My Photo

Coming Soon


Out Now!



Or Our First Book...

Blog powered by Typepad

« Religion in Science Fiction (3): Dune | Main | Do You Enjoy Fear? (ihobo) »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452030269e201156f166383970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Collective Ignorance:

Comments

... ya know, this might just explain exactly what it is that bugs me about representative democracy as a system of government. or at least, one of the big things.

problem is, while sociocratic consent looks like [from what you wrote there, i have no other knowledge of it] it would work on a small scale [so does democracy. and communism, for that matter] it looks like it'd run into problems scaling up. at least to the point of national government where such ideals as [the illusion of] democracy are highly prized. or, for that matter, any system where those at the top were less than ideal.

i can totally see it working for companies and things though.

mmm... pretty sure this was Supposed to be meaningful. maybe it is. feels like I'm just rambling though :D

Yeah if we're looking for intelligence, effectiveness and efficiency, then the best way to go is probably some hybrid of a free market approach led by a benevolent dictator that has the authority to do the things that the collective can't.

But personally I've never considered the point of democracy to be about those things.

The way I see it, the most important reason to have any kind of governing body is to ensure the humans rights and freedoms of its people, and ideally all peoples.

Democracy, then, can be seen as simply one of the better mechanisms we've come up with to deal with the possibility that a leader may disrespect those rights; just vote the jerk out. The usual alternative is to wage a bloody revolution.

Frankly that's the only real reason to have a democracy... as long as you have that you can choose your leaders and make your decisions based on the flip of a coin for all I care.

Democracy is government by the mediocre - you won't get anyone really good, but at least you won't get anyone really bad for long (unless they change the rules).

Collective intelligence works best in small groups that have considerable autonomy. Most organisations have been bitten by the problem that some autonomous teams have (or are perceived to have) highly visible and damaging failures, and rein in the autonomy for all - consider England and Wales, where the centralisation of power in government is far greater than it was a generation ago. This damages all tems within the organisation - whether to a greater extent than the scope of the failures is open to discussion, I think!

Chargone: "problem is, while sociocratic consent looks like it would work on a small scale it looks like it'd run into problems scaling up. at least to the point of national government"

I agree! I was principally writing about organisations with a single clear focus, which government arguably is not. The problems of government are more complicated since a nation's highest authority must deal with issues on at least three scales: local, national and international. Part of my wonders if we wouldn't do well to split these roles up anyway...

mad: "Democracy, then, can be seen as simply one of the better mechanisms we've come up with to deal with the possibility that a leader may disrespect those rights; just vote the jerk out. The usual alternative is to wage a bloody revolution."

Yes, I agree this sentiment. But it gets complicated, doesn't it, because as a result of this mechanism our democratic leaders often end up expending more effort remaining *popular* than being *useful*. :)

"Frankly that's the only real reason to have a democracy... as long as you have that you can choose your leaders and make your decisions based on the flip of a coin for all I care."

I have often said I would be happy with politicians being selected at random - an aleaocracy, if you will. As long as you can ditch the ones who don't work, it might be more efficient than elections. :p

Peter: "Collective intelligence works best in small groups that have considerable autonomy."

Yes, absolutely. But empowering that autonomy is very difficult in the large organisations - the bigger the group, the harder it becomes. But I believe that by flattening hierarchies (which is possible with modern communication technology) we can acheive greater empowerment of the individual teams.

Or at least, such is the dream. :)

Thanks for the comments everyone!

aleaocracy...

You so crazy... :)

Do YOU want to be president of the United States? Just send in 3 UPC's from specially marked boxes of Kelloggs brand (TM) Corn Flakes in a Self Adressed stamped envelope for your chance to win! You can make big decisions like: whether everyone will have free beer!

...... yeah...... no..... !!!

Random selection may be the only fair way to get people who don't want power to lead AKA the best kind of leader...

just Scott: it sounds crazier than it is!

In the UK, the House of Lords (the equivalent of the Senate in the US) was until recently occupied by people who had inherited their position ancestrally. So in fact, the people who sat in the Lords *were* there "at random" - a lottery of birth. Yet, the House of Lords works fine as an upper house - at least, if you compare it to other upper houses like the Senate (i.e. it is no worse).

Obviously if you compare political reality to idealised visions of politics it will always fall short!

I'm just suggesting extending this a little further.

The civil service in any nation actually provides the continuity of service, and implements all policy - the politicians are actually just figureheads. Watch the British comedy "Yes, Minister" for the full joy of this! :)

chill: Nice to hear from you! Although my romantic inclinations want to agree with you, I'm not sure at random you would chance upon leadership material.

But in terms of something like an upper house, which decides whether a law is good enough to proceed, I don't see why this *can't* be done by a random selection of people! :)

I don't know what the best way to source good leaders would be...

I don't understand how there is any difference between seeking the approval of others or, instead, waiting for objections. In seeking for approval, the only way disapproval is shown is through objections -- that are hopefully reasonable. Maybe I'm just being dumb...it's the morning here.

Adam: It seems you are assuming that "the only way disapproval is shown is through objections".

My experience of democratic organisation is that one does not have to raise a coherent objection to block a democratic decision - one need only feel strongly against it. The requirement to voice a specific objection, and have it be reasonably considered, is radically different from (say) a "show of hands" determining whether a particular course of action proceeds.

Thanks for commenting!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment