Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#21

Post by hobofan »

Askolein wrote: post #19
mtgx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be direct democracy . No "democracy" on Earth is actually a direct democracy, but a representative democracy, which seems more in line to what this study proposes, no? A small group of elected officials to "debate" issues.

Switzerland is close to a direct democracy with a model based on: representative democracy by default but direct as soon and anytime the people feels the subject should be handled so. That system has proven very stable.

> That system has proven very stable.

Caveat: with a small, well-educated population. Try and apply the same system elsewhere and your mileage may vary.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#22

Post by notahacker »

There's a big unanswered question about whether "debate" is quite so useful at improving accuracy of answers when it consists of an audience with strong priors listening to motivated reasoning rather than people deferring to the people who are most confident they have a decent grasp of the subject of a neutral trivia question. I think it's conceivable the opposite effect might occur if the experiment were be to repeated using polarising political issues, even if the questions themselves were fact-based (economic growth rates, crime rates, immigration figures, global temperature changes etc).

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#23

Post by sonnyblarney »

switch007 wrote: post #20
sonnyblarney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU, combined with unpopular views among the elite, which is causes massive tension that would not be there otherwise. A properly elected executive, more consensus WRT voters, and possibly more direct participation would be better not worse. All o…

> If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. Possibly. I think you're assuming people were interested enough in the EU to partake in such referenda, and that big influential campaigns would not have existed, and that had certain treated been voted down that people would still be content with the EU, and so on. And excluding other issues that poss…

You're right in that nobody cares about the EU.

But they care about things like migration.

Folks would vote en masse on clearly articulated issues, and if leaders took note of it, there'd be less calamity.

Right now the Executive doesn't really care what Europeans think, because they assume they know best, it's appallingly clear. It happens everywhere there aren't proper checks and balances.

FYI the treaty of Lisbon was shot down in a few referendums, and the leaders decided to go forward with some rather fundamental, 'constitutional' issues anyhow. As a result of failed referendums in some countries, they decided to skip referendums in the remaining countries because of the high likelihood of failure. Instead of truly reconsidering the legislation, they just went ahead and passed it. And now they are paying the price.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#24

Post by tormeh »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #17
EliRivers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then every so often a referendum with only two polar-opposite options is presented to the electorate, reminding us why we have representative democracy instead of direct. I'm looking at you, Brexit... :)

If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU, combined with unpopular views among the elite, which is causes massive tension that would not be there otherwise. A properly elected executive, more consensus WRT voters, and possibly more direct participation would be better not worse. All o…

>There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU

How can you scope creep from "ever closer union"? The scope was as big as it could get already. Now, that passage has been removed at the behest of Cameron, but I can't remember any statement constricting the scope, so now the scope is simply undefined, I guess.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#25

Post by thenaturalist »

ajuc wrote: post #12

Am I correct that they asked the same people the same questions 3 times? It's no surprise that the 3rd time the answers were the best. I'd expect this to happen even if there was no debate (if not to the same degree). > Each participant was provided with pen and an answer sheet linked to their seat number. The event’s speaker (author M.S.) conducted the crowd from the stage (Fig. 1A). In the first stage of the experi…

I can’t follow your reasoning. How does asking you the exact same question twice improve your accuracy? If you don’t know how high the Eiffel Tower is, why would you know it the second time? Conversely, you likely created a mental anchor when giving an estimate the first time and would be hard pressed to provide an answer contradicting your first estimate - even if it might be more accurate.

There were no answers provided between asking the questions as far as I understand this excerpt.

In the group only 4/8 questions were asked and here a difference in accuracy can be made. Maybe you’re mixed with travelers who recently visited Paris, historians or people who due to other circumstances or pure luck provide more accurate estimates, effectively influencing the anchor of your first estimate.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#26

Post by sonnyblarney »

tormeh wrote: post #24
sonnyblarney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU, combined with unpopular views among the elite, which is causes massive tension that would not be there otherwise. A properly elected executive, more consensus WRT voters, and possibly more direct participation would be better not worse. All o…

>There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU How can you scope creep from "ever closer union"? The scope was as big as it could get already. Now, that passage has been removed at the behest of Cameron, but I can't remember any statement constricting the scope, so now the scope is simply undefined, I guess.

'ever closer union clause' is not tantamount to arbitrary Federalization of powers. It's mostly a strategic view.

Change of power requires change in law, which happens every now in terms of treaties, the last of which, would have been roundly elected by the plebes went on to be put into motion anyhow.

Arbitrary scope creep is happening in some fronts, for example, when there is a decision to be made about gray areas of federal/nation overlap in the course, the EU Courts rule on it, and generally rule in their own favour (i.e. they have jurisdiction, not the nation state) which is ridiculous because the courts are supposed to rule on the law, not decided on their own jurisdiction.

If there is a political union, as many economists have indicated must happen in order for the Euro to survive - there will be a literal civil war. What you saw in France with the giletes ... imagine that about 20x bigger but in most countries. It will break down.

There needs to be reasonable reforms on a bunch of things.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#27

Post by talltimtom »

sytelus wrote: post #6

You can make a case that democracy is a grand application of “wisdom of large crowd”. But if that can easily and consistently outperformed then do we have better political system than democracy? What are the consequences of this?

Democracy is not just an application of “wisdom of large crowd” it’s also about giving the power to effect back to those who are affected. A dictatorship is not preferably even if the specific dictator can be shown to make better decisions than a democracy.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#28

Post by ajuc »

thenaturalist wrote: post #25
ajuc wrote: post #12

Am I correct that they asked the same people the same questions 3 times? It's no surprise that the 3rd time the answers were the best. I'd expect this to happen even if there was no debate (if not to the same degree). > Each participant was provided with pen and an answer sheet linked to their seat number. The event’s speaker (author M.S.) conducted the crowd from the stage (Fig. 1A). In the first stage of the experi…

I can’t follow your reasoning. How does asking you the exact same question twice improve your accuracy? If you don’t know how high the Eiffel Tower is, why would you know it the second time? Conversely, you likely created a mental anchor when giving an estimate the first time and would be hard pressed to provide an answer contradicting your first estimate - even if it might be more accurate. There were no answers pro…

Given more time I can remember something, or I can notice that the last question gives some hints or even unrelated associations that help to answer the first question.

I don't think "if you don't know the answer in 20 seconds you won't ever know it" is true.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#29

Post by pjc50 »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #17
EliRivers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then every so often a referendum with only two polar-opposite options is presented to the electorate, reminding us why we have representative democracy instead of direct. I'm looking at you, Brexit... :)

If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU, combined with unpopular views among the elite, which is causes massive tension that would not be there otherwise. A properly elected executive, more consensus WRT voters, and possibly more direct participation would be better not worse. All o…

> All of the EU's many crises are self-inflicted, it's in permanent 'put out the fire mode'

This is doubly true of the UK, no? Especially now with the self-inflicted decision to cut ourselves off and impose a registration/visa requirement on EU nationals which is going to result in a corresponding one on British nationals in the EU.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#30

Post by pjc50 »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #23
switch007 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. Possibly. I think you're assuming people were interested enough in the EU to partake in such referenda, and that big influential campaigns would not have existed, and that had certain treated been voted down that people would still be content with the EU, and so on. And excluding other issues that poss…

You're right in that nobody cares about the EU. But they care about things like migration. Folks would vote en masse on clearly articulated issues, and if leaders took note of it, there'd be less calamity. Right now the Executive doesn't really care what Europeans think, because they assume they know best, it's appallingly clear. It happens everywhere there aren't proper checks and balances. FYI the treaty of Lisbon…

As someone else pointed out, the EU is boring infrastructure: people don't care about power and sewers until they stop working.

I'm not convinced that people intrinsically "care" about migration, rather that they have a set of material problems (employment, wages, housing, public services) and have been told to blame migration for them.

And to the extent that they do care, how can they care about the "flow" rate of migration, which is impossible to see except in statistics; what they care about is the "level". This is far scarier because that's how you get ethnic cleansing.

Post reply on HN