The article is a good tour de force about the public discussion and some literature, but the culmination seems to be weak. I am not entirely sure we really know what to practically do and one can assume that the public attitude will be getting only worse in the current changing media environment.
I'm quite worried about all of this stuff because I am starting to have really negative anti-humanistic streak due to it.
Something I find lacking in this analysis is that the level of complexity of issues has grown substantially, even if a voter is able to observe a given issue, in order to cast a vote on that issue, they are implicitly asked to "decide" on a preferred solution for candidates, as they don't run on "issue X exists" but on "issue X exists, and the solution is Y".
The current world is very complex in a very fractal way, as such, to pretend that voters can understand more than a few elements, let alone think of solutions for its failures, is too large an ask.
Other systems tend to have faster feedback loop and clearer goals in my opinion (for example, investing works until you don't have money, which limits how many resources people can pour into bad ideas). But it may be that large scale democracies where everyone votes work by a sort of "wisdom of literally everyone involved" mechanism.
The beauty of democracy is that it scales better than virgin sacrifices - although demographic trends may revitalize the tradition.
The Big City has aliens, transit, living quarters, and others things beyond your tribe. Thus, they are institutions that reinforce whatever belief statements factor into social trust. Extendo, by fiscal year 2028, ~50 million New Yorkers or 3rd term is likely.
Rising inflation makes people discount the future value of returns. Social trust prolly craters as they expect a semi-stable social contract upon which to improvise. I think because of this, it might be beneficial for local governance to establish a leadership-agnostic mandate vote during leadership elections.
Insane problems will pop up, to be sure. But it would result in more ownership by the electorate much like the traffic stop buttons, I feel. They'd then have a bit more comfort that their voice would matter even if their choice of leader doesn't.
From what I see, a politician seeking an election is a seeming competent game:
1. Look competent (seems competent).
2. Be able to warrant your self-invitation into my world (seems competent).
3. Have an excited base that doesn't disgust me (seems competent).
4. Talk extemporaneously (seems competent).
5. Proclaim policies that speak/benefit me (seems competent).
6. Be willing to fight for me against ((THEM)) (seems competent).
7. Have authorities I have deferred to for their competency praise you (seems competent).
8. Don't have policies I understand to be terrible unless I trust it's a lie you and I are in on (seems competent)
Reductio ad Zohran, sewer socialism is for the afterparty. Policies do matter a lot but ideally, you leave the boring stuff that matters until you win (seems competent).
The golden goose for democracy is modifying the valuation engine of what seems (in)competent. I passed grade 4 so 1*1=2 disgusts me. Education lets you scale that + it itself is a societal benefit (allowed you to be arrogant).
--- Juvenile Conspiracies ---
I also think social media is significant as it delivers an onus to each user to be a micro-elite. Or being vulnerable to social conformity more than without. Though it allows for more "conformities" - ones based on being anti-social. I'm not clear on this.
I do feel like it explains why Trump gets elected and why Gen X is the most Hitlerite electorate. They're the Xtreme generation full of Rage Against the Machine shticks in their tabloid-disgust-at-new-society age range. Cancel culture is either a candy or Pavlovian boogeyman for them to fight against. Plus, Trump's not known for an appreciation of waiting for permission. Skepticism of consent is likely another value, though it's prolly downstream of social trust.
At least there's no foreseeable Munich Conference to validate their extremity. Canada, Greenland, and PANAMA declined. The Ukraine war is still going on, Israel and Iran have a situationship, and tariffs in general (which, surprisingly got many of those bro-casts' comment sections rebellious and frustrated, so, thank Money for portfolios). It's strange just how much they campaign for the Democrats but at least someone is trying.
The article is a good tour de force about the public discussion and some literature, but the culmination seems to be weak. I am not entirely sure we really know what to practically do and one can assume that the public attitude will be getting only worse in the current changing media environment.
I'm quite worried about all of this stuff because I am starting to have really negative anti-humanistic streak due to it.
Something I find lacking in this analysis is that the level of complexity of issues has grown substantially, even if a voter is able to observe a given issue, in order to cast a vote on that issue, they are implicitly asked to "decide" on a preferred solution for candidates, as they don't run on "issue X exists" but on "issue X exists, and the solution is Y".
The current world is very complex in a very fractal way, as such, to pretend that voters can understand more than a few elements, let alone think of solutions for its failures, is too large an ask.
Other systems tend to have faster feedback loop and clearer goals in my opinion (for example, investing works until you don't have money, which limits how many resources people can pour into bad ideas). But it may be that large scale democracies where everyone votes work by a sort of "wisdom of literally everyone involved" mechanism.
Thank you for the article !
The beauty of democracy is that it scales better than virgin sacrifices - although demographic trends may revitalize the tradition.
The Big City has aliens, transit, living quarters, and others things beyond your tribe. Thus, they are institutions that reinforce whatever belief statements factor into social trust. Extendo, by fiscal year 2028, ~50 million New Yorkers or 3rd term is likely.
Rising inflation makes people discount the future value of returns. Social trust prolly craters as they expect a semi-stable social contract upon which to improvise. I think because of this, it might be beneficial for local governance to establish a leadership-agnostic mandate vote during leadership elections.
Insane problems will pop up, to be sure. But it would result in more ownership by the electorate much like the traffic stop buttons, I feel. They'd then have a bit more comfort that their voice would matter even if their choice of leader doesn't.
From what I see, a politician seeking an election is a seeming competent game:
1. Look competent (seems competent).
2. Be able to warrant your self-invitation into my world (seems competent).
3. Have an excited base that doesn't disgust me (seems competent).
4. Talk extemporaneously (seems competent).
5. Proclaim policies that speak/benefit me (seems competent).
6. Be willing to fight for me against ((THEM)) (seems competent).
7. Have authorities I have deferred to for their competency praise you (seems competent).
8. Don't have policies I understand to be terrible unless I trust it's a lie you and I are in on (seems competent)
Reductio ad Zohran, sewer socialism is for the afterparty. Policies do matter a lot but ideally, you leave the boring stuff that matters until you win (seems competent).
The golden goose for democracy is modifying the valuation engine of what seems (in)competent. I passed grade 4 so 1*1=2 disgusts me. Education lets you scale that + it itself is a societal benefit (allowed you to be arrogant).
--- Juvenile Conspiracies ---
I also think social media is significant as it delivers an onus to each user to be a micro-elite. Or being vulnerable to social conformity more than without. Though it allows for more "conformities" - ones based on being anti-social. I'm not clear on this.
I do feel like it explains why Trump gets elected and why Gen X is the most Hitlerite electorate. They're the Xtreme generation full of Rage Against the Machine shticks in their tabloid-disgust-at-new-society age range. Cancel culture is either a candy or Pavlovian boogeyman for them to fight against. Plus, Trump's not known for an appreciation of waiting for permission. Skepticism of consent is likely another value, though it's prolly downstream of social trust.
At least there's no foreseeable Munich Conference to validate their extremity. Canada, Greenland, and PANAMA declined. The Ukraine war is still going on, Israel and Iran have a situationship, and tariffs in general (which, surprisingly got many of those bro-casts' comment sections rebellious and frustrated, so, thank Money for portfolios). It's strange just how much they campaign for the Democrats but at least someone is trying.