Thus, rather than improving our social decisions by letting algorithms adjudicate the object-level claims and arguments, we rather use them to give reliable ad hominem-arguments against the participants in the debate. To wit, rather than letting our algorithms show that certain politicians claims are false and that his arguments are invalid, we let them point out that they are less than brilliant and have sociopathic tendencies.
On an objective (sic) level this seems counter intuitive and counter productive: Why punish someone for being non-conformant when their ideas might still be objectively good? I agree that in practice politics already runs more on the perceived personal qualities like agreeableness. Probably the Fundamental Attribution Bias at work. And maybe making this explicit may not be the worst thing.
Besides better political decisions, these algorithms could also lead to more competent rule in other areas in society. This might affect, e.g. GDP and the rate of progress.
But I am doubtful whether strengthening FAB will have this effect.
On an objective (sic) level this seems counter intuitive and counter productive: Why punish someone for being non-conformant when their ideas might still be objectively good? I agree that in practice politics already runs more on the perceived personal qualities like agreeableness. Probably the Fundamental Attribution Bias at work. And maybe making this explicit may not be the worst thing.
But I am doubtful whether strengthening FAB will have this effect.