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

People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 162 posts

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#91

Post by chrischen »

btilly wrote: post #23

This is what happens when one person writes an article, and another writes a link bait title. Here is the concise version. The well-known Dunning-Kruger effect says that the less competent people are, the less they are able to recognize competence. Someone named Mato Nagel used this as the basis of a toy computer model of democracy. The result of his simulations is that the leaders selected by democracy are only slig…

It's also likely that candidates simply have to change their views in order to be able to gain support.

If I ran for president I'd probably have to at least pretend to be a Christian and align myself with the consensus views of either the democratic or republican party, which are already clearly established.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#92

Post by saraid216 »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #62
btilly wrote: post #23

This is what happens when one person writes an article, and another writes a link bait title. Here is the concise version. The well-known Dunning-Kruger effect says that the less competent people are, the less they are able to recognize competence. Someone named Mato Nagel used this as the basis of a toy computer model of democracy. The result of his simulations is that the leaders selected by democracy are only slig…

And so we have come to realize that soon, very soon, we will have to pioneer another form of government. We humans have had kings and queens, dictatorships, anarchy, communism, socialism, republics, democracies, and now it's time to move on to the next one. A few years ago when I was a young teenager who believed in the good of the world and the wisdom of people I would have thought the next government would naturall…

Democracy will never work because it can only work if EVERYONE is educated enough and by default humans are notoriously stupid and unaware of their own stupidity. We are also delusional greedy and evil by nature so dictatorships also do not work out for us.

See, for most people, this is a surrender. "Give up!" they say, "The world can never get better!"

To me, though, it's a challenge. I'm a hacker and an entrepreneur and "impossible" means "interesting".

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#93

Post by artsrc »

GFischer wrote: post #81
laic wrote: post #49

Democracy is not about choosing one "Great Leader" and everyone else just follow. If that was the case, we don't need the congress, the high court and free press. Democracy is about "putting power into cage" and splitting cake in a way that everybody has a say. In a democratic system, "Great leader" or not, it really doesn't matter that much in the long run, we will always get there. What important is the system make…

"Democracy is about "putting power into cage" and splitting cake " Well, no. What you're describing is a Republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic It's often confused because most democracies are also republics.

A constitutional monarchy does all those things.

And they are not republics, but can be democracies.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#94

Post by jonnathanson »

btilly wrote: post #4
noonespecial wrote: post #2

Democracy isn't about putting the best people in power. Its about being able to get rid of the worst ones.

Indeed this is what the article concludes. The last paragraph says, Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."

A republic is all about establishing a reasonably strong mean, back to which a succession of various administrations tends to revert.

Other forms of government allow for much higher variance. You might get a brilliant and benevolent monarch, for instance, but his son might turn out to be incompetent or tyrannical. In which case, sucks to be you. Hopefully the 30-year dice roll turns out better with the next heir.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#95

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

praxeologist wrote: post #18
noonespecial wrote: post #2

Democracy isn't about putting the best people in power. Its about being able to get rid of the worst ones.

That sounds nice, but put into practice is, at best, marginally effective. Democracy is actually quite good on a small scale without the element of compulsion, like your chess club or picking the most able-bodied man to lead the local volunteer fire co. People are both more familiar with the people being voted for and can see a payoff for voting. There's more chance of dying in a car accident on the way to the polls…

Marx and Engels are a good place to start if you look for a comprehensive debate against capitalism.

Of course, I would expect Adam Smith and his disertation to say something akin to "we've not seen 'real capitalism'".

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#96

Post by artsrc »

darengb wrote: post #40

This is not a new idea, it's why almost nobody took Democracy seriously before the U.S. I like Jefferson's answer to this problem: "if we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." --Thomas Jefferson Democracy is really the only reason that we have universal education in the firs…

Indeed, the whole theory falls down on this point. In areas where people are generally competent, they can judge to skill of others and can select the best leaders.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#97

Post by tkahn6 »

batista wrote: post #64
shingen wrote: post #11

Constitutional Republic yes, Democracy no. Democracy isn't desirable. Mob rule is a terrible system of government. Democracy != voting; Democracy != freedom. America and many other systems have long since proven that freedom through constitutional protections with representative government does flourish. Those systems specifically flourish by protecting the weak from the powerful, the minority from the majority. The…

Democracy isn't desirable. Mob rule is a terrible system of government. Democracy != voting; Democracy != freedom. Really? And who said democracy == mob rule? Mob is a weasel term, to imply "people when take decisions as a group are inherently bad". Well, people taking decisions as a whole has been quite nice when it happened and while it lasted (or was allowed to last). I'm thinking the Athenian Democracy, various c…

> Democracy means "the people should be governed exactly how the majority of them likes to". No bait and switch representation, no BS.

Direct democracy without constitutional checks is tyranny. The majority would just vote the minority into slavery. This is such an obvious consequence of what it seems you're advocating that I must be misunderstanding you.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#98

Post by [deleted] »

artsrc wrote: post #89
rbarooah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is simply that whatever the intentions, democracy has devolved to selecting leaders, and for the most part they aren't even representative. I'd say measuring the ideal instead of the reality isn't all that useful.

Democracy is significantly about an expression of preference, rather than identification of quality. Think about it as voting for the dinner choices. It is not about finding the best chef, it is about getting Spaghetti Bolognese, because that is what you feel like tonight.

[deleted]

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#99

Post by javert »

shingen wrote: post #65
javert wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say almost precisely this. However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy, and that's a part of why we need a constitutional republic instead. Is there something wrong with that line of argumentation?

Here's what's logically wrong with that line of argument: Smart / dumb are relative scales, so there will always be smarter, and dumber, no matter what you do. If you filled a society with what we currently define as genius level intellects, there would be the equivalent to dumb people amongst them - the dumb people would have 145 IQ's and the smart people would have 180 IQ's --- you get the idea. Majority rules will…

Do we know each other? :-) I'm going to just take for granted in this response the common ground we obviously have.

FYI, I definitely think "people are not smart enough for democracy" is the wrong way to make the argument, because it misses the point; democracy is not the ideal to be striving for. But I'm not sure that it's wrong per se.

I usually take "dumb" and "smart" to really mean "ignorant" and "not ignorant" in a certain context. (Mabye I should not take them to mean that, but anyway.)

So, a democracy of people who were truly not ignorant about principles of government--i.e., they fully support individual rights--would work fine. Conversely, the reason democracy does not work is because people in general are ignorant of the proper principles of government and would trample individual rights.

I guess there is a key difference between the purpose of the government and the mechanism. Democracy can be thought of as either. In the former case, it's clearly wrong. In the latter case, it's just dangerous and suboptimal.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#100

Post by saraid216 »

javert wrote: post #90
batista wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy What does that even mean? The majority of the people are not to be trusted with judging how to run their country, so we have to put intermediaries and dilute the majority's will?

batista, I think you have a penchant for arguing with me :-) I think the right way to go is a constitutional republic, in which the "way the country is run" is strictly defined ahead of time. Then, the elected representatives have to act within those strict parameters. You could call the constitution an "intermediary that dilutes the majority's will" if you want. I certainly belive that individual rights have to be p…

How is this different from America or most other modern democracies?
Post reply on HN