Yesterday, I suggested democracy is a mediocre theatre production where the audience gets to choose which mediocre understudy performs. Some readers thought I was being harsh. I wasn’t.
A mate recently argued that humans will always be superior to AI because of emergence, the miraculous process by which complexity gives rise to intelligence, creativity, and emotion. Lovely sentiment. But here’s the rub: emergence is also how we got this political system, the one no one really controls anymore.
Like the human body being mostly non-human microbes, our so-called participatory government is mostly non-participatory components: lobbyists, donors, bureaucrats, corporate media, careerists, opportunists, the ecosystem that is the actual organism. We built it, but it now has its own metabolism. And thanks to the law of large numbers, multiplied by the sheer number of political, economic, and social dimensions in play, even the human element is diluted into statistical irrelevance. At any rate, what remains of it has lost control – like the sorcerer’s apprentice.
People like to imagine they can “tame” this beast, the way a lucid dreamer thinks they can bend the dream to their will. But you’re still dreaming. The narrative still runs on the dream’s logic, not yours. The best you can do is nudge it; a policy tweak here, a symbolic vote there, before the system digests your effort and excretes more of itself.
a bad system beats a good person every time
W Edwards Deming
This is why Deming’s line hits so hard: a bad system beats a good person every time. Even if you could somehow elect the Platonic ideal of leadership, the organism would absorb them, neutralise them, or spit them out. It’s not personal; it’s structural.
And yet we fear AI “taking over,” as if that would be a radical departure from the status quo. Newsflash: you’ve already been living under an autonomous system for generations. AI would just be a remodel of the control room, new paint, same prison.
So yes, emergence makes humans “special.” It also makes them the architects of their own inescapable political microbiome. Congratulations, you’ve evolved the ability to build a machine that can’t be turned off.
In this video, Veritacium discusses why democracy is mathematically impossible, invoking Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem which I’ve mentioned many times here and in other writings. I won’t summarise or comment further save to recommend the video. Let me know what you think if you’re so inclined.
I continue the AutoCrit review of my latest book project, Democracy: The Grand Illusion. In this chapter, I look at why direct democracy is not offered on a large scale even in the advent of digital technologies and the internet that might make this possible.
Synopsis
The text delves into the debate between direct democracy and representative democracy, exploring the perspectives of philosophers Jason Brennan and David Moscrop on enhancing voter competence within democratic systems. It discusses the challenges and ethical implications of implementing an “epistocracy” proposed by Brennan, where voting power is based on knowledge and competence. In contrast, Moscrop advocates for improving civic literacy to empower all citizens in making informed political decisions. The text also addresses the principle-agent problem in democracy and draws parallels with historical injustices like those from the Jim Crow era.
The opening introduces the contentious nature of direct democracy at a large scale and sets up the discussion around different approaches to enhancing democratic outcomes. The conclusion emphasizes learning from past mistakes, promoting inclusivity, transparency, and equity in improving voter competence for a more effective democratic process.
Audience
The target audience for this text would likely be scholars, policymakers, students of political science or philosophy, as well as individuals interested in democratic theory and governance issues. Those not inclined towards academic or theoretical discussions may find this text too dense or specialized. To make it more relevant to a broader audience, the author could simplify complex concepts using more accessible language without compromising depth or nuance.
Structure and Organisation
The text follows a logical order by first presenting contrasting views on direct vs representative democracy before delving into specific proposals by Brennan and Moscrop. Each section builds upon previous arguments cohesively without significant structural issues evident.
Tone
The tone is analytical yet critical at times when discussing potential ethical concerns related to proposed solutions but remains objective overall rather than emotive.
Interest & Engagement
While engaging for those interested in political theory debates, some sections discussing intricate philosophical concepts may risk losing general readers’ attention due to their complexity. To improve engagement levels throughout all audiences can benefit from clearer real-world examples illustrating abstract theories discussed within practical contexts
Final Thoughts & Conclusions
The final thoughts tie together key ideas introduced throughout the text effectively while emphasizing lessons learned from history regarding disenfranchisement tactics during periods like Jim Crow laws—creating a strong concluding statement that resonates with earlier discussions about inclusive solutions toward an effective democratic process.
Clarity
Overall, the author’s points are presented clearly; however, some sections contain complex sentence structures that might hinder comprehension for readers unfamiliar with philosophical or political terminology. For instance:
“…it harkens back to the Jim Crow era…” – This reference may require additional context for clarity. Providing brief explanations or examples alongside such references could enhance reader understanding.
Commentary
I’ve added a footnote to explain Jim Crow laws to uninformed readers, especially those educated outside of the United States of America.
Argument & Persuasion
Opinions presented include advocating for enhanced voter competence through epistocracy (Brennan) versus civic education (Moscrop). The strengths lie in logically constructing these contrasting viewpoints backed by historical contexts like Jim Crow laws; however further empirical evidence supporting these proposals would strengthen their persuasiveness.
Rational Ignorance: The text presents the opinion that voters choose not to become well-informed due to the perceived insignificance of a single vote, introducing the concept of rational ignorance. This argument is logically constructed and supported by reasoning based on individual voter behaviour and the impact of collective voting outcomes.
Populism and Demagoguery: The text argues that populist leaders exploit emotions, fears, and prejudices for support, potentially leading to policies against the populace’s best interests. This viewpoint is effectively presented with examples and explanations demonstrating how emotional manipulation can influence political decisions.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: The text discusses Arrow’s theorem, highlighting inherent flaws in voting systems that struggle to accurately reflect individual preferences in collective decisions without encountering issues like inconsistency or dictatorship. This argument is well-supported with a logical explanation of the challenges involved in creating a perfect voting system.
Tyranny of the Majority: It is argued that majority rule in pure democracies can lead to the oppression of minority rights due to potential tyranny by the majority group. This perspective is persuasively presented through historical context and theoretical analysis illustrating how democratic systems may fail to protect minority groups from majority dominance.
Policy Incoherence: The text suggests that democratically elected governments may implement inconsistent policies influenced by changing voter preferences and political pressures, leading to inefficiency and instability. This argument is supported by examples showing how frequent policy changes can disrupt governance effectiveness.
6 & 7. Influence of Money/Media & Voter Apathy/Low Turnout: These sections highlight how money influences politics through campaign financing while media shapes public opinion impacting electoral outcomes; they also discuss voter disengagement contributing to low turnout questioning election legitimacy which are supported by real-world instances reflecting challenges within democratic processes.
8 & 9. Complexity/Global Issues & Polarisation/Gridlock: These segments address modern governance complexities requiring technical expertise alongside global issues necessitating international solutions; they also delve into partisan polarisation causing legislative gridlock hindering effective policymaking which are logically constructed arguments backed up with relevant evidence.
10. Historical/Contemporary Examples: Lastly, this section explores failures in democracy using historical contexts such as the Weimar Republic or recent backsliding cases showcasing instances where democratic systems have regressed toward authoritarianism or anarchy providing substantial evidence supporting these assertions.
Interest and Engagement
The text presents a diverse range of topics within the realm of political science and democratic theory, offering valuable insights into various challenges and complexities associated with democratic governance. However, the engagement level may vary across different sections.
Rational Ignorance: The concept of rational ignorance introduced by Downs is intriguing as it sheds light on voter behaviour in democracies. While the idea itself is thought-provoking, the presentation could potentially be enhanced by providing real-world examples or case studies to illustrate how this phenomenon manifests in practice.
Populism and Demagoguery: The discussion on emotional manipulation and short-term focus in populism is particularly engaging due to its relevance in contemporary politics. To further captivate the audience, linking these concepts to recent populist movements or leaders could make the content more relatable and impactful.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: Arrow’s theorem delves into complex voting systems, which might challenge some readers’ attention spans. To maintain engagement, simplifying the explanation through analogies or visual aids could aid comprehension without sacrificing depth.
Tyranny of the Majority: Tocqueville’s exploration of minority rights underlines crucial aspects of democracy but may risk losing reader interest due to historical context dating back to 1835. Connecting these ideas to present-day scenarios where minority rights are at stake can bridge relevance gaps for modern audiences.
5 & 6. Policy Incoherence & Influence of Money/Media: These sections touch upon critical issues like policy consistency and external influences on democracy; however, they might benefit from concise summaries or bullet points to streamline key takeaways for readers seeking practical implications rather than theoretical discussions alone.
7 – 10. Voter Apathy/Low Turnout; Complexity of Modern Governance; Polarisation/Gridlock; Historical/Contemporary Examples: These segments cover broad themes that resonate with current democratic challenges but may require a balance between depth and accessibility for varied reader interests. Incorporating anecdotes or anecdotes from diverse global contexts can enrich these discussions while maintaining reader engagement.
In conclusion, while each section contributes significantly to understanding democratic processes’ intricacies, enhancing engagement through relatable examples, visual aids where applicable, and balancing complexity with clarity would likely elevate audience interest throughout the text.
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
The text does not explicitly provide a section labelled “Final Thoughts and Conclusions,” but it effectively ties together the various points and ideas introduced throughout the different sections. Each segment contributes to a comprehensive exploration of challenges within democratic systems, from voter apathy to policy incoherence, media influence, governance complexity, and polarisation. While there may not be a traditional concluding section summarizing these discussions explicitly, the interconnected nature of the topics covered helps form a cohesive narrative that highlights critical issues facing modern democracies. The absence of an explicit final thoughts section is compensated by the seamless integration and synthesis of diverse perspectives presented in the text.
References and Supporting Materials
Primary Text
Moscrop, D. (2019). Too Dumb for Democracy? Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones. Goose Lane Editions.
Analytical Works
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
Case Studies and Examples
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Verso.
Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Jossey-Bass.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
AutoCrit is an AI-based editorial application. I am a member of their affiliate programme, so I gain minor financial benefits at no cost to you if you purchase through a link on this page.
I continue my AutoCrit analysis of the chapter that asks, “Are we too dumb for democracy?” I’m inclined to think, in general, the answer is yes, but I investigate several opposing voices and suggestions for mitigation. Here’s the editorial analysis of the work in process.
Synopsis
The text explores David Moscrop’s book Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? which delves into the capacity of voters to make informed political decisions. Moscrop argues that while voters may face cognitive limitations and biases, they can overcome these through education, information, and systemic reforms. He emphasizes the importance of enhancing political literacy, implementing institutional changes like deliberative democracy practices, and increasing public engagement to improve democratic decision-making.
The text opens by posing the question of whether individuals are capable of making sound political choices in a democratic system. It introduces Moscrop’s perspective on addressing cognitive biases and providing tools for voters to make rational decisions. The closing highlights the necessity of actively engaging in efforts to enhance political literacy, implement reforms, and foster public participation to create a more informed electorate.
Structure and Organisation
The text follows a logical order by introducing Moscrop’s core arguments on voter cognition challenges before discussing his proposed solutions. It is well-organized with clear headings outlining key points within each section.
Clarity
Overall clarity is maintained throughout the text; however some complex terms like “temporal myopia” might require further explanation for readers unfamiliar with psychological concepts related to decision-making biases.
Audience
The target audience for this text includes policymakers, educators, scholars interested in democracy studies, and engaged citizens seeking insights into improving democratic processes. Those not likely part of the target audience could be individuals uninterested in politics or those already well-versed in theories on voter behaviour. To make it more relevant to its target audience, Moscrop could provide more practical examples or case studies illustrating the successful implementation of his proposed solutions.
Commentary
AutoCrit goes off the reservation and confuses my content with Moscrop’s. If you are interested in hearing Moscrop’s position, he did a TEDx talk on the topic in June 2018.
Tone
The tone is analytical yet engaging as it critically examines voter behaviour without being overly pessimistic about democracy’s future prospects.
Interest and Engagement
While most sections are engaging due to their relevance in today’s political climate, areas discussing educational effectiveness or feasibility issues with deliberative democracy practices could potentially lose reader interest. To improve engagement levels here, Moscrop could incorporate real-world examples demonstrating how these methods have been successfully implemented elsewhere.
Commentary
Again, AutoCrit goes off the reservation and conflates my content with Moscrop’s. My goal is not to regurgitate his book. Obtain his book if you want to read examples.
Argument and Persuasion
Moscrop presents opinions supporting the idea that voters can overcome cognitive limitations through education and institutional reforms effectively. The persuasive elements are strong as he provides evidence from research studies and offers practical solutions backed by scholarly works such as Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast And Slow.”
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
The text effectively concludes with a comprehensive summary of David Moscrop’s arguments on the cognitive limitations of voters and potential solutions to enhance democratic decision-making. It ties together key points discussed throughout the analysis, emphasizing the importance of addressing these issues for the effective functioning of democratic systems. The call to action encourages active engagement from policymakers, educators, and citizens in efforts to improve political literacy, implement institutional reforms, and promote public participation. Overall, the conclusion is clear, strong, and satisfying, and serves as a fitting end to the exploration of Moscrop’s work.
References and Supporting Materials
Primary Text
Moscrop, D. (2019). Too Dumb for Democracy? Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones. Goose Lane Editions.
Analytical Works
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
Case Studies and Examples
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Verso.
Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Jossey-Bass.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
AutoCrit is an AI-based editorial application. I am a member of their affiliate programme, so I gain minor financial benefits at no cost to you if you purchase through a link on this page.
Using AutoCrit, I continue to share the review progress of my work in progress, Democracy: The Grand Illusion—perhaps Grand Delusion might be more fitting. In this chapter, I establish a foundation for intelligence and cognitive function.
Synopsis
The text begins by discussing the concept of intelligence, specifically focusing on IQ as a measure of cognitive abilities relative to others. It explains the origins and standardisation of IQ tests, highlighting their limitations in capturing the full spectrum of human intelligence. The discussion then shifts towards Emotional Intelligence (EQ), outlining its components and emphasising its importance in interpersonal relationships and leadership roles.
The narrative further delves into Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which challenges the idea that intelligence is a singular ability measured solely by traditional IQ tests. The text elaborates on various types of intelligences proposed by Gardner, such as linguistic, musical, spatial, naturalistic, and intrapersonal intelligence.
Moreover, cognitive biases are explored in detail within democratic processes through real-world examples like confirmation bias or groupthink. Strategies to mitigate these biases are suggested for improving decision-making within democracies.
The text concludes with a call for embracing diverse forms of intelligence within democratic systems while acknowledging and addressing cognitive biases to enhance governance effectiveness.
Audience
The target audience for this text appears to be individuals interested in psychology, education theory, and political science, or those exploring the intersection between human cognition and democratic governance. Readers seeking an in-depth analysis of different forms of intelligence alongside discussions on democracy would find this text engaging.
Those less inclined towards academic or theoretical discourse may not be the primary target audience. To make it more relevant to a broader readership base outside academia or specialized fields:
Simplifying complex terminology
Providing relatable examples
Incorporating practical applications
Structure and Organisation
The structure follows a logical order starting with defining traditional measures of intelligence leading up to discussions on multiple intelligences and cognitive biases impacting democracy. Each section flows cohesively into the next without abrupt transitions or disjointed topics. No significant issues with organisation are evident; each subsection builds upon previous concepts effectively.
Clarity
Overall clarity is maintained throughout most sections; however:
Complex sentence structures could potentially hinder comprehension for some readers.
Jargon related to psychological theories might require additional clarification for lay audiences. Providing simplified explanations where needed can enhance reader understanding without sacrificing depth.
Argument and Persuasion
Opinions presented focus more on informing than persuading; strengths lie in presenting well-supported arguments backed by historical context (e.g., case studies). Logical construction aids credibility but lacks explicit attempts at persuasion beyond informative purposes.
Tone
The tone remains informative yet engaging throughout without veering towards overly formal or casual language usage which suits an academic discourse effectively.
Interest and Engagement
The text manages to maintain interest through its exploration of diverse aspects related to human intelligence; however certain sections discussing specific types like “Naturalistic Intelligence” might require additional engagement strategies such as case studies showcasing individuals excelling in that particular domain.
Final Thoughts & Conclusions
The conclusions drawn at the end tie together various points introduced earlier effectively providing clear insights into how embracing diverse forms of intelligence can enhance democratic decision-making processes – offering strong closure that resonates with preceding discussions.
The text concludes by emphasising the importance of understanding intelligence in a multifaceted manner, encompassing both IQ and EQ as well as Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. It highlights the limitations of relying solely on IQ tests for measuring intelligence, pointing out cultural biases and the narrow scope of such assessments. The discussion on emotional intelligence (EQ) adds depth to the exploration, underscoring its significance in interpersonal relationships, leadership, and mental health. By integrating multiple intelligences into the context of democracy, the text suggests a more inclusive approach to decision-making that values diverse forms of intelligence beyond traditional analytical skills. Overall, the conclusion effectively ties together key points introduced throughout the text, providing a comprehensive perspective on human intelligence and its implications for democratic systems.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. (E. S. Kite, Trans.). Williams & Wilkins.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171-191.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.
Kaufman, A. S. (2009). IQ testing 101. Springer Publishing Company.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). Basic Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Houghton Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (WISC). Psychological Corporation.
Plato. (c. 380 BCE). The republic. (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.; C. D. C. Reeve, Rev.). Hackett Publishing Company.
AutoCrit is an AI-based editorial application. I am a member of their affiliate programme, so I gain minor financial benefits at no cost to you if you purchase through a link on this page.
I’m working on a new book—if by new I mean reengaging a book I started in 2022. I’m picking up where I left off with fresh eyes. As I’ve not had time to contribute much to this blog, I thought I’d share the preface as a work in progress. I may share additional subsections over time. Feel free to share any feedback in the comments section.
Imagine a world where the foundation of our governance, the system we hold as the pinnacle of fairness and equality, is fundamentally flawed. What if the mechanisms we trust to represent our voices are inherently incapable of delivering the justice and prosperity we seek? This book embarks on a provocative journey to challenge the sanctity of democracy, not with the intent to undermine its value but to question its effectiveness and expose the inherent limitations that have been overlooked for centuries.
This book is meant to be inclusive, though not necessarily comprehensive. Although focused heavily on a Western experience, particularly the United States, the insights and critiques apply globally.
Democracy feels like an anachronism awaiting a paradigm shift. As a product of the Enlightenment Age, democracy has been sacrosanct in the Western world for centuries. However, a quick glance at current results reveals dissonance. Not all is well. Despite typical defences such as entrenched political parties, low-information voters, rural-urban divides, gerrymandering, and illegal voting, this book sets out to show that democracy is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t even work well on paper, almost inevitably yielding suboptimal results. When people are added to the equation, it just gets worse.
In this book, we’ll discuss inherent challenges to democracy. The main premises are:
In theory, democracy is not mathematically tenable. It always leads to suboptimal solutions with mediocre results. [1]
In practice, human nature and cognitive limitations exacerbate the execution of democracy from the perspective of voters and representatives. [2]
We’ll explore democracy from its beginnings and various forms across time, history, scale, and scope. We’ll investigate the impacts of imperfect information, human rationalities, emotional triggers, and cognitive limitations and biases of the general populace. We’ll survey the continents and look at ancient Mesopotamia, India, the Polynesian islands, and beyond.
This book aims to spark critical thinking and dialogue about the efficacy of democracy, encouraging readers to question widely held assumptions and consider the need for potential reforms or alternative governance models. Through this examination, the book hopes to inspire new ideas and solutions that can address the complexities and challenges inherent in democratic systems.
Hear me out. The Age of Enlightenment and after is based on the notion that ordinary people are rational, capable of reason, and critical thinking. I may not get out much, but I don’t notice a lot of evidence of this. In fact, I feel that the original proponents of this didn’t get out much either. And when they did, they congregated together.
I’m not talking about rote learning and being functionally literate. I’m talking about being able to suss out solutions to novel challenges. Call me an elitist, but I noticed this in my classmates at both university and grad school. I could count on one hand the number of people I would consider to be more than rote learners. I can report similar results when I taught undergrad economics. And to be honest, even rote learning seemed to be a challenge beyond reach for many.
Some may accuse me of being an elitist or a misanthrope, and I understand the motivation, but I could also be critiqued for claiming elephants to be large land mammals or ice to be cold. To be fair, notions of intelligence are sketchy enough without trying to measure reason and rationality, so I am speaking generically and metaphorically as I have no good measure either. I’m operating on intuitions.
The right hemisphere is about creative problem-solving.
In reading Iain McGilchrist’s books, he might argue that these people are just left-hemisphere dominant. That’s all rote activity. The right hemisphere is about creative problem-solving. I may be wrong, but I think it’s more than that.
As a metaphor, pick your favourite high-performing athlete. I’m not into sports, so I’ll toss out some names. Perhaps you’ve heard of some: Cristiano Ronaldo, Kylian Mbappé, Leo Messi, Virat Kohli, Micheal Jordan, LeBron James, or whomever. Who’s your favourite athlete? Leave a comment.
I might have practised some 10,000* hours a year for decades and I wouldn’t have been able to elevate my skills to the level of any of these. Moreover, even if I were to target someone in the lowest centile of all professional athletes in any given sport, I wouldn’t likely reach that level. I was holding out for curling, but alas, I still don’t think so. If you happen to be a professional athlete, then switch metaphors to music or art and ask if you could then reach the pinnacles of these disciplines.
The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to reason, most people aren’t even rank amateurs. They are more like pigeons playing chess. And let’s be serious, whether these pigeons are playing chess, checkers, go, or croquet, they aren’t going to fare any better.
Phenotypes such as brown eyes or red hair are determined. Aspects such as height and intelligence have propensities.
When a person is born into this world, some aspects are determined outright, whilst others have propensities. Phenotypes such as brown eyes or red hair are determined. Aspects such as height and intelligence have propensities.
At birth, a person’s height is limited by some upper limit under optimal conditions. If I encounter nutritional deficits or some other stressors, this theoretic height may never be reached. I feel the same is true for intelligence and how well we can reason. I don’t particularly agree that IQ scores are a great measure, but I’ll use the notion conceptually since most people likely know of them and generally how they work. In a nutshell, a score of 100 is considered average, give or take a standard deviation in either direction, so roughly speaking about 68.26 per cent of people in a population fall between 85 and 115. This leaves about 16 per cent above and below average. By extension, about 85 per cent of people are average and below.
I’d like to assert is that the majority if not the entirety of this cohort cannot reliably reason or think rationally or critically.
What I’d like to assert is that the majority if not the entirety of this cohort cannot reliably reason or think rationally or critically. They can memorise that 1 + 1 = 2 and Paris is the capital of France, but novelty and synthesis are pretty much out of scope. And they can reason about small things in small doses.
Practically, this means a couple of things. Firstly, on the positive side, they can be trained to be drones. Wage slaves. Most jobs in the world are rote. Insert tab A into slot B. Follow an algorithm or procedure. This is not limited to so-called unskilled labour. This goes all the way up the food chain to doctors and lawyers, two rote professions if there are any.
Secondly, on the negative side, they cannot be trained to participate in democratic processes. This is a failure of insight of the Fathers of the Enlightenment. Is that a thing? Moving on. To be fair, they did notice. Plato noticed, too. This is why, among other reasons, they sought a republic over a pure democracy. The problem, besides bad incentives and ulterior motives, is that many of these people aren’t any, or materially better, thinkers. Recall my previous reference to lawyers. How many politicians are lawyers? Q.E.D. OK, so I’m being irascible, but still.
The problem is that the masses have been taught that participative democracy is both good and a right to be cherished. And it would be if the population were up to par. In the United States, they’ve had challenges in the past with literacy tests to limit access to the polls, but one, this wasn’t testing the right thing, and two, as I said at the start there isn’t really a test for this particular capacity.
Let’s imagine that there was a test. And let’s further imagine that it was somewhat aligned to IQ score. Let’s say that the threshold kicks in just over 115. This would mean that only 15.9 per cent of the adult population would be able to vote. Even if the threshold was met at 100, that would still eliminate 50 per cent of eligible voters. That would not go over very well. Remember these people are rote learners, and they learned that (1) rights are inalienable and sacred and (2) voting is a right. Justified or otherwise, you could expect a revolt, even in America where people are afraid of their own shadows. They aren’t the French showing their numbers in yellow vests. They are much more docile when it comes to things like this. Gun-related violence is another story, but unless they are shooting each other this is where fending for their rights end.
perhaps we could start allowing chimps to participate in the process
And maybe I am wrong, perhaps we could start allowing chimps to participate in the process. I’ve heard a lot of good things about dolphins and octopuses. I look around me, and I see a lot of nice people. People who enjoy life and are nice to talk with, maybe even about the weather. But being affable doesn’t make one a critical thinker. It doesn’t make a great foundation for government or even the selection of government.
Voting Chimps
The 64,000 question is what to do. The problem, as with any challenge involving people, is that it involves people. We could construct a test, and the affluent would find a way to bribe to get a favourable result or pay for the rote information and strategy to pass the test. They already use both of these approaches for college admissions, so I wouldn’t expect anything different here.
On a final note, some including Kant and Chomsky have argued that there are limits to human reason on a global level. I am just applying this to the local level, and there are many more local limits that never come close to encountering this higher global limit. That’s a challenge in and of itself.
In the end, you can rest assured. No one is going to voluntarily give up their voting rights any time soon. No meaningful test is on the horizon. The system will likely implode on itself first. In some places sooner than others.
* Yes, I know there are only 8,760 hours in an earth year. I was hoping you didn’t notice.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Democracy and thinking that the emperor is wearing no clothes, but in dialogue, I am having difficulty getting people to understand that I am talking about democracy as a concept—the very essence of democracy—, not how some place or another has implemented it. My point is that democracy is a silly system built on false hope, smoke, and mirrors.
Some get it, and they fall back to the Churchill quote:
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…’
—Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
But this misses the point.
First, Churchill’s logic is limited to ‘forms that have been tried‘, a minuscule set to be sure.
Next, perhaps he is talking a position of not letting perfection be the enemy of the good. Except there is no one seeking perfection. The question is: what is good enough? Is Democracy in and of itself good enough? And it doesn’t end there, are there systems—even theoretically—better than democracy? And then, how might these systems fair when humans populate the model?
The problem is a systems thinking optimisation problem—and then there’s the question of what democracy is attempting to optimise. Clearly, this is a multifactor model, so what outputs are being optimised? It’s not likely that this would be a steady state model, and much of this relies on an unstable preference theory, so what is optimal today might no longer be optimal tomorrow—or in ten minutes.
how does one optimise a heterogeneous model?
As anyone who follows me know, I have a problem with the notion of progress as well, so participants can vote on various definitions of progress and various initiates toward that end, and, of course, other participants would prefer the comfort zone of the nostalgic and familiar instead. So, how does one optimise a heterogeneous model?
In the business world or entertainment, we are all familiar with the concept of death by committee, the slow deliberative process that mostly yields diluted results—results that might make the participants feel that they had a voice (perhaps), but—that would be ineffectual.
I am not eschewing coöperation.
I am not eschewing coöperation. I’m of the age where the Beatles were a big influence on me—and the Rolling Stones—, so I cherish the partnerships of Lennon-McCartney and Jagger-Richards. Their solo material paled miserably. The collaboration was synergetic. But there is a reason Ringo and Charlie were not asked to participate in the song-writing process. Their inputs would not have improved the output. Even imagine listening to an album of Ringo tunes: Act Naturally, Yellow Submarine, Octopuses Garden, What Goes On, Don’t Pass Me By, and Boys? Really? Right? And he only contributed to two of these anyway, save for lending his vocal instrument.
consider the concept of diminishing marginal returns
As I continue down this stream of consciousness, I consider the concept of diminishing marginal returns. So, even if there were a democratic system that could theoretically be optimised, it would have to face the human factor—and that would be subject to the diminishing marginal return of knowledge and information—, as we’d go down the participation pool from highly knowledgeable to low-information voters. And this doesn’t even address vested interests and conflicts of interest. It doesn’t even touch on the point that people are predictably irrational.
Plato’s Republic, in all of its elitist glory, offered a solution for this—aside from the philosopher-leader: a republic of the meritorious and virtuous (as if these were meaningful or measurable concepts). At least we wouldn’t be scraping the bottom of the barrel—or would we be?
merit being honed is how to gain and exert powerand political competency
The problem with Plato’s meritocratic approach is that the merit being honed is how to gain and exert power and political competency—how to play the game of politics. And notion of virtue was nothing more than a façade, so rhetoric and the decorum of appearance is all that matters in this model.
Clearly, this stream is coming to an end, so I’ll disembark here and reembark later.
Philosophics 