3 ms·

> In science, 'adversarial collaboration' is a modality of collaboration wherein opposing views work together in order to jointly advance knowledge of the area

> In science, 'adversarial collaboration' is a modality of collaboration wherein opposing views work together in order to jointly advance knowledge of the area under dispute. Seems like this is the ideal model for how politics should work. Instead of the norm, which is opposing parties yelling past each other and blocking the other party just out of spite.

ReactiveJelly 3y ago
The incentive landscapes differ. Science (done properly) is knowledgeable, skeptical experts trading written documents that only they can fully understand, and making it their career to understand and critique everything. Politics (done the only way we know how, democracy) is knowledgeable experts playing an idiotic reality TV game for an audience of millions of viewers who will spend about 5 seconds of thought on it, relying heavily on charisma, reputation, and sound bites of spoken word, so that the world is not captured by even worse experts. My hot take: We could take the lizard-brain stuff out of both politics and advertising if we didn't have live debates, didn't show faces or allow voices. It's harmful to voters who are not literate, and nobody would actually support this, but I think keeping "system 1 thinking" away from the fate of the free world might be helpful. For instance, I think gasoline should cost more. System 1 says that can never happen, it's political suicide. To justify carbon taxes takes more attention than voters can afford. And the reasonable critiques would not be "fuck you I want cheap gas" but "why save the environment if our superpower rivals aren't going to help?"
- tdba 3y ago
  I partly agree - I think you've outlined well why democracy should not be an end in itself. It's a means to an end and it's not always the best means. The main advantage of democracy is that it facilitates peaceful transfer of power between competing groups of elites. But you could imagine scenarios where the cost of a violent transfer of power is less than the cost of some other very bad outcome democracy is hurtling towards (e.g. an even larger outburst of violence at a later date, an environmental catastrophe).
- 10000truths 3y ago
  > My hot take: We could take the lizard-brain stuff out of both politics and advertising if we didn't have live debates, didn't show faces or allow voices. It's harmful to voters who are not literate, and nobody would actually support this, but I think keeping "system 1 thinking" away from the fate of the free world might be helpful. Without a way to attach an identity to the involved parties, any field of debate will quickly become rife with sock puppets.
  - ReactiveJelly 3y ago
    I was thinking more of "FDA nutrition facts, but for information" and less "Locke and Demosthenes"
tivert 3y ago
>> In science, 'adversarial collaboration' is a modality of collaboration wherein opposing views work together in order to jointly advance knowledge of the area under dispute. > Seems like this is the ideal model for how politics should work. If you think so, I don't think you really know what politics is. IMHO, the adversarial collaboration is only practical in relatively easy cases, when there's already significant common ground and shared goals between the factions. > Instead of the norm, which is opposing parties yelling past each other and blocking the other party just out of spite. That's what happens when the factions are unified and have incompatible ideologies. The blocking isn't so much out of spite, but a desire to see something not done.
- atoav 3y ago
  In most modern democracies coalitions are the norm and one party winning and stamping their worst onto everybody the exception. Extremely uncooperative entrenched two party systems like in the US are not very common. And guess what: in coalitions you get more of your parties program through (and thus increase the chance of getting relected) if you manage to convince the other parts of the coalition that your plans are reasonable and make some changes that they demand. Sometimes that leads to "watered down" laws that are neither here nor there, but often this also leads to better, more practical laws that are better for more people.
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
It wouldn't work. The scientists share a common goal of discerning the truth, or else finding a model which more accurately predicts the universe, which is effectively the same thing. Sure, it's much better for them if it turns out that their model is the victor, but ultimately either side "winning" is good for the scientists because they've collaboratively discovered something important in order to determine the winner. Politicians are different. Say some politicians on the left and right got together to study questions like "how does changing billionaire tax rates affect jobs" or "is buying homes and other assistance for the homeless a net savings." No outcome, even with absolute, rock solid evidence, would be acceptable to at least one side of the study. Imagine a Republican coming back to the floor to say "wellp, my committee studied it, and it turns out that dramatically raising taxes on billionaires is just fantastic for America! Who would've thought?" He'd be out of office just as soon as the next election could happen, and maybe sooner. Being right and having evidence is convenient for politicians but is neither sufficient nor necessary.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I think your example is a case where it would work well. Imagine Party A and Party B both produce models to estimate the effects of tax changes on job growth. Based on these models each Party produces a policy proposal. Party A is in power so their proposal is chosen. This is now a natural experiment to test both models! Data collected after the policy is implemented can now be used to judge the validity of both models. If a model is shown to be wrong, the Party either needs to explain the inconsistency or change their model to suit. Why doesn't this occur in the real world? Politicians know that many of their policies are not predicated on fact but on pragmatic political considerations. Revealing their ignorance by publishing models is just adding to the attack surface that their opponents can use to criticize them. Thus as long as there are no competing parties producing explainable (in the modelling sense) policy, there is no advantage to explaining policy in this way, it is all downside. It would take a very courageous group to change the paradigm, and they would probably be ridiculed because they would need to reveal their ignorance when publishing their models.
  - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
fallingknife 3y ago
Politics tends to be too zero sum for this to work. In science the backers of a discredited theory don't really lose anything, but in politics they do. e.g. any policy that lowers the price of housing will benefit people who don't own property and hurt people who do.

ReactiveJelly 3y ago

The incentive landscapes differ. Science (done properly) is knowledgeable, skeptical experts trading written documents that only they can fully understand, and making it their career to understand and critique everything. Politics (done the only way we know how, democracy) is knowledgeable experts playing an idiotic reality TV game for an audience of millions of viewers who will spend about 5 seconds of thought on it, relying heavily on charisma, reputation, and sound bites of spoken word, so that the world is not captured by even worse experts. My hot take: We could take the lizard-brain stuff out of both politics and advertising if we didn't have live debates, didn't show faces or allow voices. It's harmful to voters who are not literate, and nobody would actually support this, but I think keeping "system 1 thinking" away from the fate of the free world might be helpful. For instance, I think gasoline should cost more. System 1 says that can never happen, it's political suicide. To justify carbon taxes takes more attention than voters can afford. And the reasonable critiques would not be "fuck you I want cheap gas" but "why save the environment if our superpower rivals aren't going to help?"

tdba 3y ago
I partly agree - I think you've outlined well why democracy should not be an end in itself. It's a means to an end and it's not always the best means. The main advantage of democracy is that it facilitates peaceful transfer of power between competing groups of elites. But you could imagine scenarios where the cost of a violent transfer of power is less than the cost of some other very bad outcome democracy is hurtling towards (e.g. an even larger outburst of violence at a later date, an environmental catastrophe).
10000truths 3y ago
> My hot take: We could take the lizard-brain stuff out of both politics and advertising if we didn't have live debates, didn't show faces or allow voices. It's harmful to voters who are not literate, and nobody would actually support this, but I think keeping "system 1 thinking" away from the fate of the free world might be helpful. Without a way to attach an identity to the involved parties, any field of debate will quickly become rife with sock puppets.
- ReactiveJelly 3y ago
  I was thinking more of "FDA nutrition facts, but for information" and less "Locke and Demosthenes"

tivert 3y ago

>> In science, 'adversarial collaboration' is a modality of collaboration wherein opposing views work together in order to jointly advance knowledge of the area under dispute. > Seems like this is the ideal model for how politics should work. If you think so, I don't think you really know what politics is. IMHO, the adversarial collaboration is only practical in relatively easy cases, when there's already significant common ground and shared goals between the factions. > Instead of the norm, which is opposing parties yelling past each other and blocking the other party just out of spite. That's what happens when the factions are unified and have incompatible ideologies. The blocking isn't so much out of spite, but a desire to see something not done.

atoav 3y ago
In most modern democracies coalitions are the norm and one party winning and stamping their worst onto everybody the exception. Extremely uncooperative entrenched two party systems like in the US are not very common. And guess what: in coalitions you get more of your parties program through (and thus increase the chance of getting relected) if you manage to convince the other parts of the coalition that your plans are reasonable and make some changes that they demand. Sometimes that leads to "watered down" laws that are neither here nor there, but often this also leads to better, more practical laws that are better for more people.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago

It wouldn't work. The scientists share a common goal of discerning the truth, or else finding a model which more accurately predicts the universe, which is effectively the same thing. Sure, it's much better for them if it turns out that their model is the victor, but ultimately either side "winning" is good for the scientists because they've collaboratively discovered something important in order to determine the winner. Politicians are different. Say some politicians on the left and right got together to study questions like "how does changing billionaire tax rates affect jobs" or "is buying homes and other assistance for the homeless a net savings." No outcome, even with absolute, rock solid evidence, would be acceptable to at least one side of the study. Imagine a Republican coming back to the floor to say "wellp, my committee studied it, and it turns out that dramatically raising taxes on billionaires is just fantastic for America! Who would've thought?" He'd be out of office just as soon as the next election could happen, and maybe sooner. Being right and having evidence is convenient for politicians but is neither sufficient nor necessary.

brutusborn 3y ago
I think your example is a case where it would work well. Imagine Party A and Party B both produce models to estimate the effects of tax changes on job growth. Based on these models each Party produces a policy proposal. Party A is in power so their proposal is chosen. This is now a natural experiment to test both models! Data collected after the policy is implemented can now be used to judge the validity of both models. If a model is shown to be wrong, the Party either needs to explain the inconsistency or change their model to suit. Why doesn't this occur in the real world? Politicians know that many of their policies are not predicated on fact but on pragmatic political considerations. Revealing their ignorance by publishing models is just adding to the attack surface that their opponents can use to criticize them. Thus as long as there are no competing parties producing explainable (in the modelling sense) policy, there is no advantage to explaining policy in this way, it is all downside. It would take a very courageous group to change the paradigm, and they would probably be ridiculed because they would need to reveal their ignorance when publishing their models.
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago

fallingknife 3y ago

Politics tends to be too zero sum for this to work. In science the backers of a discredited theory don't really lose anything, but in politics they do. e.g. any policy that lowers the price of housing will benefit people who don't own property and hurt people who do.