Law professor Ilya Somin, author of Democracy and Political Ignorance, says, “The sheer depth of most individual voters’ ignorance is shocking to many observers not familiar with the research.” Political theorist Jeffrey Friedman adds, “The public is far more ignorant than academic and journalistic observers of the public realize.”
"In this context, knowledge does not pay, while ignorance goes unpunished." Maybe, but you can't avoid the consequences. Eventually we get the government we deserve.
"The issue is the best way to achieve the best outcomes." Outcomes can be tricky. I'd say the point you make about tribal affiliation better hits the mark than outcomes. Of course they can be combined in the sense that perhaps the "best outcome" for an individual is an affirmation of tribal affiliation.
Just listened to a great podcast on cognitive dissonance which provides an excellent framing for some of the issues you raise. https://overcast.fm/+TrwocGeJ4
Scale matters. Utilitarian/consequentialist logic works best in small scale, high information, predictable environments. Heuristics and constraints might work better in other environments. None of us want the “best” outcome so much that we'd be okay with having our organs harvested to save multiple lives.
And what precisely do we mean by “democracy?” My favorite safeguard is to allow people to opt out of bad ideas. This overrules one kind of democracy, but counts as a different, and I think superior, sort of democratic mechanism.
More like group outcomes are the aggregate of individual perceptions of tribal affiliation. Values and morality are more strongly informed by group think than other factors.
Well it is a a great article most of the way through, and makes me wish for a conversaltion with Prof. Somin. the point I quible with is the conclusion. And, let me say as an organization effectiveness scholar/consultant I definitly believe in using desired and actual outcomes as major factors in decision making. It is not quite so simple though. Here is a lens that might help clarify the issue:
A heirarch of abstraction with the most abstract at the top and most concrete at the bottom.
VALUES eg. Equality, Fairness, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness
NORMS eg. Goals, boundaries, typical patterns of action
Internalized guidelines
Central/Peripheral
Formal/Informal
STATUS eg. Relative Hierarchical Organizational positions
Position
ROLES eg. Leading, following decision-making authority and responsibility
Expected behaviors
SKILLS/INFLUENCE/TOOLS eg. Resources, Problem solving, Communication,
The more abstract elements tend to have more emotion attached and elicit great allegiance. The further down the abstraction scale, the easier it is to accept effectiveness/ineffectivemnes or functionality as best reasons to choose one method or another. Clarifying roles between and among people (Assuming status isn't changed) is a much easier conversation than arguing over norms that have been escalated as if they were values in order to win a point.. anti abortion law as a value vs. as simply one of many ways to try to reduce the number of abortions being conducted and the health risks attendant to. So forms of government such as Democracy, Epitocracy, Autocracy (NORMS) can better be analysed, and wiser choices made if they are formalized, while taking into account the impact and needs in the other four elements. NORMS, STATUS HEIRARCHy,ROLES and SKILS & METHODS need to be in alignment with the Values or deired outcomes. Making them into VALUES frustrates efffective problem-solving. So Democracy is only best if: the SKILLS, ROLES STATUS needed to implement it to effectively achieve the VALUES of _______________. Step 1. Outcomes Step 2. Methods, Step 3. Resources can be a helpful process to follow in determing what we should do.......... my $.02 worth.
Good article.
"In this context, knowledge does not pay, while ignorance goes unpunished." Maybe, but you can't avoid the consequences. Eventually we get the government we deserve.
"The issue is the best way to achieve the best outcomes." Outcomes can be tricky. I'd say the point you make about tribal affiliation better hits the mark than outcomes. Of course they can be combined in the sense that perhaps the "best outcome" for an individual is an affirmation of tribal affiliation.
Just listened to a great podcast on cognitive dissonance which provides an excellent framing for some of the issues you raise. https://overcast.fm/+TrwocGeJ4
Scale matters. Utilitarian/consequentialist logic works best in small scale, high information, predictable environments. Heuristics and constraints might work better in other environments. None of us want the “best” outcome so much that we'd be okay with having our organs harvested to save multiple lives.
And what precisely do we mean by “democracy?” My favorite safeguard is to allow people to opt out of bad ideas. This overrules one kind of democracy, but counts as a different, and I think superior, sort of democratic mechanism.
More like group outcomes are the aggregate of individual perceptions of tribal affiliation. Values and morality are more strongly informed by group think than other factors.
Well it is a a great article most of the way through, and makes me wish for a conversaltion with Prof. Somin. the point I quible with is the conclusion. And, let me say as an organization effectiveness scholar/consultant I definitly believe in using desired and actual outcomes as major factors in decision making. It is not quite so simple though. Here is a lens that might help clarify the issue:
A heirarch of abstraction with the most abstract at the top and most concrete at the bottom.
VALUES eg. Equality, Fairness, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness
NORMS eg. Goals, boundaries, typical patterns of action
Internalized guidelines
Central/Peripheral
Formal/Informal
STATUS eg. Relative Hierarchical Organizational positions
Position
ROLES eg. Leading, following decision-making authority and responsibility
Expected behaviors
SKILLS/INFLUENCE/TOOLS eg. Resources, Problem solving, Communication,
The more abstract elements tend to have more emotion attached and elicit great allegiance. The further down the abstraction scale, the easier it is to accept effectiveness/ineffectivemnes or functionality as best reasons to choose one method or another. Clarifying roles between and among people (Assuming status isn't changed) is a much easier conversation than arguing over norms that have been escalated as if they were values in order to win a point.. anti abortion law as a value vs. as simply one of many ways to try to reduce the number of abortions being conducted and the health risks attendant to. So forms of government such as Democracy, Epitocracy, Autocracy (NORMS) can better be analysed, and wiser choices made if they are formalized, while taking into account the impact and needs in the other four elements. NORMS, STATUS HEIRARCHy,ROLES and SKILS & METHODS need to be in alignment with the Values or deired outcomes. Making them into VALUES frustrates efffective problem-solving. So Democracy is only best if: the SKILLS, ROLES STATUS needed to implement it to effectively achieve the VALUES of _______________. Step 1. Outcomes Step 2. Methods, Step 3. Resources can be a helpful process to follow in determing what we should do.......... my $.02 worth.