1) I think True Facts shows that the internet was right about Boaty McBoatface. Science and fun aren't incompatible, and in fact they will die if separated.
2) An engine is a necessary component of a self-propelled vehicle, but strapping a CFM56 to the roof of your car will not improve its performance. Nor will a more reasonable engine choice let you drive a log from your back yard around town. "Thick" and "thin" aren't sufficiently detailed to really have this discussion, for the same reason that debates about "more" versus "less" regulation completely miss the point of discussion. What is needed is a deep discussion of the ways in which our present tools for political decision-making are inadequate - to some extent because of decay, and to some extent because they are simply out of date. From there, we can see how to repair or replace those tools, and reach a point where we are not regularly shutting down entire aspects of the government over unrelated squabbles, or rapidly and randomly swinging between policy options. Article V has always been the most important part of the American Constitution.
I’m a big fat democracy supporter, and I’m pretty sure I’m the only one.
I think all your egg heads are stupid for your lack of understanding of simple math.
Tell me how the math works in this equation:
Two people are smarter than one , and four people are smarter than two, this seems pretty obvious.
Now, when we get over the Dunbar number like a couple hundred people, all you eggheads believe is that the populist becomes dumber.
You’re basing this bad math on the fact that people like Trump get elected. This is stupid reasoning based off of bad information.
There was a guy that got a Nobel prize by proving that the voting system can never actually measure public opinion with any real accuracy. so from this information, the eggheads have concluded that we need less democracy to increase efficiency.
I seem to be the only person in the world right now trying to increase democracy so that we can actually get proper measurement of public opinion.
The problem is not the people, it’s the system of measurement.
Technology has allowed us to expand on democracy for over a couple of decades now, but we are refusing to even consider any increase in democracy, this is the real problem with the world today, and we are in this predicament because of egg heads like you.
Right now we have the technology to very accurately measure public opinion by simply allowing the public to post their opinions into a database of public opinions, but nobody wants to do this.
China will win because the egghead will not allow democracy to advance.
I have proof, if you’re actually interested in learning.
If you are going to criticize what I am claiming, let’s start by your explaining the simple math problem of, the more people you have the dumber they get.
I'm all in favor of alternative voting systems and agree we need more refined measurements of public preferences. But this has nothing to do with whether two people are smarter than one. Often they are not. Intelligence doesn't scale that way.
Typically when you're "the only person in the world" with an opinion, it's not because everyone else on the planet is a stupid egghead. But you could still be right, and they could still be wrong, in part because 8 billion people are not necessarily smarter than one!
You’re on a game show and there are thousands of people in the studio audience, the host has a random question on a random subject, sealed in an envelope.
The host asks you whether or not you want to risk your million dollar prize money on having one random person from the audience answer this random question for you, or if you want two random audience members to try and answer that random question for you?
Are you going to tell me you are going to go with one random person rather than two?
It’s simple math, why is it so hard for people to admit to this mistake.
Please understand that I am calling everyone stupid, not just you. You just happen to be crazy enough to engage, at least so far, everyone else just ghosts me once I start asking any real hard questions.
I don’t always go around calling everybody egg heads, I usually try to ease my way into the subject matter, but after 10 years of trying, I’m kind of getting tired of it.
So now do you agree?
Are two random people going to be smarter than one random person?
Can you give me a reason you would pick one person randomly over the possibility of two randomly?
If we can move on from this subject, then perhaps I can explain how everyone is holding back progress by coming to these wrong conclusions.
That's just a bad analogy though. Because intelligence is not knowledge, elections are not trivia questions, and the people deciding are not randomly selected.
A trivia game show tests participants on a very narrow cognitive skill, mainly the memory of obscure facts. That's not the skill typically used to measure intelligence. The SAT or IQ tests are more about carefully reasoning through math and word puzzles than they are about preexisting knowledge. And compared to reasoning ability, knowledge is much more aggregable. If John knows 2 facts and Freds knows 5 facts, together they know 7 facts. But if John had an IQ of 90 and Fred has an IQ of 100, together they have an IQ of 100.
Similarly, if elections were like trivia game shows and we just wanted to maximize the likelihood that any one person participating in the answering would know an obscure fact, you could make a great case for democracy. But that's not the challenge elections are meant to address. That's not the goal. Politics strive for complicated, subjective, morally messy compromises that do the least harm to the fewest people, or best honor some other value system; and identifying those policy answers requires a *radically different* and *non-aggregable* set of skills than answering a trivia questions!
Finally, the best alternatives to pure democracy on everything are not just rule by a *randomly selected* few. They are rule by an otherwise selected few, and those methods of selection may actually have some merit towards technocracy. We want court cases to be decided by judges, interest rates to be decided by bankers, planes to be flown by pilots, and surgeries to be performed by surgeons. In all of those cases, the many are not smarter than the few.
So if you must stick with a game show, a better analogy is that you're given a random question about ancient Egypt; and then you're given the choice between asking a crowd of 50 strangers to vote on it, or asking a single Professor of Egyptian Archaeology. Which would you choose? Which would you suspect is smarter, on average?
If voters are not random, then who does get the pic who the voters are.
There’s nobody picking the voters, and I cannot have a reasonable discussion with anybody who believes that the voters are picked in some weird manner.
1) I think True Facts shows that the internet was right about Boaty McBoatface. Science and fun aren't incompatible, and in fact they will die if separated.
2) An engine is a necessary component of a self-propelled vehicle, but strapping a CFM56 to the roof of your car will not improve its performance. Nor will a more reasonable engine choice let you drive a log from your back yard around town. "Thick" and "thin" aren't sufficiently detailed to really have this discussion, for the same reason that debates about "more" versus "less" regulation completely miss the point of discussion. What is needed is a deep discussion of the ways in which our present tools for political decision-making are inadequate - to some extent because of decay, and to some extent because they are simply out of date. From there, we can see how to repair or replace those tools, and reach a point where we are not regularly shutting down entire aspects of the government over unrelated squabbles, or rapidly and randomly swinging between policy options. Article V has always been the most important part of the American Constitution.
I’m a big fat democracy supporter, and I’m pretty sure I’m the only one.
I think all your egg heads are stupid for your lack of understanding of simple math.
Tell me how the math works in this equation:
Two people are smarter than one , and four people are smarter than two, this seems pretty obvious.
Now, when we get over the Dunbar number like a couple hundred people, all you eggheads believe is that the populist becomes dumber.
You’re basing this bad math on the fact that people like Trump get elected. This is stupid reasoning based off of bad information.
There was a guy that got a Nobel prize by proving that the voting system can never actually measure public opinion with any real accuracy. so from this information, the eggheads have concluded that we need less democracy to increase efficiency.
I seem to be the only person in the world right now trying to increase democracy so that we can actually get proper measurement of public opinion.
The problem is not the people, it’s the system of measurement.
Technology has allowed us to expand on democracy for over a couple of decades now, but we are refusing to even consider any increase in democracy, this is the real problem with the world today, and we are in this predicament because of egg heads like you.
Right now we have the technology to very accurately measure public opinion by simply allowing the public to post their opinions into a database of public opinions, but nobody wants to do this.
China will win because the egghead will not allow democracy to advance.
I have proof, if you’re actually interested in learning.
If you are going to criticize what I am claiming, let’s start by your explaining the simple math problem of, the more people you have the dumber they get.
I'm all in favor of alternative voting systems and agree we need more refined measurements of public preferences. But this has nothing to do with whether two people are smarter than one. Often they are not. Intelligence doesn't scale that way.
Typically when you're "the only person in the world" with an opinion, it's not because everyone else on the planet is a stupid egghead. But you could still be right, and they could still be wrong, in part because 8 billion people are not necessarily smarter than one!
OK, let’s see if you will die on this hill.
It is all about two being smarter than one.
You’re on a game show and there are thousands of people in the studio audience, the host has a random question on a random subject, sealed in an envelope.
The host asks you whether or not you want to risk your million dollar prize money on having one random person from the audience answer this random question for you, or if you want two random audience members to try and answer that random question for you?
Are you going to tell me you are going to go with one random person rather than two?
It’s simple math, why is it so hard for people to admit to this mistake.
Please understand that I am calling everyone stupid, not just you. You just happen to be crazy enough to engage, at least so far, everyone else just ghosts me once I start asking any real hard questions.
I don’t always go around calling everybody egg heads, I usually try to ease my way into the subject matter, but after 10 years of trying, I’m kind of getting tired of it.
So now do you agree?
Are two random people going to be smarter than one random person?
Can you give me a reason you would pick one person randomly over the possibility of two randomly?
If we can move on from this subject, then perhaps I can explain how everyone is holding back progress by coming to these wrong conclusions.
That's just a bad analogy though. Because intelligence is not knowledge, elections are not trivia questions, and the people deciding are not randomly selected.
A trivia game show tests participants on a very narrow cognitive skill, mainly the memory of obscure facts. That's not the skill typically used to measure intelligence. The SAT or IQ tests are more about carefully reasoning through math and word puzzles than they are about preexisting knowledge. And compared to reasoning ability, knowledge is much more aggregable. If John knows 2 facts and Freds knows 5 facts, together they know 7 facts. But if John had an IQ of 90 and Fred has an IQ of 100, together they have an IQ of 100.
Similarly, if elections were like trivia game shows and we just wanted to maximize the likelihood that any one person participating in the answering would know an obscure fact, you could make a great case for democracy. But that's not the challenge elections are meant to address. That's not the goal. Politics strive for complicated, subjective, morally messy compromises that do the least harm to the fewest people, or best honor some other value system; and identifying those policy answers requires a *radically different* and *non-aggregable* set of skills than answering a trivia questions!
Finally, the best alternatives to pure democracy on everything are not just rule by a *randomly selected* few. They are rule by an otherwise selected few, and those methods of selection may actually have some merit towards technocracy. We want court cases to be decided by judges, interest rates to be decided by bankers, planes to be flown by pilots, and surgeries to be performed by surgeons. In all of those cases, the many are not smarter than the few.
So if you must stick with a game show, a better analogy is that you're given a random question about ancient Egypt; and then you're given the choice between asking a crowd of 50 strangers to vote on it, or asking a single Professor of Egyptian Archaeology. Which would you choose? Which would you suspect is smarter, on average?
If voters are not random, then who does get the pic who the voters are.
There’s nobody picking the voters, and I cannot have a reasonable discussion with anybody who believes that the voters are picked in some weird manner.
Goodbye