4 ms·

Random just means without reproducible information about inputs. There is nothing additionally equitable in deciding an outcome (more representation by favoured

Random just means without reproducible information about inputs. There is nothing additionally equitable in deciding an outcome (more representation by favoured minority groups) and then calling the selection process “random.” Are airport screening selections random, or just opaque? What the author is in effect advocating is an opaque process whose outcome reflects some desirable criteria. Presumably if one disagrees, it is because of some modern heresy, and articles like these are really about identifying reactionaries and other counter-revolutionary types who will not sustain cognitive dissonance for the cause. What can I say, I am provoked.

chapium 7y ago
Your last argument is a bit of a strawman.
rebuilder 7y ago
What's opaque about anything in the article?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  (Not GP but) The composition of the body being one male and one female from each district plus two (presumably opposite gender) from Indigenous people and "adjusted for age" represent an element of opacity. What does "adjusted for age" mean? Am I less likely to be chosen if I'm in a particular age range (or particular age range crossed with district)? If a particular district is heavily skewed in gender (in either direction), should the representation be constrained to one of each gender?
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    That's a description of one particular experiment with sortition. I don't see the article proposing how, exactly, a random selection process should work at all.
Zenst 7y ago
When it comes to random - ask yourself this: People mostly accept the results of a lottery draw, if the same system was used to pick politicians, then we all deep-down just know - people would question the results more and more. Indeed I'd expect headline reports that a Russian satalite was flying overhead when the draw took place and effected gravity and the results and they should be voided. Just how society works. But if you printed out a list of random numbers printed out upon a page of A4 and produced 10 pages. Then asked a group of people to pick which of the 10 pages is the most random. Well, the result would be enlightening into what random is and what individual perspective of random is. One person's random is another person's pattern.
- motohagiography 7y ago
  I can see how some people like the idea of legitimizing irreproducible results, but they don’t bear scrutiny and it’s no way to transfer power. I also don’t think it is reasonable to dismiss someone who writes for the walrus, whose piece was edited by someone there, as an innumerate and naive lightweight. An agenda seems much more plausible.

chapium 7y ago

Your last argument is a bit of a strawman.

rebuilder 7y ago

What's opaque about anything in the article?

sokoloff 7y ago
(Not GP but) The composition of the body being one male and one female from each district plus two (presumably opposite gender) from Indigenous people and "adjusted for age" represent an element of opacity. What does "adjusted for age" mean? Am I less likely to be chosen if I'm in a particular age range (or particular age range crossed with district)? If a particular district is heavily skewed in gender (in either direction), should the representation be constrained to one of each gender?
- rebuilder 7y ago
  That's a description of one particular experiment with sortition. I don't see the article proposing how, exactly, a random selection process should work at all.

Zenst 7y ago

When it comes to random - ask yourself this: People mostly accept the results of a lottery draw, if the same system was used to pick politicians, then we all deep-down just know - people would question the results more and more. Indeed I'd expect headline reports that a Russian satalite was flying overhead when the draw took place and effected gravity and the results and they should be voided. Just how society works. But if you printed out a list of random numbers printed out upon a page of A4 and produced 10 pages. Then asked a group of people to pick which of the 10 pages is the most random. Well, the result would be enlightening into what random is and what individual perspective of random is. One person's random is another person's pattern.

motohagiography 7y ago
I can see how some people like the idea of legitimizing irreproducible results, but they don’t bear scrutiny and it’s no way to transfer power. I also don’t think it is reasonable to dismiss someone who writes for the walrus, whose piece was edited by someone there, as an innumerate and naive lightweight. An agenda seems much more plausible.