Starting a Democracy; Idiots Wanted

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

There's been research that democracies need a sizeable population of ignorant people to function properly without falling into minor factions warring over inconsequential issues or minor parties forcing their agenda to form a coalition. The actual paper was only about fish, but there has been talk about how much of the findings might transfer to the human realm.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6062/1578
http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/w ... ple-38398/
http://io9.com/5869088/democracy-needs- ... ys-science
Personally, I'd rather live in a country with an educated populace and unproductive government than one with an ignorant populace and a decisive government. What's your opinion on the study (and possible human implications)?

[sourmìlk]

There's been research that democracies need a sizeable population of ignorant people to function properly without falling into minor factions warring over inconsequential issues

Personally, I'd rather live in a country with an educated populace and unproductive government than one with an ignorant populace and a decisive government. What's your opinion on the study (and possible human implications)?

I think a productive government is probably more conducive to quality of life than one that discusses things intelligently.

Really though that's all beside the point, I'm just here applying because of the help wanted ad in the thread title.

[Elvish Pillager]

Huh? Even if the experimental results would apply to humans, I have no idea how you would reach the conclusion that democracy without uninformed people is nonfunctional. "go towards yellow" seems like a perfectly reasonable collective action when the minority who likes yellow cares about the issue much more strongly.

[sourmìlk]

Huh? Even if the experimental results would apply to humans, I have no idea how you would reach the conclusion that democracy without uninformed people is nonfunctional. "go towards yellow" seems like a perfectly reasonable collective action when the minority who likes yellow cares about the issue much more strongly.

Yeah, I don't quite get why this whole "groups forcing committees to force an agenda" thing is necessarily problematic so long as people have the power to object or form their own groups. But the "bickering about small, inconsequential issues" thing sounds like a rather familiar scenario.

[SlyReaper]

The phrase "doing it wrong" leaps to mind.

[Garm]

That's funny because we spend so much time obsessing over inconsequential things like Abortion or John Edwards' $400 haircut because we have so many ignorant people.

[sourmìlk]

That's funny because we spend so much time obsessing over inconsequential things like Abortion or John Edwards' $400 haircut because we have so many ignorant people.

Okay, but we do argue about arguments about arguing. We've gone on several page tangents nitpicking about the smallest thing. Yurell made a spoon analogy in the Higg's Boson thread and, with plenty of my help, we talked about that for at least a page before a mod had to cut us off. Seriously, spoons.

[Vaniver]

Okay, but we do argue about arguments about arguing. We've gone on several page tangents nitpicking about the smallest thing. Yurell made a spoon analogy in the Higg's Boson thread and, with plenty of my help, we talked about that for at least a page before a mod had to cut us off. Seriously, spoons.

Why would you bring this up again?

No, never mind, don't answer that.

[sourmìlk]

Why would you bring this up again?

Well, because I didn't --

No, never mind, don't answer that.

good save.

[bosonicyouth]

I feel that the Simpsons episode where Springfield is run by the Mensa society is an excellent illustration of this effect.

"80 past 2, the dawn of a new era"

[Elvish Pillager]

Okay, but we do argue about arguments about arguing. We've gone on several page tangents nitpicking about the smallest thing. Yurell made a spoon analogy in the Higg's Boson thread and, with plenty of my help, we talked about that for at least a page before a mod had to cut us off. Seriously, spoons.

In our defense, we aren't trying to decide policy. So we have no reason to stay on topic. We might stay on topic more often if there was any motivation to do it.

[Triangle_Man]

That's funny because we spend so much time obsessing over inconsequential things like Abortion or John Edwards' $400 haircut because we have so many ignorant people.

Assuming that Abortion is actually an inconsequential thing and not a big fucking deal for a lot of people (did you just call people who make a big deal out of it 'ignorant'?).

But obsessing over haircuts is stupid.

I think it has been said that big minds discuss ideas while little minds discuss people, however. That probably has a lot of truth to it.

[PeterCai]

sensationalist reporting at it's finest

[Whammy]

Curse you "need to pay to read the article" =P. I'll have to try hope my college has a subscription with this cause this sounds like something I'd love to read. First article was perfectly fine, but that second article was a little too sensationalist.

Anyway though, political science has already done a lot on this subject, though usually in the form of voting vs. decision making, which can be a whole other beast. If I remember correctly, and I might just have to relocate some of it, it seemed to be basically "uninformed majority pretty much cancels itself out, informed minority the deciding vote". So this result might be an interesting argument against that.

[Arancaytar]

There's been research that democracies need a sizeable population of ignorant people to function properly without falling into minor factions warring over inconsequential issues or minor parties forcing their agenda to form a coalition.

Does this imply that current democracy functions properly, or that there is a lack of ignorant people?

Because either one is kind of a big thing to swallow.

[sourmìlk]

There's been research that democracies need a sizeable population of ignorant people to function properly without falling into minor factions warring over inconsequential issues or minor parties forcing their agenda to form a coalition.

Does this imply that current democracy functions properly, or that there is a lack of ignorant people?

Because either one is kind of a big thing to swallow.

I'm sure you can have too many ignorant people or any number of reasons why democracies might not function properly.

[Zcorp]

Considering no country is close to having a population that has reached critical mass in achieving an 'educated' or 'informed' populace this is a amazingly stupid article and conclusion. Beyond just the fish observation and transferring it to human behavior.

Even if such a group has more numerous disagreements, those disagreements would be significantly less important than then disagreements we see being debated and fought over now.

And the title of the io9 article...wow, sometimes you just have to hate reporters.

[aoeu]

Considering no country is close to having a population that has reached critical mass in achieving an 'educated' or 'informed' populace this is a amazingly stupid article and conclusion. Beyond just the fish observation and transferring it to human behavior.

Even if such a group has more numerous disagreements, those disagreements would be significantly less important than then disagreements we see being debated and fought over now.

And the title of the io9 article...wow, sometimes you just have to hate reporters.

The populace may be educated, but how informed is it really? Most people don't care to know as long as they have roads to drive on etc.

[Triangle_Man]

From what I can tell, most people are only after a large enough income to live comfortably, a roof over their head and the other basic necessities of life (food, water and clothing). Anything else (staying informed on world events, etc.) is secondary and thus entirely optional (except for the need to consume consumer goods???).

This may or may not explain why society works the way it does.

[Zcorp]

Yeah! Those lazy apathetic 'most' people. Worried about stupid things like being able to pay for food, health, shelter, student loans and things for their children.

[IcedT]

Yeah! Those lazy apathetic 'most' people. Worried about stupid things like being able to pay for food, health, shelter, student loans and things for their children.

I think the point is that these local and relatively short-term (though necessary) concerns can lead to decisions with bad outcomes for the big picture.

[nitePhyyre]

Personally, I'd rather live in a country with an educated populace and unproductive government than one with an ignorant populace and a decisive government. What's your opinion on the study (and possible human implications)?

I think a productive government is probably more conducive to quality of life than one that discusses things intelligently.

Do you realize you basically just said "I think a totalitarian government is probably more conducive to quality of life than democracy"?

Huh? Even if the experimental results would apply to humans, I have no idea how you would reach the conclusion that democracy without uninformed people is nonfunctional. "go towards yellow" seems like a perfectly reasonable collective action when the minority who likes yellow cares about the issue much more strongly.

I think this is one of the problems with the study. Without knowing exactly how the fish would rate their preference of colors, it is hard to draw any conclusions. If the bluefish only liked blue slightly more than yellow, then as soon as a yellowfish came along and said "fuck blue, return to your yellow roots!" then this is exactly how you would expect things to happen. OTOH, if the training made the bluefish vehemently detest yellow, then this result is surprising.

Additionally, how are the colorless fish chosen?

Does this imply that current democracy functions properly, or that there is a lack of ignorant people?

Because either one is kind of a big thing to swallow.

The study also has a third option where too much ignorance fucked everything up completely. I think we are currently living through that one.

Assuming that Abortion is actually an inconsequential thing and not a big fucking deal for a lot of people (did you just call people who make a big deal out of it 'ignorant'?).

There is a huge difference between "things people give a shit about" and "things that matter".(Dear gods, Yes)

If I remember correctly, and I might just have to relocate some of it, it seemed to be basically "uninformed majority pretty much cancels itself out, informed minority the deciding vote". So this result might be an interesting argument against that.

Actually, the fish who are naturally drawn to yellow but trained to go towards blue seems pretty close to "uninformed". So I think this study aligns well with common wisdom.

Although, there are situations where the 'uninformed equilibrium' can break down. In american politics, it has always seemed like one side has been saying "Just stop for a second and think about what I said, you'll see that I'm right." while the other side has been saying "BOO! Ahhhh! Boogeyman! No time to stop and think!! Vote for me!" It is a lot easier to appeal to the emotions of the uninformed than to appeal to the information of the uninformed.

sensationalist reporting at it's finest

QFT. I particularly like how the study's author was all like "This result might have some analogous phenomenon in humans. We should run a study to find out if this has any repercussions in politics." and the articles are all like "Scientists solve all problems in politics".

[curtis95112]

Personally, I'd rather live in a country with an educated populace and unproductive government than one with an ignorant populace and a decisive government. What's your opinion on the study (and possible human implications)?

I think a productive government is probably more conducive to quality of life than one that discusses things intelligently.

Do you realize you basically just said "I think a totalitarian government is probably more conducive to quality of life than democracy"?

That's assuming totalitarian governments are productive. When they are, they do tend to be popular with their people.

[sourmìlk]

And it's assuming that we're dealing in absolutes, and that we're making the assumption that a government that discusses things intellectually cannot function. So yes, I prefer a functioning (and therefore benevolent) dictatorship to a democracy in which we are all starving and dying.

[stevey_frac]

I don't know. We have a pretty smart group of people at work, and the arguments are pretty epic. We quibble about absolutely everything.

And about the only conclusion we've reached in the past year is that gun control is probably ineffective.

[sourmìlk]

I don't know. We have a pretty smart group of people at work, and the arguments are pretty epic. We quibble about absolutely everything.

And about the only conclusion we've reached in the past year is that gun control is probably ineffective.

I think this proves my point?

[Anaximander]

Personally, I'd rather live in a country with an educated populace and unproductive government than one with an ignorant populace and a decisive government. What's your opinion on the study (and possible human implications)?

If you're accepting nominations for fairy tales, I'll pass altogether on the concepts of nations and governments, live happily with the people I care about and encourage the study of the natural world as an ends and not a means.

As for the study...yea...makes sense. I thought it has been a long accepted part of political theory that simple democracies can potentially devolve into mob rule and tyranny? But with a fat, happy and uniformed populace there probably wouldn't be much ground for minority factions to gain traction. It seems like there'd probably be a lot of history to back that up.

[Sockmonkey]

In order for this to be shown as scientifically valid wouldn't you need to have an actual well-informed society to study? Have fun finding one.

[Zamfir]

I don't know. We have a pretty smart group of people at work, and the arguments are pretty epic. We quibble about absolutely everything.

And about the only conclusion we've reached in the past year is that gun control is probably ineffective.

We're also for the most part young people with often only a distant and theoretical understanding of the subjects under discussion, with little experience with politics, or even with resolving disagreements in general. "Naive amateurs" is probably a more relevant description than "pretty smart people".

[curtis95112]

I don't know. We have a pretty smart group of people at work, and the arguments are pretty epic. We quibble about absolutely everything.

And about the only conclusion we've reached in the past year is that gun control is probably ineffective.

We're also for the most part young people with often only a distant and theoretical understanding of the subjects under discussion, with little experience with politics, or even with resolving disagreements in general. "Naive amateurs" is probably a more relevant description than "pretty smart people".

This. There's a reason we have politicians.

[Obby]

This. There's a reason we have politicians.

... To take all of our money and use it to do absolutely nothing productive, while simultaneously telling us all we're terrible, terrible people out to destroy America by wanting them to be held accountable for their actions (or inaction, as the case may be)?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Zamfir]

You can complain that all cars are expensive gas-guzzlers that kill pedestarians and take up parking space. It's true, but it doesn't help you buy a car. And does little to help you design a better car. For a better design you have to look for solutions, not just for problems. Learn the causes of the problems, understand the limitations involved, search for ways to push those limits.

Everyone understands this for cars, why not for politics? You can start by imagining a utopia, and conclude that the real world fails in comparison. But don't stop there. Don't dream about utopia, dream about ways to get closer.

Are there systems elsewhere that work better in some aspect? Can you bring that over? Or are there reasons why it wouldn't work in your specific context? If other systems are not better, what mechanism is holding us back? Can we find a way around that? Who do you need to convince to get change? What hurdles are in the way? Who will oppose those changes, and why? Can you aim for a first step, if you can't make the entire leap? If you don't know how to get the change you want, is there something else that would makes the situation more bearable?

And seriously, politics achieves a lot of good. We just take that for granted, and whine about the problems.

[Whammy]

If I remember correctly, and I might just have to relocate some of it, it seemed to be basically "uninformed majority pretty much cancels itself out, informed minority the deciding vote". So this result might be an interesting argument against that.

Actually, the fish who are naturally drawn to yellow but trained to go towards blue seems pretty close to "uninformed". So I think this study aligns well with common wisdom.

Although, there are situations where the 'uninformed equilibrium' can break down. In american politics, it has always seemed like one side has been saying "Just stop for a second and think about what I said, you'll see that I'm right." while the other side has been saying "BOO! Ahhhh! Boogeyman! No time to stop and think!! Vote for me!" It is a lot easier to appeal to the emotions of the uninformed than to appeal to the information of the uninformed.

Meh, emotional appeals are a lot more complex than that ^_^".

But in all honesty though, just based on what I've been reading so far, uninformed population really aren't that big of an issue. They either:

-Don't vote at all
-Are apathetic enough that they don't have any information at all and base party id (and by extension vote) on either personal feelings, family ties (really, family party id is a pretty big factor), or simple stuff like "economy is bad, X party is in office, gonna vote for Y" and pretty much vote randomly and so all the people together sort of just cancel each other out (in the US at least with our two party system; think of it like heads and tails equaling out to 50/50 if you flip it enough times). I like the book The Myth of the Rational Voter which discusses it, although the writer does have a bit of a libertarian/Austrian school of economics bias so I'd take any policy suggestions with a grain of salt. On the emotional appeals side, I'd suggest The Political Brain (though the Democratic party bias is pretty obvious since it's basically the author using research into emotional appeal basically to explain to Democrats why they suck at it and what they need to do to get better).

It's the INFORMED voters you gotta watch out for. In fact, from what I've been reading in my research on cognitive biases and political information processing, the more informed and educated are MORE likely to be biased, simply because they have the mental tools and power to do much better mental gymnastics to engage in confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias. Actually, I got a recent study here that found this phenomenon, though on the topic of climate change:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1871503

I do have a study of PhD political scientists and how they tended to rely on personal ideology in order to describe alternate histories about the Soviet Union even when presented with evidence that disagreed with their ideas of possible histories if you want it though. Actually, I got a lot of studies discussing this stuff ... *is working on some undergraduate research on the topic of political information, media consumption, and cognition biases

[Ghostbear]

Are apathetic enough that they don't have any information at all and base party id (and by extension vote) on either personal feelings, family ties (really, family party id is a pretty big factor), or simple stuff like "economy is bad, X party is in office, gonna vote for Y" and pretty much vote randomly and so all the people together sort of just cancel each other out (in the US at least with our two party system; think of it like heads and tails equaling out to 50/50 if you flip it enough times).

Actually, I believe it's been shown (no sources off hand- so take my word for whatever you feel it's worth) that as voter turnout increases in the US, the overall outcome turns more liberal- more democrats elected, the republicans that are elected are more moderate, and so on. So I wouldn't say it's just a cancelling each other out thing. You can look at it pretty easily and see the groups that vote in lowest numbers: minorities, the youth, and the poor- tend to be groups that have a heavy tilt towards democrats. I think the only group that does have a known democratic tilt that isn't significantly underrepresented at the polls is women.

[sardia]

Actually, I believe it's been shown (no sources off hand- so take my word for whatever you feel it's worth) that as voter turnout increases in the US, the overall outcome turns more liberal- more democrats elected, the republicans that are elected are more moderate, and so on. So I wouldn't say it's just a cancelling each other out thing. You can look at it pretty easily and see the groups that vote in lowest numbers: minorities, the youth, and the poor- tend to be groups that have a heavy tilt towards democrats. I think the only group that does have a known democratic tilt that isn't significantly underrepresented at the polls is women.

This reminds me of the Republican push for voter ID laws, which democrats oppose because it reduces turnout for minorities(which happen to vote majority democratic). I'm surprised they haven't offered a compromise where they have mandatory voting in exchange for voter ID required. That way democrats get some compensation for lost votes, and republicans get to scratch their voter fraud/security itch. The only losers would be the poor who get hit with being unable to vote yet punished for not voting since it's mandatory.

[Ghostbear]

This reminds me of the Republican push for voter ID laws, which democrats oppose because it reduces turnout for minorities(which happen to vote majority democratic). I'm surprised they haven't offered a compromise where they have mandatory voting in exchange for voter ID required. That way democrats get some compensation for lost votes, and republicans get to scratch their voter fraud/security itch. The only losers would be the poor who get hit with being unable to vote yet punished for not voting since it's mandatory.

I don't see mandatory voting being palpable in the US, and even in nations that have it (e.g. Brazil) are lucky to get 90% turnout. I'd also wager that the republicans don't give a rat's ass about voter fraud- the whole purpose is to suppress minority votes. Even if it wasn't, I think a better fix would be to:
1. Make all Town, State, and Federal election days holidays. There's already a lot of overlap with the various localities on their election days, so in general, unless there's a special election this would only create 1 actual holiday.
2. Make a form of valid ID free to all. Combined with the holiday, this would remove a lot of the impediments towards lower income voters.
3. Drastically increase early voting. I believe Oregon has most (all?) of its voting occurring by mail as early voting. This actually reduces costs (polling stations aren't cheap), and makes it so the location of polling stations isn't much of an issue. This would still be an issue for the homeless, but they still could be included through traditional polling stations, which could then have a greater incentive to send people out to find those that haven't voted. The later won't happen because just about everyone seems to pretend the homeless don't exist though.
4. Allow same day registration. It's already a holiday- go register to vote, and vote at the same location, and get your required ID. All for free- BAM.

If you get all or some of those in, you can add in all the voter ID laws or whatever you want, and still get significantly increased turnout, without actually having any penalties for not voting. Republicans don't want increased voter turnout though, because it doesn't help them. Which isn't to say democrats want increased turnout because they're so kind- they only care because it helps them.

[mfb]

There's been research that democracies need a sizeable population of ignorant people to function properly without falling into minor factions warring over inconsequential issues or minor parties forcing their agenda to form a coalition.

Does this imply that current democracy functions properly, or that there is a lack of ignorant people?

Because either one is kind of a big thing to swallow.

I'm sure you can have too many ignorant people or any number of reasons why democracies might not function properly.

I'm sure too many ignorant people are the reason for a lot of stupid political decisions. They look good on a first view (at least to a significant amount of voters), but if you look closer they are not good. nitePhyyre had a good example:

In american politics, it has always seemed like one side has been saying "Just stop for a second and think about what I said, you'll see that I'm right." while the other side has been saying "BOO! Ahhhh! Boogeyman! No time to stop and think!! Vote for me!" It is a lot easier to appeal to the emotions of the uninformed than to appeal to the information of the uninformed.

To the study: I doubt that there is country where this effect is relevant. Maybe smaller groups/organizations can have it somewhere.


@Ghostbear: In Germany, all votes are on Sundays. And if you cannot (or do not want to) vote at that day, you have the option to vote via mail in advance. Is it different in the US?

[Dauric]

I'm sure too many ignorant people are the reason for a lot of stupid political decisions. They look good on a first view (at least to a significant amount of voters), but if you look closer they are not good. nitePhyyre had a good example:

In american politics, it has always seemed like one side has been saying "Just stop for a second and think about what I said, you'll see that I'm right." while the other side has been saying "BOO! Ahhhh! Boogeyman! No time to stop and think!! Vote for me!" It is a lot easier to appeal to the emotions of the uninformed than to appeal to the information of the uninformed.

Nitephyre's example is classic marketing actually. "Supplies are Limited!" "Limited Time Offer!" "Be the first in your neighborhood!" etc. etc. etc. Emotional appeals work better than rational appeals on most people. Claiming that the terrorist win if the opposition gets their way is vastly more effective than an argument that includes an economics lesson.

Used to be that advertisements tried to appeal to the rational argument, the idea that Detergent X gets whites whiter than their competitor. Now advertising by-in-large relies on emotional/instinctual appeals, that buying their product entitles you to group membership where the buffet is filled with happiness and sex. Completely irrational, but effective.

The thing is that some time ago politicians realized that campaigning is marketing, and that the behavioral studies commissioned by advertising agencies could work for them. The techniques that get people to buy crappy fast food from questionable franchises could get politicians without an ounce of statesmanship elected to office.

[sourmìlk]

The thing is that some time ago politicians realized that campaigning is marketing, and that the behavioral studies commissioned by advertising agencies could work for them. The techniques that get people to buy crappy fast food from questionable franchises could get politicians without an ounce of statesmanship elected to office.

This makes me sad. My dad once wrote a story about a terrorist incident in Israel (the Dolphinarium suicide bomber), which he said probably affected people's views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more than any argument he's made. This made my sad because anybody can use emotional manipulation to make a point about anything, but generally you can only successfully logically defend correct viewpoints.

[stevey_frac]

I don't know. We have a pretty smart group of people at work, and the arguments are pretty epic. We quibble about absolutely everything.

And about the only conclusion we've reached in the past year is that gun control is probably ineffective.

We're also for the most part young people with often only a distant and theoretical understanding of the subjects under discussion, with little experience with politics, or even with resolving disagreements in general. "Naive amateurs" is probably a more relevant description than "pretty smart people".

And yet, I can't think of a single thing that politicians have put forward in the last decade, and thought to myself... 'That's a really cool, original idea, we should do that'.

Couple that with the fact that the official opposition in Canada has scads of MP's who ran for the first time and won, including one woman was was out of the country on vacation, and didn't campaign (and won anyways), and you can perhaps understand why I think politicians are mostly useless blobs of flesh who yell at each other, while pushing forward 200 year old ideological viewpoints, without crafting truly new and exciting legislation. (Run on sentence FTW...)

So, no, I'd say that the only people in politics that are truly skilled are the campaign managers and designers that manage to sway votes with these 200 year old ideas, and that myself, and my colleagues are just as qualified as most politicians.

And besides... Look at both the house in both Canada and the U.S.. Do you really think that they're doing a better job then my friends and I? They just argue, and argue, without compromise. No one is ever going to admit the other side is right about anything. Just like our lunch discussions.