3 ms·

understanding the world is a full time job. not saying the current crop of politicians are doing a great job of it, but the chances for Joe Random to understand

understanding the world is a full time job. not saying the current crop of politicians are doing a great job of it, but the chances for Joe Random to understand the ramifications of his voting in direct democracy are slim Moreover the risk of unmitigated populism storming the masses into voting some real shit is ever present; while a populist leader still have to work within the framework of the houses it would be extremely easy to con the people into, say, voting xenophobic measures during circumscribed but substantial crisis like the Syrian war.

mistermann 7y ago
Indeed, there are many obvious shortcomings and risks with DD and any other system - pointing them out is about as difficult a shooting fish in a barrel. But I find this style of argument utterly unconvincing of the popular truism that it would inevitably result in a clusterfuck. Not only that, any time I read such criticisms, they seem to overlook the fact that DD would change the landscape. Perhaps people are "ignorant of the facts" now, and I certainly don't disagree, but can you blame them? If a democracy offers you only two choices of party, who differ very little if viewed from a perspective outside the Overton Window (which is constantly drilled into people's minds as a true representation of reality), then why bother putting much effort into it? Of course, the average Joe's reasoning doesn't get down into such detail, but I believe the common man has a reasonably accurate intuitive sense for discriminating between sincerity and theatre. To know with any level of confidence whether DD could work, it would have to be tried, with many variations, over a very long period of time. To me, this seems unmistakably true due to the complex nature of reality - and yet, the overwhelming consensus opinion seems to be that It Is Known that it could not possibly work, full stop. To me, this seems like yet another an example of intuition being mistaken for fact, a general idea that this [0] excellent comment touched upon. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21897532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21897532
- afarrell 7y ago
  > To know with any level of confidence whether DD could work, it would have to be tried No, you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act. Can those ideas be wrong? Totally. So they should be tested. But at what scale do they need to be tested? If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long wankerous meeting for 6 hours until 1:30am, does that experience provide valid information about what can happen in a Direct Democracy the size of Singapore (pop: 5.6 million)?
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > No Implying you disagree with me, but then: > ...you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act. Correct. But I'm sure you realize that there is a difference between predicting something and knowing something. Don't forget, "knowing* something is actually limited to under a certain set of unique circumstances - whenever human beings are involved, very few things are absolutes, there's just too much randomness and inconsistency (matters of opinion vs matters of fact, hypocrisy, etc). > But at what scale do they need to be tested? That's the thing: we don't know - once again, you can make a well-reasoned prediction (now we have nested predictions) about how well they need to be tested, but forget that you're making predictions at your peril (see: the current state of affairs on planet Earth). > If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long wankerous meeting for 6 hours until 1:30am, does that experience provide valid information about what can happen in a Direct Democracy the size of Singapore (pop: 5.6 million)? Yes, absolutely - the key phrase being "can happen". However, what else can happen? - do we know? - how would we know? - does anyone actually care? Let's say, just for the sake of conducting a thought experiment, we could magically invoke an omniscient being who could provide us the answers to these and other questions. Based on your reading of political arguments on HN and elsewhere, what percentage of people do you believe are truly interested in discovering The Truth (the best approach to yielding the maximum benefit to all people on planet Earth)? Personally, I would put that number at about 5%, tops. To be clear, I'm not talking about people that truly desire the best outcome - that number would be much higher - but rather, I am talking about people who are willing and able to set their egos and axioms aside and truly open their minds to all opinions and reasoning in pursuit of maximizing the outcome for all people. Most everyone thinks this is what they're doing, but watch how they react to the slightest hint of criticism of that belief. EDIT: I won't mention the dreaded d-word, but excluding "Let's say, just for the sake...." and onward, I would absolutely love to know any thinking on how one might disagree with what I've said? I say this in interest of improving my personal thinking, which I perceive to be sound, but have no actual way of knowing.
    - afarrell 7y ago
      > difference between predicting something and knowing something In common speech, someone will say "I know this will happen" when they merely predict it with high confidence. So would you agree that we've reached the point where we need to be more meticulous about definitions? If so, lets go back up the thread a bit: /u/LoSboccacc said: > the chances for Joe Random to understand the ramifications of his voting in direct democracy are slim > the risk of unmitigated populism storming the masses into voting some real shit is ever present To which you said: > the overwhelming consensus opinion seems to be that It Is Known that it could not possibly work, full stop. The distinction between "chances are slim" and "could not possibly" is as meaningful as the distinction you make between predicting and knowing. Its not the same type of distinction, but it is just as meaningful. So if you actually think "I don't think it's 100% inevitable that DD would result in chaos", then sure. We agree on that. But if you think "I don't think chances are slim of DD being stable and happier than our current system", then we inherently start to talk about probabilities of future events -- we start to talk about predictions. > So that is the path of how one might disagree: By pointing out that you're also making predictions and that I'm making different well-reasoned predictions. -------- > does anyone actually care? I think for this question to be meaningful, you have to resist the temptation to treat the verb "care" passively. To care about something is to direct attention to it... hopefully to direct action toward it. We eat, sleep, and care within finite time. So we can try to choose what to care about based on: - What impact we predict the thing has on our lives. - What impact we predict our care and its actions would have on the thing. - How much time and effort we predict we would need to spend for our care to make that impact. - How frequently that prediction of impact is re-enforced with evidence-of-success that we recognize. And we strive to parcel out our attention well among all our responsibilities. Some are better at controlling their attention than others, but all have limited time. Consequently, I think very few people direct a lot of their care to the question "what is the best approach to yielding the maximum benefit to all people on planet Earth?"

mistermann 7y ago

Indeed, there are many obvious shortcomings and risks with DD and any other system - pointing them out is about as difficult a shooting fish in a barrel. But I find this style of argument utterly unconvincing of the popular truism that it would inevitably result in a clusterfuck. Not only that, any time I read such criticisms, they seem to overlook the fact that DD would change the landscape. Perhaps people are "ignorant of the facts" now, and I certainly don't disagree, but can you blame them? If a democracy offers you only two choices of party, who differ very little if viewed from a perspective outside the Overton Window (which is constantly drilled into people's minds as a true representation of reality), then why bother putting much effort into it? Of course, the average Joe's reasoning doesn't get down into such detail, but I believe the common man has a reasonably accurate intuitive sense for discriminating between sincerity and theatre. To know with any level of confidence whether DD could work, it would have to be tried, with many variations, over a very long period of time. To me, this seems unmistakably true due to the complex nature of reality - and yet, the overwhelming consensus opinion seems to be that It Is Known that it could not possibly work, full stop. To me, this seems like yet another an example of intuition being mistaken for fact, a general idea that this [0] excellent comment touched upon. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21897532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21897532

afarrell 7y ago
> To know with any level of confidence whether DD could work, it would have to be tried No, you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act. Can those ideas be wrong? Totally. So they should be tested. But at what scale do they need to be tested? If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long wankerous meeting for 6 hours until 1:30am, does that experience provide valid information about what can happen in a Direct Democracy the size of Singapore (pop: 5.6 million)?
- mistermann 7y ago
  > No Implying you disagree with me, but then: > ...you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act. Correct. But I'm sure you realize that there is a difference between predicting something and knowing something. Don't forget, "knowing* something is actually limited to under a certain set of unique circumstances - whenever human beings are involved, very few things are absolutes, there's just too much randomness and inconsistency (matters of opinion vs matters of fact, hypocrisy, etc). > But at what scale do they need to be tested? That's the thing: we don't know - once again, you can make a well-reasoned prediction (now we have nested predictions) about how well they need to be tested, but forget that you're making predictions at your peril (see: the current state of affairs on planet Earth). > If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long wankerous meeting for 6 hours until 1:30am, does that experience provide valid information about what can happen in a Direct Democracy the size of Singapore (pop: 5.6 million)? Yes, absolutely - the key phrase being "can happen". However, what else can happen? - do we know? - how would we know? - does anyone actually care? Let's say, just for the sake of conducting a thought experiment, we could magically invoke an omniscient being who could provide us the answers to these and other questions. Based on your reading of political arguments on HN and elsewhere, what percentage of people do you believe are truly interested in discovering The Truth (the best approach to yielding the maximum benefit to all people on planet Earth)? Personally, I would put that number at about 5%, tops. To be clear, I'm not talking about people that truly desire the best outcome - that number would be much higher - but rather, I am talking about people who are willing and able to set their egos and axioms aside and truly open their minds to all opinions and reasoning in pursuit of maximizing the outcome for all people. Most everyone thinks this is what they're doing, but watch how they react to the slightest hint of criticism of that belief. EDIT: I won't mention the dreaded d-word, but excluding "Let's say, just for the sake...." and onward, I would absolutely love to know any thinking on how one might disagree with what I've said? I say this in interest of improving my personal thinking, which I perceive to be sound, but have no actual way of knowing.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    > difference between predicting something and knowing something In common speech, someone will say "I know this will happen" when they merely predict it with high confidence. So would you agree that we've reached the point where we need to be more meticulous about definitions? If so, lets go back up the thread a bit: /u/LoSboccacc said: > the chances for Joe Random to understand the ramifications of his voting in direct democracy are slim > the risk of unmitigated populism storming the masses into voting some real shit is ever present To which you said: > the overwhelming consensus opinion seems to be that It Is Known that it could not possibly work, full stop. The distinction between "chances are slim" and "could not possibly" is as meaningful as the distinction you make between predicting and knowing. Its not the same type of distinction, but it is just as meaningful. So if you actually think "I don't think it's 100% inevitable that DD would result in chaos", then sure. We agree on that. But if you think "I don't think chances are slim of DD being stable and happier than our current system", then we inherently start to talk about probabilities of future events -- we start to talk about predictions. > So that is the path of how one might disagree: By pointing out that you're also making predictions and that I'm making different well-reasoned predictions. -------- > does anyone actually care? I think for this question to be meaningful, you have to resist the temptation to treat the verb "care" passively. To care about something is to direct attention to it... hopefully to direct action toward it. We eat, sleep, and care within finite time. So we can try to choose what to care about based on: - What impact we predict the thing has on our lives. - What impact we predict our care and its actions would have on the thing. - How much time and effort we predict we would need to spend for our care to make that impact. - How frequently that prediction of impact is re-enforced with evidence-of-success that we recognize. And we strive to parcel out our attention well among all our responsibilities. Some are better at controlling their attention than others, but all have limited time. Consequently, I think very few people direct a lot of their care to the question "what is the best approach to yielding the maximum benefit to all people on planet Earth?"