(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

5 Reasons Humanity Is Terrible at Democracy

Ask the average person what's wrong with government and you'll hear all about corrupt politicians, corporate lobbyists and shady backroom deals. But, of course, we elected those corrupt politicians, and the more you look at the situation, the more it appears that as people, we are just really bad at democracy.

#5. Our Opinion on an Issue Is Based on How It's Worded
#4. Watching the News Actually Makes Us Stupider
#3. Political Pundits Are Even Worse Than the News
#2. The More Informed You Are, the More Partisan You Are
#1. We Hate Each Other Over Imaginary Differences

I think we can see a lot of this even here on this community. Do a quick check at what topics people argue about and you'll see evidence for #1. Check out how strident those of us who are informed on an issue are, for whichever side we're on, and that is the evidence for #2. I doubt anyone here would disagree with #3 or #5. #4 might not be so obvious, but those of us who use the Internet to get news instead of watching tv news might have a gut feeling that it's correct.

I think #2 is the most interesting though, even though it's fairly intuitive. We all understand how echo chambers work, especially online, so it's good that this community isn't one, although any given post might act like one because of who comments on it.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps the answer might be that Hobbes is right after all and the great masses of humankind need autocrats to rule them, as left to themselves the evil becomes more diffuse and unable to truly be altered in any meaningful way while autocrats can be slain easily enough if it needs come to that.

In truth, however, the real answer is that people are fine with democracy up to the point that people they disagree with are democratically elected by majority to do things they disagree with. That is an inevitable part of democracy, and the ability of all sides to disagree in good faith should be taken for granted. In practice few people ever want to do this when put in practice, and in reality there's a great deal of inability by people all across the spectrum to fathom that somehow, in some way, their views of the world can be sincerely disagreed with and they do not know everything or have solutions to everything under the Sun.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And frankly, I count myself in the "already know I can be wrong and my ideas are my ideas" category. If I'm right about everything, the Universe would be a lot more fucked up than it actually is. However the problem with democracy is that people can be extremely convinced of entirely different and incompatible things, and that both can achieve majorities in the fickle electoral system, but that very incompatible belief proves the chokehold that prevents people from seeing that this is what it is, not a should or should not be thing.

Humans aren't bad at democracy, merely at accepting the totality of what democracy requires to function.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

That's 5 Reasons Why Humanity is Great at Democracy. FTFY.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem with democracy is that there is no way to make idiots who elect idiots feel the totality of the idiocy inflicted by their vote.

i.e. there isn't any effective feedback-response cycle to have the intended effect.

Without that, the undue nobility often granted to the process will always remain undeserved.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem with democracy is that there is no way to make idiots who elect idiots feel the totality of the idiocy inflicted by their vote.

Yeah, there is. Karma. What goes around comes around. Be careful what you wish for..... etc.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's not really an effective feedback cycle, as there's usually no obvious connection between the action and the "karmic response".

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Like gunslinger said. Dissociation is rampant. Feedback is only effective if it's direct, and instantaneous (like deciding to put your hand into an open flame), or directly traceable by the mind with minimal 'noise'.

Too many inexorable filters between the electorate and the elected for that to ever happen.

[weswilson]

5) Not always. But there are big red flags that certain tones send up. Intelligent people look beyond the tone, but they also recognize the weaknesses in an argument that can be deduced by the tone taken.

4) Not if you don't expect perfection from your news sources.

3) It depends on the pundit. Pundits who do a lot of research, fact check, and welcome opposing viewpoints offer a more dynamic view of a story. Often, these kinds of fact-based presentations can illuminate beyond what would be predicted.

2) Nope. When I was an idiot, I was a partisan. As I grow, I see the positive goals of both sides of a healthy debate. The only people who make me feel partisan are real partisans.

1) I don't hate people for differences... I hate people for not recognizing our similarities.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

I do not know if you meant to apply causal direction in #2, but all the research indicates people become well informed because they are partisan, not more partisan because they are informed.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not my article, so I didn't mean anything in #2. You can ask the author though.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

#2. The More Informed You Are, the More Partisan Cautious You Are.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

It really depends how you process the information you get. Today we're drowned in information, and if we really don't have the mental instrumentarium to sift off the nuggets away from the chaff (which indeed many people to a large extent don't), then we're more like a leaf carried by the stream, rather than a rock forming the riverbed, to speak more metaphorically.

Then again, I see societies where the above 5 issues have, if not totally disappeared, at least become largely irrelevant. Not in mine and not in yours, though.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I've seen such societies too..but it is really hard, bordering on impossible/pointless to talk about them in societies where they are prevalent. People tend to not understand you, think you're wrong and partisan, one of "the pundits" or just plain disagree because it's not in their paradigm.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

But, but, you Swedes are SO brainwashed by your evil monarchs!

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

yeah, we're socialist monarchy serfs!

But seriously, in more than one place, that list isn't particularly on target, so I'm pondering if people in those places may not even belong to humanity.

I would take this topic further, if I didn't feel I've already tried it, many times.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Repetition is the mother of learning.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

..and of gray hairs, for the one repeating. I want my own lovely color to stay, beauty over politics any day, I say!!
I'll cut the asshats who mess with my looks!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's what hair dye is for. :)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

NEVER!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I think when someone preaches something, they should first start by giving a personal example.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

but the buyer is less likely to buy when an item is personalized.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

a nicely organized article; thank you for the link. what you say is true of this online community. pertaining to the exterior/non-online community, i wonder if democracy is such a challenge for humanity than why employ it? why don't we try an old fashioned matriarchal system for a while, just to seem how that pans out?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Er......that theory by that one Lithuanian has never been validated by any archaeological studies and evidence has shown the Venus of Willendorf may in fact be an ordinary type of portrait of pre-whitey-gene Europeans. If humans were at one point two-legged bonobos that raises the question of how patriarchy was ever feasible in the first place.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, I was thinking more of the plausible mesoamerican models and less of other geographical locales.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

ROFLMAO, Mesoamerica was not matriarchal. You could say that of some of the tribes of North America, but not any of the ones in the south. The guys that believed in self-mutilation and offering the dripping hearts of POWs to the Sun weren't matriarchal.