you point to any model societies that are really great and are governed by a small ruling elite? America before the era of Jacksonian democracy ( 1620 to 1820's). Victorian Britain. Bourbon Naples. Pre-civil war Liberia. Belgian Congo (not to be confused with the Congo Free State, which was a disaster). Rhodesia. Singapore. Post-war Japan (basically ruled by MacArthur as dictator). Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. The fallacy that too many people make is that they look at the world and say, "hey, countries that are democracy have a better polity and quality life than non-democracies. Ergo, democracy is good." But this does not tell us if democracy is good, or if democracy is actually a poison. If I give twenty people a poison, only the strongest will be able to withstand it and keep drinking it. The weak fall to the ground sick, and therefore stop drinking the poison. A doctor who arrives on the scene late might see the healthy people drinking the poison, and think the poison is actually good. But that is not the case. If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. This seems obviously false. A mental test that requires you to list top performing baseball players will not correlate well with job performance for most jobs. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Can you point to any papers published in reputable journals that make that point? Its not that I don't trust you, being some random guy on the internet, but there are people who study history and government structure for a living and I'd think they might have more experience with this sort of thing. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. Wow. I don't even know what to do with a historical argument this absurd. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870 This will come as a great surprise to Martin Luther. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. But leaders in autocracies do the exact same thing as well. So it seems like how widespread the franchise was might not be the relevant variable. Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. Aren't these autocrats? Do you have any model societies where a small fraction of the population votes instead? Read Amy Chua World on Fire. Actually, I have read that book and I think you're misrepresenting Chua's thesis. Her claim was not the idea that democracy lead to political demagogues which lead to mass violence. Rather it was the combination of demagogues and the presence of market dominant ethnic minorities combined that lead to mass violence. I mean, one of her main examples is Rwanda, which was a dictatorship at the time. Not exactly a haven for democracy, eh? If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence. Um, I might believe that if you could point me to an academic citation. I will agree with you on this: rapid introduction of voting into previously autocratic societies often ends poorly. I think the takeaway there is that democracy involves a lot more than just voting: you need to build the rule of law and emplace a whole set of norms about how power is shared amongst dissenting groups. If you ignore all that and just impose elections immediately, then yeah, things can go very badly.
- bokonist 16y ago
  Can you point to any papers published in reputable journals that make that point? Its not that I don't trust you, being some random guy on the internet, but there are people who study history and government structure for a living and I'd think they might have more experience with this sort of thing. If you want your truth from authority, join a church. Universities have the same selection method (existing clergy/academics choose the next generation based on whether the existing clery/academics agree with the views of the rising class), and same history (Harvard, Yale, etc were founded seminaries). I studied political-science at Yale, and the professors are in their own world. Their studies had little to relation to the real world of politics, which I had learned about from actually working in Congress. The university in many subjects has devolved into the modern equivalent of scholasticism. Peer-review can be a tool for eliminating falsehood. But it can also be a tool for filtering out truth, and perpetuating falsehood. This applies 10X for politically sensitive subjects. Universities receive greats amount funding from nominally democratic governments. That said, even a politically correct institutions can't always avoid the truth. Check out this NYTimes article, it cites a bunch of professors who have studied the link between democracy and violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30patterson.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1275311050-4oDgrH8preLcMo3dxEf%20%20g&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30patterson.html?a... I haven't read any of the works cited in the article, so I can't vouch for them. I came to my conclusions by studying for myself the history of dozens of democratic transitions. I suggest doing the same yourself, if you are really interested. Pick five or ten countries randomly. Trace their history, starting as far back as you can. Read both progressive, reactionary, and primary sources. And then examine whether the democratic transitions they underwent increased or decreased the quality of governance. Wow. I don't even know what to do with a historical argument this absurd. From Sydney George Fisher's History of the American Revolution: "When we consider that this mob rule was steadily practised for a period of more than ten years, it is not surprising that it left an almost indelible mark on our people. They seem to have acquired from it that fixed habit now called lynch law, which is still practised among us in many parts of the country in a most regular and systematic manner, and participated in by respectable people. The term lynch law originated in the method of handling the loyalists in the Revolution, and was named from the brother of the man who founded Lynchburgh in Virginia....If the loyalists could come back from the grave, they would probably say that their fears and prophecies had been fulfilled in the most extraordinary manner; sometimes literally; in most cases substantially. There is no question that the Revolution was followed by a great deal of bad government, political corruption, sectional strife, coarseness in manners, hostility to the arts and refinements of life, assassination, lynch law, and other things which horrified Englishmen and afforded the stock material for the ridicule of such writers as Dickens and Mrs. Montagu." (source: http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA166-IA1&vq=lynch&dq=the+true+history+of+the+american+revolution&output=text http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA166-I... ) This will come as a great surprise to Martin Luther. I misspoke. I should have said, the virulent anti-semitism of the 1930's did not exist in Germany in the era of Metternich (first half of the 19th century). Anti-semitism was prevalent centuries before. The situation had gotten much better by the mid-1800's. But with the introduction of universal suffrage in 1870 it got much worse again. But leaders in autocracies do the exact same thing as well. So it seems like how widespread the franchise was might not be the relevant variable. It happens most in autocracies that came to a power as a result of party politics, or a violent struggle between political parties. Elections are the poison, tyranny and civil war are the disease. It's extremely rare in history to find a demagogue monarch. Do you have any model societies where a small fraction of the population votes instead? Victorian Britain, America before 1820, Rhodesia. Modern Hong Kong. Actually, I have read that book and I think you're misrepresenting Chua's thesis It's not her thesis that's interesting, but the examples. Most of them do involve democracy. She tries to make her book less politically incorrect by spreading the blame on markets too, but I don't buy it. I think the takeaway there is that democracy involves a lot more than just voting: you need to build the rule of law and emplace a whole set of norms about how power is shared amongst dissenting groups. If you ignore all that and just impose elections immediately, then yeah, things can go very badly. If you already have a government that provides rule of law, and a good set of norms about power sharing, why change things up? What makes democracy in America and Europe less pernicious is that a) its diluted a great deal by the committee system, unelected civil servants, and a permanent usually unelected judiciary. And b) there is a K-12 education system telling people not to be racist or jingoistic.

MichaelSalib 16y ago

On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. This seems obviously false. A mental test that requires you to list top performing baseball players will not correlate well with job performance for most jobs. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Can you point to any papers published in reputable journals that make that point? Its not that I don't trust you, being some random guy on the internet, but there are people who study history and government structure for a living and I'd think they might have more experience with this sort of thing. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. Wow. I don't even know what to do with a historical argument this absurd. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870 This will come as a great surprise to Martin Luther. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. But leaders in autocracies do the exact same thing as well. So it seems like how widespread the franchise was might not be the relevant variable. Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. Aren't these autocrats? Do you have any model societies where a small fraction of the population votes instead? Read Amy Chua World on Fire. Actually, I have read that book and I think you're misrepresenting Chua's thesis. Her claim was not the idea that democracy lead to political demagogues which lead to mass violence. Rather it was the combination of demagogues and the presence of market dominant ethnic minorities combined that lead to mass violence. I mean, one of her main examples is Rwanda, which was a dictatorship at the time. Not exactly a haven for democracy, eh? If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence. Um, I might believe that if you could point me to an academic citation. I will agree with you on this: rapid introduction of voting into previously autocratic societies often ends poorly. I think the takeaway there is that democracy involves a lot more than just voting: you need to build the rule of law and emplace a whole set of norms about how power is shared amongst dissenting groups. If you ignore all that and just impose elections immediately, then yeah, things can go very badly.

bokonist 16y ago
Can you point to any papers published in reputable journals that make that point? Its not that I don't trust you, being some random guy on the internet, but there are people who study history and government structure for a living and I'd think they might have more experience with this sort of thing. If you want your truth from authority, join a church. Universities have the same selection method (existing clergy/academics choose the next generation based on whether the existing clery/academics agree with the views of the rising class), and same history (Harvard, Yale, etc were founded seminaries). I studied political-science at Yale, and the professors are in their own world. Their studies had little to relation to the real world of politics, which I had learned about from actually working in Congress. The university in many subjects has devolved into the modern equivalent of scholasticism. Peer-review can be a tool for eliminating falsehood. But it can also be a tool for filtering out truth, and perpetuating falsehood. This applies 10X for politically sensitive subjects. Universities receive greats amount funding from nominally democratic governments. That said, even a politically correct institutions can't always avoid the truth. Check out this NYTimes article, it cites a bunch of professors who have studied the link between democracy and violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30patterson.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1275311050-4oDgrH8preLcMo3dxEf%20%20g&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30patterson.html?a... I haven't read any of the works cited in the article, so I can't vouch for them. I came to my conclusions by studying for myself the history of dozens of democratic transitions. I suggest doing the same yourself, if you are really interested. Pick five or ten countries randomly. Trace their history, starting as far back as you can. Read both progressive, reactionary, and primary sources. And then examine whether the democratic transitions they underwent increased or decreased the quality of governance. Wow. I don't even know what to do with a historical argument this absurd. From Sydney George Fisher's History of the American Revolution: "When we consider that this mob rule was steadily practised for a period of more than ten years, it is not surprising that it left an almost indelible mark on our people. They seem to have acquired from it that fixed habit now called lynch law, which is still practised among us in many parts of the country in a most regular and systematic manner, and participated in by respectable people. The term lynch law originated in the method of handling the loyalists in the Revolution, and was named from the brother of the man who founded Lynchburgh in Virginia....If the loyalists could come back from the grave, they would probably say that their fears and prophecies had been fulfilled in the most extraordinary manner; sometimes literally; in most cases substantially. There is no question that the Revolution was followed by a great deal of bad government, political corruption, sectional strife, coarseness in manners, hostility to the arts and refinements of life, assassination, lynch law, and other things which horrified Englishmen and afforded the stock material for the ridicule of such writers as Dickens and Mrs. Montagu." (source: http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA166-IA1&vq=lynch&dq=the+true+history+of+the+american+revolution&output=text http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA166-I... ) This will come as a great surprise to Martin Luther. I misspoke. I should have said, the virulent anti-semitism of the 1930's did not exist in Germany in the era of Metternich (first half of the 19th century). Anti-semitism was prevalent centuries before. The situation had gotten much better by the mid-1800's. But with the introduction of universal suffrage in 1870 it got much worse again. But leaders in autocracies do the exact same thing as well. So it seems like how widespread the franchise was might not be the relevant variable. It happens most in autocracies that came to a power as a result of party politics, or a violent struggle between political parties. Elections are the poison, tyranny and civil war are the disease. It's extremely rare in history to find a demagogue monarch. Do you have any model societies where a small fraction of the population votes instead? Victorian Britain, America before 1820, Rhodesia. Modern Hong Kong. Actually, I have read that book and I think you're misrepresenting Chua's thesis It's not her thesis that's interesting, but the examples. Most of them do involve democracy. She tries to make her book less politically incorrect by spreading the blame on markets too, but I don't buy it. I think the takeaway there is that democracy involves a lot more than just voting: you need to build the rule of law and emplace a whole set of norms about how power is shared amongst dissenting groups. If you ignore all that and just impose elections immediately, then yeah, things can go very badly. If you already have a government that provides rule of law, and a good set of norms about power sharing, why change things up? What makes democracy in America and Europe less pernicious is that a) its diluted a great deal by the committee system, unelected civil servants, and a permanent usually unelected judiciary. And b) there is a K-12 education system telling people not to be racist or jingoistic.