6 ms·

A friend of mine often expresses similar sentiments. My normal reaction is to ask "what would you have instead of politicians?". He has problems forming a cohe

A friend of mine often expresses similar sentiments. My normal reaction is to ask "what would you have instead of politicians?". He has problems forming a coherent answer. What would your answer be?

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Politicians are, by definition, shapeshifters. Or, at least, that's how it used to work. Now they're narrowly defined silos where (the normally human) "flip flopping" (i.e., learning more and updating their position) is considered a form of weakness. Imagine that. The one thing that enabled the species to survive and thrive is suddenly off limits. What can go wrong? Note: I'm not blaming politicians. It's a reflection of all of us.
- meric 9y ago
  The problem is we are voting for people while imagining ourselves voting for policies.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Yup. Or as I like to say: We elect the electable. Qualifications and capabilities are irrelevant. And they we wonder why they're so incompetent. It's a sad state of affairs really.
lprubin 9y ago
For me this sentiment just means it's good to have a healthy skepticism of everything politicians say.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Yes. But nine of ten times that data (if you will) comes pre-filtered by The Media. Pardon me, but most of them don't seem qualified to make me coffee. Yet they are the ones most responsible for crafting public opinion. Perhaps the messenger should be (metaphorically) shot?
  - keithpeter 9y ago
    I suspect that public opinion is less craft-able than has been previously thought, or at least that is what I think is the takeaway from the UK EU referendum and the last couple of general elections (GE2015 and GE2017 in the jargon). What 'qualifications' do you see as appropriate for election to (say) Parliament?
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Willingness to compromise is the qualification no one seems to value anymore. Yet isn't that the key to effective politics, in any country? Second would be background/experience. For example, in the USA, we tend to elect lawyers. Then a science issue comes up and we flip out because they aren't science aware / science literate. Well...duh. What did we think we were going to get. The point is, it's silly to vote for a cat and then complain that it doesn't bark. Yet, that's what happens too often.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Perhaps. But my point is, The Media is VERY biased. And that does affect attention and opinion. Take for example all this talk of Russia hacking the USA election. How many articles have you seen that ask: Wait. This happened under the previous administration. Why weren't they prepared? Why did the intelligence community seemingly fail again? But instead we get "...and today Trump tweeted..." Or what about Comey? This is the same guy who used his position and power to try to influence the election (by dredging up HRC emails, etc.) Yet that's forgotten and The Media speaks of him as completely trustworthy? Really? How's that? I don't mean to bring up politics per se. But it does make it easier to point out for much (so called) journalism is barely grade-school level story telling. It's embrassing. You can't have a true and honest Democracy without a healthy and proper Fourth Estate.
gaius 9y ago
What would your answer be? I would put "none of the above" on ballots, and if it wins, all the candidates are barred from politics or public office of any sort for life, and the election is re-run.
- keithpeter 9y ago
  Might not give the outcome you expect. Spoiling of ballots is quite rare even in countries with compulsory voting. UK http://www.votenone.org.uk/spoilt-ballot-results-2015.html http://www.votenone.org.uk/spoilt-ballot-results-2015.html 1% spoiled ballot papers. One third didn't vote (less in 2017 as much higher turnout). Australia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381 Compulsory voting and 6% spoiled papers
  - gaius 9y ago
    But this is a very different thing than "spoiling the ballot" that I am proposing. Under my scheme there would have been no Trump vs Hillary nor Macron vs Le Pen because the potential consequences of losing to "none of the above" and never being allowed to do politics again, forever, would act as a deterrent to sleazy candidates.
    - keithpeter 9y ago
      Er - not so sure but it would be fun to try. UK is parliamentary so you are voting for your local MP. People quite often vote for the actual member as well as/despite the party so could be tricky with the sanctions. There is also a constitutional thing about being able to stand in elections except under very narrowly defined conditions [1]. How about lotteries for local government - like jury service? Local government in UK is problematic as it is unpaid and often elections have very low turnout. Not sure that I or the people of France would necessarily agree that M. Macron is a sleazy candidate - he represents something different absolutely, and you need to be careful designing systems where it becomes hard to change things. Podemos and SYRIZA were both extremely popular. They are now facing the reality of governing, hence winners and losers, and so the sheen is somewhat tarnished but they still command a significant level of support. [1] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/214228/Parliamentary-By-Election-Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...
laughfactory 9y ago
The solution is ethical and moral people. Politicians or not, the greatest modern issue is that we don't value honesty and integrity as a society anymore. This means, across the board, we have this weird form of nuanced corruption where everyone lies without compunction just because it's accepted practice. This means we can't trust politicians, data analysts, data scientists (anyone who uses data to proclaim "the truth") or anyone who makes any claim whatsoever to "the truth." Until, and unless, we as a people value integrity and honesty more highly, we should hold all "truth" to be suspect, and guilty until proven innocent. I worked at a job where, as data scientists, we were discouraged from revealing what we found in the data, and compelled to produce from the data what our boss thought the answer should be. It was asinine. If you think you already know the answer, why consult the Oracle? Put your understanding into practice and find out yourself if you're right. Or, look at the data first with as little bias as possible, and build testable hypotheses from there. I think the tendency to take a hypothesis to the data is intended to reflect the scientific method, but that only works if you're open to whatever the answer may be. It doesn't work if you just keep pushing to slice the data in ever crazier ways trying to get it to validate your hypothesis.
- pas 9y ago
  Ethical and moral people fall prey to cognitive biases all the time. It's not about honesty and integrity, if you (or others) don't ask [the right] questions. We are biased, by ideology, world view, experience (and history/genetics/family/friends/aesthetics) by long- and short-term (self-)interests and so on. With money it's very common to spot the conflict of interest, the bias when people give advice, with other things, it's a lot harder. That said, people by default are gullible, susceptible to persuasion and so on. People are by nature social animals and easy to misled, to influence, and so on. We are naive. It takes training to spot the bullshit, even in our own thinking. (And we haven't even mentioned the psychopathologies that can also very seriously undermine our blossoming critical thinking by sheer force of emotions - anxiety/depression/impulsiveness/xenophobia/etnophobia - or via a persistent insistence on fringe patterns - schizoid-type disorders, hallucinations, paranoia.) > compelled to produce from the data what our boss thought the answer should be. That's not asinine, that's misconduct. That's fraud. So, all in all, the situation was never good. The Enlightenment never happened. It started to, but suddenly stopped.

A friend of mine often expresses similar sentiments. My normal reaction is to ask "what would you have instead of politicians?". He has problems forming a coherent answer. What would your answer be?

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Politicians are, by definition, shapeshifters. Or, at least, that's how it used to work. Now they're narrowly defined silos where (the normally human) "flip flopping" (i.e., learning more and updating their position) is considered a form of weakness. Imagine that. The one thing that enabled the species to survive and thrive is suddenly off limits. What can go wrong? Note: I'm not blaming politicians. It's a reflection of all of us.

meric 9y ago
The problem is we are voting for people while imagining ourselves voting for policies.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Yup. Or as I like to say: We elect the electable. Qualifications and capabilities are irrelevant. And they we wonder why they're so incompetent. It's a sad state of affairs really.

lprubin 9y ago

For me this sentiment just means it's good to have a healthy skepticism of everything politicians say.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Yes. But nine of ten times that data (if you will) comes pre-filtered by The Media. Pardon me, but most of them don't seem qualified to make me coffee. Yet they are the ones most responsible for crafting public opinion. Perhaps the messenger should be (metaphorically) shot?
- keithpeter 9y ago
  I suspect that public opinion is less craft-able than has been previously thought, or at least that is what I think is the takeaway from the UK EU referendum and the last couple of general elections (GE2015 and GE2017 in the jargon). What 'qualifications' do you see as appropriate for election to (say) Parliament?
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Willingness to compromise is the qualification no one seems to value anymore. Yet isn't that the key to effective politics, in any country? Second would be background/experience. For example, in the USA, we tend to elect lawyers. Then a science issue comes up and we flip out because they aren't science aware / science literate. Well...duh. What did we think we were going to get. The point is, it's silly to vote for a cat and then complain that it doesn't bark. Yet, that's what happens too often.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Perhaps. But my point is, The Media is VERY biased. And that does affect attention and opinion. Take for example all this talk of Russia hacking the USA election. How many articles have you seen that ask: Wait. This happened under the previous administration. Why weren't they prepared? Why did the intelligence community seemingly fail again? But instead we get "...and today Trump tweeted..." Or what about Comey? This is the same guy who used his position and power to try to influence the election (by dredging up HRC emails, etc.) Yet that's forgotten and The Media speaks of him as completely trustworthy? Really? How's that? I don't mean to bring up politics per se. But it does make it easier to point out for much (so called) journalism is barely grade-school level story telling. It's embrassing. You can't have a true and honest Democracy without a healthy and proper Fourth Estate.

gaius 9y ago

What would your answer be? I would put "none of the above" on ballots, and if it wins, all the candidates are barred from politics or public office of any sort for life, and the election is re-run.

keithpeter 9y ago
Might not give the outcome you expect. Spoiling of ballots is quite rare even in countries with compulsory voting. UK http://www.votenone.org.uk/spoilt-ballot-results-2015.html http://www.votenone.org.uk/spoilt-ballot-results-2015.html 1% spoiled ballot papers. One third didn't vote (less in 2017 as much higher turnout). Australia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381 Compulsory voting and 6% spoiled papers
- gaius 9y ago
  But this is a very different thing than "spoiling the ballot" that I am proposing. Under my scheme there would have been no Trump vs Hillary nor Macron vs Le Pen because the potential consequences of losing to "none of the above" and never being allowed to do politics again, forever, would act as a deterrent to sleazy candidates.
  - keithpeter 9y ago
    Er - not so sure but it would be fun to try. UK is parliamentary so you are voting for your local MP. People quite often vote for the actual member as well as/despite the party so could be tricky with the sanctions. There is also a constitutional thing about being able to stand in elections except under very narrowly defined conditions [1]. How about lotteries for local government - like jury service? Local government in UK is problematic as it is unpaid and often elections have very low turnout. Not sure that I or the people of France would necessarily agree that M. Macron is a sleazy candidate - he represents something different absolutely, and you need to be careful designing systems where it becomes hard to change things. Podemos and SYRIZA were both extremely popular. They are now facing the reality of governing, hence winners and losers, and so the sheen is somewhat tarnished but they still command a significant level of support. [1] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/214228/Parliamentary-By-Election-Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...

laughfactory 9y ago

The solution is ethical and moral people. Politicians or not, the greatest modern issue is that we don't value honesty and integrity as a society anymore. This means, across the board, we have this weird form of nuanced corruption where everyone lies without compunction just because it's accepted practice. This means we can't trust politicians, data analysts, data scientists (anyone who uses data to proclaim "the truth") or anyone who makes any claim whatsoever to "the truth." Until, and unless, we as a people value integrity and honesty more highly, we should hold all "truth" to be suspect, and guilty until proven innocent. I worked at a job where, as data scientists, we were discouraged from revealing what we found in the data, and compelled to produce from the data what our boss thought the answer should be. It was asinine. If you think you already know the answer, why consult the Oracle? Put your understanding into practice and find out yourself if you're right. Or, look at the data first with as little bias as possible, and build testable hypotheses from there. I think the tendency to take a hypothesis to the data is intended to reflect the scientific method, but that only works if you're open to whatever the answer may be. It doesn't work if you just keep pushing to slice the data in ever crazier ways trying to get it to validate your hypothesis.

pas 9y ago
Ethical and moral people fall prey to cognitive biases all the time. It's not about honesty and integrity, if you (or others) don't ask [the right] questions. We are biased, by ideology, world view, experience (and history/genetics/family/friends/aesthetics) by long- and short-term (self-)interests and so on. With money it's very common to spot the conflict of interest, the bias when people give advice, with other things, it's a lot harder. That said, people by default are gullible, susceptible to persuasion and so on. People are by nature social animals and easy to misled, to influence, and so on. We are naive. It takes training to spot the bullshit, even in our own thinking. (And we haven't even mentioned the psychopathologies that can also very seriously undermine our blossoming critical thinking by sheer force of emotions - anxiety/depression/impulsiveness/xenophobia/etnophobia - or via a persistent insistence on fringe patterns - schizoid-type disorders, hallucinations, paranoia.) > compelled to produce from the data what our boss thought the answer should be. That's not asinine, that's misconduct. That's fraud. So, all in all, the situation was never good. The Enlightenment never happened. It started to, but suddenly stopped.