7 ms·

> Democracy tries to select for people doing the right thing If this was true, wouldn't democracy improve standard school curriculum so the general public at l

> Democracy tries to select for people doing the right thing If this was true, wouldn't democracy improve standard school curriculum so the general public at least has a chance at being able to choose quality leadership, see through the incessant lying/untruthfulness and misinformation of politicians and the media/journalists, have the ability to at least sometimes think of things from an absolute (what is maybe possible, were we to try) rather than relative perspective, etc, instead of being led around by their noses like oblivious if perhaps well meaning schoolchildren by these people?

fader 3y ago
Only if all the political parties benefit from people being able to make good judgements. If you have a party that benefits from an uninformed or misinformed public then it's significantly easier to lead them around through fear and lies than it is to govern well. Once they gain power they can reduce education spending, meaning they have more people they can direct more easily. Meaning they can get more power, and repeat the cycle.
- mistermann 3y ago
  If this is true in a two party system, would it not be logical to expect that the party that does not want to exploit an ignorant population would be directing significant attention and resources to educate the public while they hold power (and engaging in non-stop rhetoric on the matter at all times), which if all goes well could gain the support of the educated, permanently? I sometimes wonder if people have somehow been conditioned to not think about this topic with the seriousness it deserves. I wonder, if we were to search through various academic literature about the nature of humans, might we find some theories about how it may be possible to pull something like this off?
mcv 3y ago
Yes. And they do. The functioning ones, at least. Corrupt democracies obviously don't, but that's the nature of corruption. But I'm pretty sure the best education systems are generally found in democracies.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Do "democracy", "functioning", "obviously", "don't", "is/am/are", have precise, useful and non-misinformative meanings in this context? In other important fields (anything involving money for example, or programming), do we sometimes discuss things accurately, and consider things with respect to what is or may be possible, and (actually, objectively) true (basically: pursue optimality)? Might it be at least plausibly beneficial to consider applying that rigour to evaluating and designing our democracy?
  - mcv 3y ago
    You can deconstruct language all you want, but it's not going to change basic facts. You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      You can state your vague opinions as facts all you want, but it doesn't make them facts. Imagine if we wrote code the way we talk about political matters, where trying to be correct was considered wrong, worthy of punishment or banishment. Or for a more apt analogy: imagine if the inaccuracy and untruthfulness in threads like this was tried in a thread about technology right here on HN: do you think that would stand unchallenged, and do you think those challenging untruths would be considered to be doing it wrong? > You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland. Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Perhaps I missed the class where we learned we should not think about such things - rather, whatever intuition pops into our minds is correct, necessarily.
      - mcv 3y ago
        I have no idea what kind of weird language game you're trying to play. If you have a problem with vague opinions, maybe you should be more clear about what you're trying to say there. You make vague claims of wrongness, inaccuracy, untruthfulness, and even punishment or banishment, without making clear what the fuck you're hinting at. You doubt that democracies tend to have better education than dictatorships? Why? Do you have any basis for that doubt? If you look at lists of countries with the best education, the top is dominated by democracies, with Finland usually at the top. Lots of dictatorships around the world are not exactly known for their quality education. The only exception to that that I can think of are communist dictatorships: Cuba has apparently pretty good doctors, the old USSR was pretty big on research and engineering, and China is currently investing heavily in engineering. But their educations tend to focus entirely on STEM fields, and not on fields that might lead people to question the politics of the system; it's vital for the survival of dictatorships to suppress that kind of thinking. > Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? I don't see why. There's always room for improvement. > And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Americans always claim that their country is too big to replicate the successes of Europe. I think that's bullshit; there's a political drive to keep government programs that help the people underfunded, to keep people stupid and poor, particularly from the Republican party that's increasingly pushing the US towards dictatorship. Because they know critical thinking is not going to help their case.

fader 3y ago

Only if all the political parties benefit from people being able to make good judgements. If you have a party that benefits from an uninformed or misinformed public then it's significantly easier to lead them around through fear and lies than it is to govern well. Once they gain power they can reduce education spending, meaning they have more people they can direct more easily. Meaning they can get more power, and repeat the cycle.

mistermann 3y ago
If this is true in a two party system, would it not be logical to expect that the party that does not want to exploit an ignorant population would be directing significant attention and resources to educate the public while they hold power (and engaging in non-stop rhetoric on the matter at all times), which if all goes well could gain the support of the educated, permanently? I sometimes wonder if people have somehow been conditioned to not think about this topic with the seriousness it deserves. I wonder, if we were to search through various academic literature about the nature of humans, might we find some theories about how it may be possible to pull something like this off?

mcv 3y ago

Yes. And they do. The functioning ones, at least. Corrupt democracies obviously don't, but that's the nature of corruption. But I'm pretty sure the best education systems are generally found in democracies.

mistermann 3y ago
Do "democracy", "functioning", "obviously", "don't", "is/am/are", have precise, useful and non-misinformative meanings in this context? In other important fields (anything involving money for example, or programming), do we sometimes discuss things accurately, and consider things with respect to what is or may be possible, and (actually, objectively) true (basically: pursue optimality)? Might it be at least plausibly beneficial to consider applying that rigour to evaluating and designing our democracy?
- mcv 3y ago
  You can deconstruct language all you want, but it's not going to change basic facts. You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    You can state your vague opinions as facts all you want, but it doesn't make them facts. Imagine if we wrote code the way we talk about political matters, where trying to be correct was considered wrong, worthy of punishment or banishment. Or for a more apt analogy: imagine if the inaccuracy and untruthfulness in threads like this was tried in a thread about technology right here on HN: do you think that would stand unchallenged, and do you think those challenging untruths would be considered to be doing it wrong? > You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland. Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Perhaps I missed the class where we learned we should not think about such things - rather, whatever intuition pops into our minds is correct, necessarily.
    - mcv 3y ago
      I have no idea what kind of weird language game you're trying to play. If you have a problem with vague opinions, maybe you should be more clear about what you're trying to say there. You make vague claims of wrongness, inaccuracy, untruthfulness, and even punishment or banishment, without making clear what the fuck you're hinting at. You doubt that democracies tend to have better education than dictatorships? Why? Do you have any basis for that doubt? If you look at lists of countries with the best education, the top is dominated by democracies, with Finland usually at the top. Lots of dictatorships around the world are not exactly known for their quality education. The only exception to that that I can think of are communist dictatorships: Cuba has apparently pretty good doctors, the old USSR was pretty big on research and engineering, and China is currently investing heavily in engineering. But their educations tend to focus entirely on STEM fields, and not on fields that might lead people to question the politics of the system; it's vital for the survival of dictatorships to suppress that kind of thinking. > Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? I don't see why. There's always room for improvement. > And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Americans always claim that their country is too big to replicate the successes of Europe. I think that's bullshit; there's a political drive to keep government programs that help the people underfunded, to keep people stupid and poor, particularly from the Republican party that's increasingly pushing the US towards dictatorship. Because they know critical thinking is not going to help their case.