The last thing democracy needs is well-informed voters, say scientist. System relies

Daily Mail ^ | 12/19/11 | Daily Mail

[DoughtyOne]

I’m so confused! Which server does that document reside on anyway?

LOL

Pat! He still looks Residential.

[GOPJ]

...people who have no interest at all could be vital to the working of a democratic society.

Sick, it's like he's glorifying useful idiots... Maybe we should defend high school drop-outs doing basic research and teaching college...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Yes, it does. If all of the voters were well-informed, most of these sociopaths would be out of a job.

[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

Jeepers CripL! When, and why in the h e double 2 sticks did you drop out? I've got a diploma somewhere, I think...

Worked a good 10 years or so as a no college degree engineer in the auto industry. Ditto your "real desire".

" To: Nachum
Democracies always devolve into Oligarchies....
Only a Republic that is restrained can last longer tot he benefit of those living within it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVsjZBy7hww
This explains it all....
I am quickly becomming a “Bircher”
9 posted on Mon 19 Dec 2011 12:52:04 PM EST by GraceG "

Good youtube link.

[RipSawyer]

“The world has become too ridiculous to satirize.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A magnificent summation of current conditions. That would make a great tagline.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/chump-effect_610143.html

Lots of cultural writing these days, in books and magazines and newspapers, relies on the so-called Chump Effect. The Effect is defined by its discoverer, me, as the eagerness of laymen and journalists to swallow whole the claims made by social scientists. Entire journalistic enterprises, whole books from cover to cover, would simply collapse into dust if even a smidgen of skepticism were summoned whenever we read that “scientists say” or “a new study finds” or “research shows” or “data suggest.” Most such claims of social science, we would soon find, fall into one of three categories: the trivial, the dubious, or the flatly untrue.

[supercat]

I am less then convinced that data on how fish decide which group to join is of relevance on human politics, or that even if true, it is a good thing.

One thing which articles like this often totally ignore is that humans have a much greater awareness of the observer than do animals like fish, and that a policy which would be optimal for managing the interactions of people who weren't aware of what the policy way, may work poorly if people become aware of the policy and can exploit it.

As a simple example, consider the scenario of a fire in a home whose owner has not paid the annual fire protection fee. If the fire department could extinguish the fire and charge the home owner some amount that exceeded the marginal cost of the fire, without anyone finding out that it had done so, such a scenario would be better for everyone, including both the homeowner and the fire department, than simply letting the house burn. Unfortunately, if the fire department has an implicit or explicit policy of charging non-subscribers a fee that's low enough to be collectable, and such a policy becomes widely known, it would quickly result in so many people dropping their subscriptions that the fire department would no longer be able to protect anyone.