3 ms·

How is having people agree on bad decisions a good thing? Would it not be better to have governments make the best decisions they can for their people, and also

by tensor 14y ago

How is having people agree on bad decisions a good thing? Would it not be better to have governments make the best decisions they can for their people, and also teach the people why these decisions are best? Yes, many of the issues facing governments are complex and difficult to solve. You seem to be arguing that because it's difficult to learn what course of action is best, we should not even try. Humility is a good thing, but it is completely absent in popular opinion.

adgar 14y ago
Ann Coulter is famous for saying that fascism is optimal locally. Something tells me you aren't happy you agree with Ann Coulter about the benefits of fascism.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
How is having people agree on bad decisions a good thing? Because the decision affects everybody. Even more so, everybody has a greater stake in the system of decision-making than they do in the decision itself. Look at it this way: suppose ten people are in a lifeboat stranded on the ocean. There are no supplies, and everybody is starving to death. Logically, killing and eating one of the people would allow the rest to survive. However the group votes not to do that, and they all starve. Later it's discovered that had they lived a few more days they would have been rescued. Or you could play it the other way: they all unanimously decide to draw straws - the "law of the sea" -- and yet it does no good. In either case, having consent of those involved is more important than optimizing around one individual's opinion, even if that opinion represents an outcome that's in the best interest of the most people involved. You don't have to believe me. Play various scenarios out a few times yourself and work through it. And it's not unanimous agreement, not at all. The trick, as the other commenter pointed out, is to create a simple and understandable system where the minority still participates when they lose arguments. (Obviously eating the minority in our example would prevent such participation, which is why only unanimous consent would work, and it would only work in coming up with some selection criteria, not actually applying it.) I think you'll find that people deserve the dignity of being wrong, even when faced with their own death. I'm also not saying that "we should not even try." Far from it. True learning takes place in a group setting from the bottom-up, in a peer-to-peer fashion. Once critical mass is reached, persuasion is used to convince the majority. That's the way systems of people operate, which is much, much different from the way we might like them to work, or the way a mathematical proof might work.
- saraid216 14y ago
  An excellent book about this topic, which also gives some suggestions on how the majority and minority should actually conduct themselves to make sure this happens, is Danielle Allen's Talking with Strangers. http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/014665in.html http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/014665in.html
anamax 14y ago
> Would it not be better to have governments make the best decisions they can for their people, and also teach the people why these decisions are best? Why are you assuming that governments are capable of making good decisions? I'm serious - name three politicians who you would trust to make important decisions about your life? On the off chance that you're the first who has a list that long, what makes you think that said politicians will be in charge?

by tensor 14y ago

adgar 14y ago

Ann Coulter is famous for saying that fascism is optimal locally. Something tells me you aren't happy you agree with Ann Coulter about the benefits of fascism.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

How is having people agree on bad decisions a good thing? Because the decision affects everybody. Even more so, everybody has a greater stake in the system of decision-making than they do in the decision itself. Look at it this way: suppose ten people are in a lifeboat stranded on the ocean. There are no supplies, and everybody is starving to death. Logically, killing and eating one of the people would allow the rest to survive. However the group votes not to do that, and they all starve. Later it's discovered that had they lived a few more days they would have been rescued. Or you could play it the other way: they all unanimously decide to draw straws - the "law of the sea" -- and yet it does no good. In either case, having consent of those involved is more important than optimizing around one individual's opinion, even if that opinion represents an outcome that's in the best interest of the most people involved. You don't have to believe me. Play various scenarios out a few times yourself and work through it. And it's not unanimous agreement, not at all. The trick, as the other commenter pointed out, is to create a simple and understandable system where the minority still participates when they lose arguments. (Obviously eating the minority in our example would prevent such participation, which is why only unanimous consent would work, and it would only work in coming up with some selection criteria, not actually applying it.) I think you'll find that people deserve the dignity of being wrong, even when faced with their own death. I'm also not saying that "we should not even try." Far from it. True learning takes place in a group setting from the bottom-up, in a peer-to-peer fashion. Once critical mass is reached, persuasion is used to convince the majority. That's the way systems of people operate, which is much, much different from the way we might like them to work, or the way a mathematical proof might work.

saraid216 14y ago
An excellent book about this topic, which also gives some suggestions on how the majority and minority should actually conduct themselves to make sure this happens, is Danielle Allen's Talking with Strangers. http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/014665in.html http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/014665in.html

anamax 14y ago

> Would it not be better to have governments make the best decisions they can for their people, and also teach the people why these decisions are best? Why are you assuming that governments are capable of making good decisions? I'm serious - name three politicians who you would trust to make important decisions about your life? On the off chance that you're the first who has a list that long, what makes you think that said politicians will be in charge?