3 ms·

the whole concept of party polarization is a non-sequitur to what's important, and that's how closely our representatives represent our collective interest bala

the whole concept of party polarization is a non-sequitur to what's important, and that's how closely our representatives represent our collective interest balanced against the forward-thinking good of the nation. the labels are clearly holding us back, but we dearly want to fit in (be in the party) and be perceived as being in the right, no matter what's good, truthful, moral, generous, patriotic, etc. the wisdom of the crowds covers this ground too--too much correlated thinking via information cascades often leads to bad decisions and outcomes. you want more independence, even if that increases the number of "wrong" opinions. having more wrong opinions is infinitely better than poor information cascades, as long as they're relatively independent and queried in a statistically sound manner for decision-making.

ChainOfFools 6y ago
at what point does groupthink suddenly flash over into the wisdom of a crowd? is there some kind of dunbar's number at work here?
- clairity 6y ago
  i don't know of a cutoff offhand, but it's not the number of people (like dunbar's) but rather the amount of coordination, or in statistical terms, covariance. there's linear and non-linear considerations, like heteroscedasticity, as well, so it may need to be a set of statistical measures. in any case, representation itself could benefit a lot from experimentation and innovation. we now have the technological means to implement a direct democracy on the scale of billions of people, something practically impossible only a few decades ago.
- wahern 6y ago
  I think the wisdom of the crowds is predicated on the individual members expressed preferences reflecting their "real" and substantial interests. But if you apply a selection criteria to members of the crowd or the types of crowd recognized as such, you're likely going to get answers biased toward the selection criteria. Likewise, to the extent members' expressed preferences reflect abstract arguments (i.e. ideology) rather than their real interests, then other dynamics will control. So, for example, if you go around asking the population detailed questions about their stances on abortion--when it should allowed, when, etc--you're going to get a ton of different answers and any consensus, to the extent there is one, will be sophisticated and nuanced. Ask those same people if they're pro-life or pro-choice and the majority consensus will simply reflect the ebb and flow of the dominate idealogical narratives and be as real and substantive as tallying the number of people who prefer cake vs pie. In that sense I think Wisdom of the Crowds always had a sort of tautological character to it. And it reflected an optimism about the information age--that it would cut through rather than perpetuate all the complicated and complicating intermediate social layers.
woodandsteel 6y ago
The problem is that voters often disagree greatly, and the only positive way forward is a compromise, but strong partisan and ideological polarization makes that impossible.
- clairity 6y ago
  but that's more of a problem of leadership, courage, and ultimately fairness. parties are not designed to fix that problem, and we've let the system devolve into this mess so that politicians can concentrate power in the smallest agreeable number of entities (two).
  - woodandsteel 6y ago
    The problem is that when parties are highly polarized, politicians who want to be the sort of leaders you are talking about can't get into leadership positions and often are voted out at the primary election stage.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      The problem is that both parties in the US are bought and paid for, and have no real interest in representing the interests of voters. So-called progressive issues and so-called conservative issues are just attention-seeking window displays designed to farm voter interest. Policy is controlled by the economic leverage of donors and lobbyists, not by voters, and is enacted to protect the economic interests of donors and lobbyists, not of voters.
- handol 6y ago
  Compromise isn't necessarily a positive way forward. Sometimes there is no way forward but to fight for power and the victors impose their will on the losers. Look at the compromise of alternating slave and free states to prevent a rupture in U.S. politics in the mid 1800s. It satisfied neither side, and no compromise possibly could have.

ChainOfFools 6y ago

at what point does groupthink suddenly flash over into the wisdom of a crowd? is there some kind of dunbar's number at work here?

clairity 6y ago
i don't know of a cutoff offhand, but it's not the number of people (like dunbar's) but rather the amount of coordination, or in statistical terms, covariance. there's linear and non-linear considerations, like heteroscedasticity, as well, so it may need to be a set of statistical measures. in any case, representation itself could benefit a lot from experimentation and innovation. we now have the technological means to implement a direct democracy on the scale of billions of people, something practically impossible only a few decades ago.
wahern 6y ago
I think the wisdom of the crowds is predicated on the individual members expressed preferences reflecting their "real" and substantial interests. But if you apply a selection criteria to members of the crowd or the types of crowd recognized as such, you're likely going to get answers biased toward the selection criteria. Likewise, to the extent members' expressed preferences reflect abstract arguments (i.e. ideology) rather than their real interests, then other dynamics will control. So, for example, if you go around asking the population detailed questions about their stances on abortion--when it should allowed, when, etc--you're going to get a ton of different answers and any consensus, to the extent there is one, will be sophisticated and nuanced. Ask those same people if they're pro-life or pro-choice and the majority consensus will simply reflect the ebb and flow of the dominate idealogical narratives and be as real and substantive as tallying the number of people who prefer cake vs pie. In that sense I think Wisdom of the Crowds always had a sort of tautological character to it. And it reflected an optimism about the information age--that it would cut through rather than perpetuate all the complicated and complicating intermediate social layers.

woodandsteel 6y ago

The problem is that voters often disagree greatly, and the only positive way forward is a compromise, but strong partisan and ideological polarization makes that impossible.

clairity 6y ago
but that's more of a problem of leadership, courage, and ultimately fairness. parties are not designed to fix that problem, and we've let the system devolve into this mess so that politicians can concentrate power in the smallest agreeable number of entities (two).
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  The problem is that when parties are highly polarized, politicians who want to be the sort of leaders you are talking about can't get into leadership positions and often are voted out at the primary election stage.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    The problem is that both parties in the US are bought and paid for, and have no real interest in representing the interests of voters. So-called progressive issues and so-called conservative issues are just attention-seeking window displays designed to farm voter interest. Policy is controlled by the economic leverage of donors and lobbyists, not by voters, and is enacted to protect the economic interests of donors and lobbyists, not of voters.
handol 6y ago
Compromise isn't necessarily a positive way forward. Sometimes there is no way forward but to fight for power and the victors impose their will on the losers. Look at the compromise of alternating slave and free states to prevent a rupture in U.S. politics in the mid 1800s. It satisfied neither side, and no compromise possibly could have.