Possibly. I was thinking more of something like not enough time spent on suggestion relative to others. But I wouldn’t doubt it. I expected this Post to be bad (though admittedly not such a huge fail). Most of the time when I suck at thinking, and I notice it, it’s got something to do with proposing solutions too early.
I don’t think it’s that simple.
Probably isn’t. But it is simple enough to be a practically approachable statistical problem.
That’s one word,
Lol, I suck. I’ll leave it the same as personal punishment.
if you are wrong about what is rational, all can learn from any mistake and use the essay and thinking behind it, rather than political systems, as the basis of a rationality discussion.
Gotcha
If people really cannot but think they can, they will be peaceful.
“Can’t x”, and “Will x” or “Did x”, are contradictory. But I hear what you are saying, I think. Attitude is an extremely important factor, if not the most important factor, in how brutally people handle their political differences.
But if people who were not politicians, could feel as confident about their work, as they do about the work of their doctors and nurses, then I don’t think we would have to worry nearly as much about how we are going to settle our political disagreements. The experts are on it. They’ll figure out the best way for us all to get what we want available. But then again a doctor will rarely if ever benefit from not giving you proper treatment; politicians benefit from not instituting the best policy constantly with a diverse range of creative cons.
Of course, public opinion certainly does affect what policies are likely to succeed, and to find public opinion you need randomized polls (much like democracy except not self selecting), but you need more than that too. Information independent of public opinion. However, if you can convince your neighbors to write down “socialist” in next year’s census, successful gamblers will notice this and exploit it for all it is worth.
It seems intuitive to me (and I realize that isn’t much) that a society where we use a betting market to dictate policy, would be very conducive to rational political debate, in both elite and hobbyist gamblers. Peace is good; and obviously, political scientists would produce more peace than democratically elected officials. But so would almost any other group that was rewarded for increasing happiness. Not war means more peace. More peace means more happy. More happy means more reward.
Possibly. I was thinking more of something like not enough time spent on suggestion relative to others. But I wouldn’t doubt it. I expected this Post to be bad (though admittedly not such a huge fail). Most of the time when I suck at thinking, and I notice it, it’s got something to do with proposing solutions too early.
Probably isn’t. But it is simple enough to be a practically approachable statistical problem.
Lol, I suck. I’ll leave it the same as personal punishment.
Gotcha
“Can’t x”, and “Will x” or “Did x”, are contradictory. But I hear what you are saying, I think. Attitude is an extremely important factor, if not the most important factor, in how brutally people handle their political differences.
But if people who were not politicians, could feel as confident about their work, as they do about the work of their doctors and nurses, then I don’t think we would have to worry nearly as much about how we are going to settle our political disagreements. The experts are on it. They’ll figure out the best way for us all to get what we want available. But then again a doctor will rarely if ever benefit from not giving you proper treatment; politicians benefit from not instituting the best policy constantly with a diverse range of creative cons.
Of course, public opinion certainly does affect what policies are likely to succeed, and to find public opinion you need randomized polls (much like democracy except not self selecting), but you need more than that too. Information independent of public opinion. However, if you can convince your neighbors to write down “socialist” in next year’s census, successful gamblers will notice this and exploit it for all it is worth.
It seems intuitive to me (and I realize that isn’t much) that a society where we use a betting market to dictate policy, would be very conducive to rational political debate, in both elite and hobbyist gamblers. Peace is good; and obviously, political scientists would produce more peace than democratically elected officials. But so would almost any other group that was rewarded for increasing happiness. Not war means more peace. More peace means more happy. More happy means more reward.
For improving to a Pareto optimum yes, but probably not for choosing among them.