The James and Jewel Thought Experiment

[MikeF]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I was fixating on IQ? What did I write that gave you that Idea? IQ is an important factor in decision-making. I didn't say it was the ONLY factor.

Certainly, we are talking about my perception of your comments, so in the value and importance I perceive you place on a high IQ based on your comments, and the extremely high IQ you used in your thought experiment all contribute to my perception. In addition, I have tried to emphasize that having a high IQ does not mean that one would necessarily act in anything other than their own self-interest. As an example, one can be highly intelligent and be a sociopath or psychopath. In fact, I seem to recall that they tend, in general, to have above average intelligence. As a response, you seemed only to emphasize those with higher IQ make better decisions, in your opinion.

In decision-making for a group or a whole society, I would put more emphasis on emotional intelligence paired with a quality college or graduate school level of intelligence which would be a broader swath than those in the top 0.01% range. Having one who can empathize and value others and inherent differences would seem a higher priority metric concerning decisions for society as a whole.

The electorate is half the problem. The other half is that the political parties are often offering voters a choice between Dumb and Dumberer.

Our system is better than the authoritarian regimes of other nations. That's about all we can say for it.

Perhaps it is a certain personality type that is attracted to, and seeks political office, and, for whatever reason, that personality type has some inherent flaws. Really, it requires a great talent in selling one's self, but you can't choose what it is you want to be or what you are selling, you must conform to some idealized conception held by a sufficient number of the electorate that you can be successfully elected. In the American system, the potential candidate is essentially left with two idealized conceptions on the opposite ends of a spectrum from which to choose.

I think maintaining a system with strong checks and balances is our first defense against things getting too out of control. As for potential improvements, I would like to try universal term limits for all offices. I would also like to have a system of run-off elections if no candidate breaks 50% of the vote, or maybe some form of ranked elections. My objective in these changes would be to give a stronger voice to the moderate middle of the electorate and disenfranchise the entrenched two-party system we have now.

Somebody with expertise in Political Science may have reasons why my changes might not achieve my desired result, or my desired result is not desirable, etc., for I am not an expert.

It would be my presumption that electing representatives that better reflect the desires of a broad middle of the electorate would result in greater fairness in public policy, coming back to your issue of fairness.

 

[Augustus]

The hierarchy is a power tool. It can create or destroy. You can't point to an example of misuse (USSR) and say "See, hierarchies don't work!"

Finally you get it.

You just dismissed decentralised governance by cherry picking the worst example and ignoring those which work very well, now you can see your fallacious logic.

So what is your philosophical objection to decentralisation with sortition to make governance truly represtative of society and to massively weaken the grip of partisan political interests?

Of course, but the advice give by U.S. lawyers relies on Probability.

Is there evidence to support your claim that a majority of all lawyers support your claim?

And in other countries the advice would certainly be different.

In the USA and most of the world, we have not very smart and corrupt people screwing with the system.

Hence you change the method of selecting them so that you get a diverse and representative body of lawmakers not beholden to the corrupting needs of partisan political parties.

 

[Augustus]

"All cooperative citizens would be the same."

You are literally describing the stuff of dystopian teen novels.

Is this serious? Are you pulling our leg?

What do you mean you aren't instantly sold on a half-baked theory of biologically-determined elitist techno-communism?

The self-selecting and unaccountable elite all have high IQs which means they can solve low-dimensional, predictable, linear puzzles in a classroom more effectively than the average person, there is absolutely no way they can **** up in the high dimensional, unpredictable and non-linear real world.

Let your betters control your life and they'll give you McFood, drugs and computer games in return to keep you compliant and stop you getting uppity.

You are literally describing the stuff of dystopian teen novels.

Give him credit. It's actually the plot of Brave New World, which is a dystopian novel for fully grown adults

 

[Augustus]

But high IQ is one of the important factors in selecting decision-makers.

As is diversity of background, ideology, experience, skills, cognitive style etc.

People who have been selected because of similarity (i.e. the kind of cognitive style that does well in IQ tests, which at best only measures one specific kind of intelligence: solving linear puzzles), then trained using Accepted Best Practice to think similarly, and given similar experiences is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps it is a certain personality type that is attracted to, and seeks political office, and, for whatever reason, that personality type has some inherent flaws. Really, it requires a great talent in selling one's self, but you can't choose what it is you want to be or what you are selling, you must conform to some idealized conception held by a sufficient number of the electorate that you can be successfully elected. In the American system, the potential candidate is essentially left with two idealized conceptions on the opposite ends of a spectrum from which to choose.

I think maintaining a system with strong checks and balances is our first defense against things getting too out of control. As for potential improvements, I would like to try universal term limits for all offices. I would also like to have a system of run-off elections if no candidate breaks 50% of the vote, or maybe some form of ranked elections. My objective in these changes would be to give a stronger voice to the moderate middle of the electorate and disenfranchise the entrenched two-party system we have now.

Somebody with expertise in Political Science may have reasons why my changes might not achieve my desired result, or my desired result is not desirable, etc., for I am not an expert.

It would be my presumption that electing representatives that better reflect the desires of a broad middle of the electorate would result in greater fairness in public policy, coming back to your issue of fairness.

What do you think about using a form of sortition in addition to some form or electoral reform?

For me it massively mitigates the harm of zero-sum partisan politics, creates a diverse and truly representative body of lawmakers and removes the need for non-elected representatives to 'play to the gallery' to seek reelection.

 

[Left Coast]

Give him credit. It's actually the plot of Brave New World, which is a dystopian novel for fully grown adults

One of the books I was thinking of was Animal Farm, where the smart pigs take over and run things (and it goes...so great!). Which I read as a teen but Orwell probably wrote originally for adults?

The idea also reminds me of The Giver.

You'd think folks would learn.

 

[joe1776]

Certainly, we are talking about my perception of your comments, so in the value and importance I perceive you place on a high IQ based on your comments, and the extremely high IQ you used in your thought experiment all contribute to my perception. In addition, I have tried to emphasize that having a high IQ does not mean that one would necessarily act in anything other than their own self-interest. As an example, one can be highly intelligent and be a sociopath or psychopath. In fact, I seem to recall that they tend, in general, to have above average intelligence. As a response, you seemed only to emphasize those with higher IQ make better decisions, in your opinion.

You are pointing out the obvious: not all people with high IQs can be trusted. How does that fact become relevant in our discussion? Not all people in any group, high IQ or not, can be trusted.

Logically, people with high IQs find it easier to avoid the logical fallacies that can crop up in analyzing a problem.

In decision-making for a group or a whole society, I would put more emphasis on emotional intelligence paired with a quality college or graduate school level of intelligence which would be a broader swath than those in the top 0.01% range. Having one who can empathize and value others and inherent differences would seem a higher priority metric concerning decisions for society as a whole.

IQ testing has been around for more than a century. The process has been studied, criticized and upgraded many times. The US military uses it. US businesses use it. Even the NFL uses it. Teams want smart football players.

In contrast, emotional intelligence is a young, controversial field:

Proponents claim that EI is more important in life than academic intelligence, while opponents claim that there is no such thing as emotional intelligence. Three key criticisms that have been leveled at emotional intelligence include: EI is poorly defined and poorly measured; EI is a new name for familiar constructs that have been studied for decades; and claims about EI are overblown.

Perhaps it is a certain personality type that is attracted to, and seeks political office, and, for whatever reason, that personality type has some inherent flaws.

Generally, the people who are most ambitious for power over others are the very kind who will abuse it, IMO.

I think maintaining a system with strong checks and balances is our first defense against things getting too out of control. As for potential improvements, I would like to try universal term limits for all offices. I would also like to have a system of run-off elections if no candidate breaks 50% of the vote, or maybe some form of ranked elections. My objective in these changes would be to give a stronger voice to the moderate middle of the electorate and disenfranchise the entrenched two-party system we have now.

It would be my presumption that electing representatives that better reflect the desires of a broad middle of the electorate would result in greater fairness in public policy, coming back to your issue of fairness.

Your ideas make sense. However, I see the system as an old stagecoach mired in a swamp (lobbying and campaign money). Your ideas don't go nearly far enough, IMO.

 

[joe1776]

Finally you get it.

You just dismissed decentralised governance by cherry picking the worst example and ignoring those which work very well, now you can see your fallacious logic.

I gave you two examples of obvious failure. But with time, I could give you dozens of examples of the power of the hierarchy: The Catholic Church, the Mafia, armies, most governments, virtually every big business on the planet

So what is your philosophical objection to decentralisation with sortition to make governance truly represtative of society and to massively weaken the grip of partisan political interests?

Sortion guarantees decision-makers of average intelligence. I'd prefer that to the USA's current method for selecting decision-makers but for me that is 'damning with faint praise."

 

[joe1776]

As is diversity of background, ideology, experience, skills, cognitive style etc.

People who have been selected because of similarity (i.e. the kind of cognitive style that does well in IQ tests, which at best only measures one specific kind of intelligence: solving linear puzzles), then trained using Accepted Best Practice to think similarly, and given similar experiences is a recipe for disaster.

Solving linear puzzles? That's your idea of an IQ test? Now I understand why you don't value them highly. It reminds me also that you've never taken one.

 

[joe1776]

Give him credit. It's actually the plot of Brave New World, which is a dystopian novel for fully grown adults

You guys are a comedy team. Together you described three dystopian novels with three very different plots and they all remind you of my view of the future of which you know next to nothing. I guess it doesn't take much to qualify as dystopian in your opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

You guys are a comedy team. Together you described three dystopian novels with three very different plots and they all remind you of my view of the future of which you know next to nothing. I guess it doesn't take much to qualify as dystopian in your opinion.

What we know about your "view of the future" (read: the future you'd like) is what you'll tell us. And when I asked you the most basic logistical question about how it would work, you had no answer. Who's fault is that? Lol.

As for which dystopian novel your plan most closely resembles, give it time. Once you come up with more details I'm sure the picture will become clearer.

 

[Augustus]

I gave you two examples of obvious failure. But with time, I could give you dozens of examples of the power of the hierarchy: The Catholic Church, the Mafia, armies, most governments, virtually every big business on the planet

The trend in business, especially tech, is towards decentralised systems.

Successful modern armies allow significant autonomy to decision makers on the ground.

Etc.

Sortion guarantees decision-makers of average intelligence. I'd prefer that to the USA's current method for selecting decision-makers but for me that is 'damning with faint praise."

No, it guarantees decision makers with varying intelligence, knowledge, and experiences.

Solving linear puzzles? That's your idea of an IQ test? Now I understand why you don't value them highly. It reminds me also that you've never taken one.

I've done unofficial ones.

They are the very definition of linear puzzles.

Pattern matching, vocabulary tests, sequence prediction, etc.

How would you justify these not being linear puzzles?

What about these do you think predicts real world decision making skills in an unpredictable, non-linear environment?

 

[joe1776]

What we know about your "view of the future" (read: the future you'd like) is what you'll tell us. And when I asked you the most basic logistical question about how it would work, you had no answer. Who's fault is that? Lol.

As for which dystopian novel your plan most closely resembles, give it time. Once you come up with more details I'm sure the picture will become clearer.

I take it that you think that our current society, a cooperative endeavor in which citizens must compete to survive and thrive, and many are born unfit while others amass far more than they need, is not dystopian.

Change will happen in stages. I'll post something soon on what I think might be the first stage.

 

[Augustus]

You guys are a comedy team. Together you described three dystopian novels with three very different plots and they all remind you of my view of the future of which you know next to nothing. I guess it doesn't take much to qualify as dystopian in your opinion.

Brave New World is about a society where people are assigned roles based on biologically dependent intelligence, society is organised based on rational bureaucratic principles for stability and predictability and the masses are kept "compliant" with simple pleasures being provided for them in exchange for their passivity.

Which of these do you disagree with?

 

[joe1776]

The trend in business, especially tech, is towards decentralised systems. Successful modern armies allow significant autonomy to decision makers on the ground.

The military always has been and always will be a hierarchy. Allowing the field commanders to exercise limited options is not a new idea and is not a decentralized system.

 

[joe1776]

Brave New World is about a society where people are assigned roles based on biologically dependent intelligence, society is organised based on rational bureaucratic principles for stability and predictability and the masses are kept "compliant" with simple pleasures being provided for them in exchange for their passivity.

Which of these do you disagree with?

I disagree with all of it except that intelligence is an important factor to consider when fitting the cooperative citizen to a job. Too much or too little -- both lead to failure.

 

[Left Coast]

I take it that you don't think that our current society, a cooperative endeavor in which citizens must compete to survive and thrive, and many are born unfit while others amass far more than they need, is not dystopian.

Not even close. Firstly, I don't agree with your premise that all competition is inherently bad for us in some way. I think some degree of competition can actually be healthy and keep us from complacency.

Secondly, compare standards of living today to 300 years ago. Compare social mobility. Compare our freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, democracy, and so on. It's not even close, even with all the awfulness that still goes on. I would vastly prefer to live now then at any other time to date.

Third, how is your society going to prevent people from being "born unfit?" Eugenics? Aborting the disabled?

 

[joe1776]

Not even close. Firstly, I don't agree with your premise that all competition is inherently bad for us in some way. I think some degree of competition can actually be healthy and keep us from complacency.

You jumped to an erroneous conclusion about my opinion on ALL competition.

The free market has temporary utility only because we can't have a corrupt, incompetent government managing supply and demand. But, with a clean, efficient government to manage it, a cooperative economy will solve a host of problems that we face today.

Secondly, compare standards of living today to 300 years ago. Compare social mobility. Compare our freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, democracy, and so on. It's not even close, even with all the awfulness that still goes on. I would vastly prefer to live now then at any other time to date.

I agree. What I have in mind is a continuation of that progress. You don't feel our society is done progressing, do you?

Third, how is your society going to prevent people from being "born unfit?" Eugenics? Aborting the disabled?

Any contribution citizens can make will be all that's needed to earn their fair share of the benefits. If they are willing but unable to make any contribution at all, they will be cared for,

 

[Augustus]

The military always has been and always will be a hierarchy. Allowing the field commanders to exercise limited options is not a new idea and is not a decentralized system.

You seem to be conflating the terms centralised and hierarchy.

Decentralised systems still have a hierarchy, and it is a well established fact the trend in modern organisational structure is towards decentralisation, and this includes Western militaries.

I disagree with all of it except that intelligence is an important factor to consider when fitting the cooperative citizen to a job.

What kind of job do you think you would have got?

 

[Left Coast]

You jumped to an erroneous conclusion about my opinion on ALL competition.

The free market has temporary utility only because we can't have a corrupt, incompetent government managing supply and demand. But, with a clean, efficient government to manage it, a cooperative economy will solve a host of problems that we face today.

So competition in the marketplace is only a temporary solution for you until you ultimately ban it via government control of goods and services. So i didn't jump to an erroneous conclusion at all. You are ultimately against competition and want to eliminate it, even if you are willing to temporarily allow it for the moment.

I agree. What I have in mind is a continuation of that progress. You don't feel our society is done progressing, do you?

I like how the dichotomy in your mind is that either a) I believe our society is perfect and has no room to improve or b) I have to agree with your half-baked utopian idea. Can you not imagine a third possibility?

Im glad you concede, at least, that our society is not a dystopia.