4 ms·

I argue that the larger public doesn't need to know. Who, in the general public, is actually qualified to determine the effectiveness of these types of operatio

I argue that the larger public doesn't need to know. Who, in the general public, is actually qualified to determine the effectiveness of these types of operations? On top of that, vast swaths of the public are amazingly incompetent. Why waste time debating with them? Flat earthers and anti-vaxxers are easy targets for this argument. But, do you want national security operations to be influenced by the opinion of someone who "cures" people with essential oils? It's like asking for military tactics from a barista. Don't forget, a lot of people fall for over the phone scams of all kinds. Not just old people. It's a wide gamut of the population. I didn't even get into the real hardcore conspiracy nutjobs that have the loudest voice because they have nothing better to do. Part two, the public does a terrible job of verifying facts or ever understanding them. That's been the public discourse for... oh... I don't know... forever?

whatshisface 7y ago
It is widely known that the public is (individually) bad at making decisions, but they are the only group that can consistently be trusted to hold the interests of the public at heart. It doesn't matter how smart policymakers are if they direct their intelligence to their own benefit. Let's say that you and someone ten times smarter than you had to decide on what's for dinner. Even though they are smarter than you, you would still want a say, because no matter how dumb you are you still have preferences. It's kind of an "inverse conspiracy" to think that a group of skilled people will conspire in secret to help you when they could be serving themselves: without evidence, it's no more rational than negative paranoia. (By the way, who administered IQ tests to everyone in the CIA? They're drawn from the American population and they aren't paid millions. They could easily have the same brains per capita as the people who believe what they hear on cable news.)
- corodra 7y ago
  Theres a huge assumption about the wisdom of crowds. That the individuals have reliable info on said subject. I'd also say, are competent to use said info. The idea came from a dude back in the early 1900s who surveyed everyone at a county fair who was guessing on the weight of a cow or bull. The average was off by one pound, easily to be considered a successful test of that idea. However, let's get the same number of folks, but not farmers, instead... let's say silicon valley app engineers. Same rules as the old school, all you can do is look at the bovine and make a guess. Do you honestly believe they're going to have the same crowd accuracy? Especially without tech. At the end too, averaging and voting doesn't change reality. If a group of people vote if an animal is a rabbit or a crow, but 75% vote rabbit, is it a rabbit even though it's a crow? Wisdom of crowds needs to be taken with a fistful of salt.

whatshisface 7y ago

It is widely known that the public is (individually) bad at making decisions, but they are the only group that can consistently be trusted to hold the interests of the public at heart. It doesn't matter how smart policymakers are if they direct their intelligence to their own benefit. Let's say that you and someone ten times smarter than you had to decide on what's for dinner. Even though they are smarter than you, you would still want a say, because no matter how dumb you are you still have preferences. It's kind of an "inverse conspiracy" to think that a group of skilled people will conspire in secret to help you when they could be serving themselves: without evidence, it's no more rational than negative paranoia. (By the way, who administered IQ tests to everyone in the CIA? They're drawn from the American population and they aren't paid millions. They could easily have the same brains per capita as the people who believe what they hear on cable news.)

corodra 7y ago
Theres a huge assumption about the wisdom of crowds. That the individuals have reliable info on said subject. I'd also say, are competent to use said info. The idea came from a dude back in the early 1900s who surveyed everyone at a county fair who was guessing on the weight of a cow or bull. The average was off by one pound, easily to be considered a successful test of that idea. However, let's get the same number of folks, but not farmers, instead... let's say silicon valley app engineers. Same rules as the old school, all you can do is look at the bovine and make a guess. Do you honestly believe they're going to have the same crowd accuracy? Especially without tech. At the end too, averaging and voting doesn't change reality. If a group of people vote if an animal is a rabbit or a crow, but 75% vote rabbit, is it a rabbit even though it's a crow? Wisdom of crowds needs to be taken with a fistful of salt.