I think the idea of trying to get people who aren’t experts to aggregate and analyze information is an excellent one. I think one good thing to do is to think about what kinds of analyses/aggregations that aren’t done at present you could do. What does science/Wikipedia/Google etc not cover?
I think one major problem is that when there is a conflict of interest, no one provides us with impartial, reliable information. That is why I suggest that there should be a place for reliable and impartial criticism of statements. But one could also think of more positive suggestions; for instance for how to take advantage of information technology in a socially optimal fashion. I think that at the moment, special interest groups are blocking us from making optimal use of the new technology. For instance, in my field, the academia, there is a massive resistance to massive online courses because academics fear it will lead to unemployment (which I don’t think is true, by the way, but that is beside the point), even though these massive online courses could (or that’s what people hope at least) provide students with better education at a lower price.
My point is that in cases where a certain policy P maximizes the total utility, but a certain alternative policy Q leads to much better outcomes to a special interest group, and just a little bit worse outcome to everyone else, Q will often chosen (even though there are no good reasons for it) because the special interest group will care so much more about the issue than everyone else. Hence it’s important that someone takes responsibility to work for the common good.
To a certain extent, I think there are think tanks that does the latter, though, but it would be good if one could involve more people in this (for instance on fora or wikis).
I think the idea of trying to get people who aren’t experts to aggregate and analyze information is an excellent one. I think one good thing to do is to think about what kinds of analyses/aggregations that aren’t done at present you could do. What does science/Wikipedia/Google etc not cover?
I think one major problem is that when there is a conflict of interest, no one provides us with impartial, reliable information. That is why I suggest that there should be a place for reliable and impartial criticism of statements. But one could also think of more positive suggestions; for instance for how to take advantage of information technology in a socially optimal fashion. I think that at the moment, special interest groups are blocking us from making optimal use of the new technology. For instance, in my field, the academia, there is a massive resistance to massive online courses because academics fear it will lead to unemployment (which I don’t think is true, by the way, but that is beside the point), even though these massive online courses could (or that’s what people hope at least) provide students with better education at a lower price.
My point is that in cases where a certain policy P maximizes the total utility, but a certain alternative policy Q leads to much better outcomes to a special interest group, and just a little bit worse outcome to everyone else, Q will often chosen (even though there are no good reasons for it) because the special interest group will care so much more about the issue than everyone else. Hence it’s important that someone takes responsibility to work for the common good.
To a certain extent, I think there are think tanks that does the latter, though, but it would be good if one could involve more people in this (for instance on fora or wikis).