3 ms·

The incentive landscapes differ. Science (done properly) is knowledgeable, skeptical experts trading written documents that only they can fully understand, and

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"

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"