Lottocracy

Lottocracy is a recommended new form of government at the near end of this video: vsauce video (like, that's nearly the whole point of the 30min video)

The idea is that it's a form of government where decisions are made not by elected leaders but by people chosen, literally, at random. Individuals chosen at random would have only their conscience to guide them more so than the politicians today - who have a power, money, reelection bias.
Obv it'll never happen. If nothing else - those at power would never let it. Or so I assume so.

After watching the video, to me, people's ability to reason is now looking bleak. A change like that or another seems necessary in order to reduce our inherit human flaws? I rather be on a boat with an inexperienced captain than on a boat who's captain has a fetish to slam into icebergs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's also the suggestion of having a national deliberation day, where people get together in groups and deliberate. I'd personally like that one tbh. Otherwise the societies progress stagnates due to our inability to truly reason on our own.

The way you talk about it suggests you view it as a system born out of desperation or cynicism, but the video itself seems to argue that it is a natural system that optimizes our collective problem solving. The video doesn't seem to see people's ability to reason as weak necessarily, either.

The analogy with the jury is interesting and probably gives some clues to what challenges may face a real lottocracy. In our world, violent groups with the power to threaten ordinary powerless people with no profile can sway the decision making of juries. That would probably exist in a lottocracy too. These people presumably go back to being ordinary once they leave their post, and will just get some hollow promises of protection from the police.

It might be difficult for decisions made under a lottocracy to receive the same acceptance of legitimacy. By the mere act of voting, people "consent" to the political system in some sense - even when their candidate doesn't win. In countries where faith in the system is truly abysmal, barely anyone votes. In a lottocracy, there is no continually renewed show of implicit approval, and rioters can turn around and say "I was never asked about that!".

I don't feel like watching the video right now, but do they address how foreign policy will work under this system? I can see that as being a major problem. Other governments will not work with a country if that country could decide to tear up all agreements and treaties based on some weirdo randomly getting chosen.

Solves the problem of corruption and people running for office just for monetary benefit.
Does not solve the problem of retards getting elected.

Venice had a similar system for electing the Doge.

My ideal voting system would be something akin to how teams decide how to go about a problem. They talk about it, and then they pick the best idea, and that's what they do. Note that there is no real voting here. It's just consensus decision making.

The problem with voting is that a lot of people use their own ill-formed "opinions" to cast their vote. It's just what sounds best. With the system above the chance for that is reduced... in theory, anyway. In practice it only really works with people of similar intelligence. My guesstimate is that in the ideal electorate, the IQ difference between the smartest and the dumbest person in the group would not be higher than one standard deviation. Sadly, with such a large number of people as in a country, that is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Lottocracy is a recommended new form of government at the near end of this video: vsauce video (like, that's nearly the whole point of the 30min video)

The idea is that it's a form of government where decisions are made not by elected leaders but by people chosen, literally, at random. Individuals chosen at random would have only their conscience to guide them more so than the politicians today - who have a power, money, reelection bias.
Obv it'll never happen. If nothing else - those at power would never let it. Or so I assume so.

After watching the video, to me, people's ability to reason is now looking bleak. A change like that or another seems necessary in order to reduce our inherit human flaws? I rather be on a boat with an inexperienced captain than on a boat who's captain has a fetish to slam into icebergs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's also the suggestion of having a national deliberation day, where people get together in groups and deliberate. I'd personally like that one tbh. Otherwise the societies progress stagnates due to our inability to truly reason on our own.

---

I love your signature btw.

Maybe in the future we'll let AI rule. That way we won't need to worry about stupid shit like some dude wanting more money and getting elected just to fill his own pockets.
If not, at the very least, maybe we can become a computer hivemind and hold a massive telepathic conference every X years to debate important issues and decide on laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

The video doesn't seem to see people's ability to reason as weak necessarily, either.

---

Would you say it isn't? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I don't feel like watching the video right now, but do they address how foreign policy will work under this system? I can see that as being a major problem. Other governments will not work with a country if that country could decide to tear up all agreements and treaties based on some weirdo randomly getting chosen.

---

No, they didn't.

This is probably not a very smart question, but could you give an example of what you mean?
I googled "how do governments work together" - and I only found explanations of how federal, state and local governments work together.

I think this could be a big problem for Europe though because of the European Union.
But I don't think it's that much of an issue for the United States since the US is basically one big country.

When you say governments of different countries working together, I'm uneducated enough to not know what you mean tbh. :p
Other than EU and military alliance like NATO ofc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

No, they didn't.

This is probably not a very smart question, but could you give an example of what you mean?
I googled "how do governments work together" - and I only found explanations of how federal, state and local governments work together.

I think this could be a big problem for Europe though because of the European Union.
But I don't think it's that much of an issue for the United States since the US is basically one big country.

When you say governments of different countries working together, I'm uneducated enough to not know what you mean tbh. :p
Other than EU and military alliance like NATO ofc.

---

Erm, I think it's quite a legitimate question. I presume he's thinking of the paris climate agreeement, npt, ats, shit like that. And then trade agreements between countries and negotiated peace deals like the iran nuclear deal.

In all fairness, there's nothing to stop morons getting elected and ripping that shit up in a democracy, evidently XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

Maybe in the future we'll let AI rule. That way we won't need to worry about stupid shit like some dude wanting more money and getting elected just to fill his own pockets.
If not, at the very least, maybe we can become a computer hivemind and hold a massive telepathic conference every X years to debate important issues and decide on laws.

---

Given the option, I'd be the first to give my consensus to the idea.

But tbh, for that idea to anywhere realistic - I think the server would have to be the size of a big city?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

No, they didn't.

This is probably not a very smart question, but could you give an example of what you mean?
I googled "how do governments work together" - and I only found explanations of how federal, state and local governments work together.

I think this could be a big problem for Europe though because of the European Union.
But I don't think it's that much of an issue for the United States since the US is basically one big country.

When you say governments of different countries working together, I'm uneducated enough to not know what you mean tbh. :p
Other than EU and military alliance like NATO ofc.

---

That tongue is def out of place.. I didn't mean it like how it looks lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

Would you say it isn't? :D

---

Well, the video suggests people are programmed to reach strong decisions in groups rather than alone, and that our reasoning skills are designed to be shared with and contribute to other's thought process rather than built up in isolation. He gives the famous thing where everyone guesses how many jelly beans are in a jar and even though most people are wildly out the average is shockingly close. It sure as hell isn't a point of view I'm qualified to comment on, but it's certainly a very romantic point of view ^^.

I can at least say that even though people's abstract deductive reasoning skills are naturally very weak, they can through education become much stronger. If you have a certain kind of education the question he asked about the marriage and whatever is just a trivial deduction, but it's not shameful to get it wrong, either. You just gotta do a couple courses on deductive logic or something. So I don't necessarily view people as "dumb".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

No, they didn't.

This is probably not a very smart question, but could you give an example of what you mean?
I googled "how do governments work together" - and I only found explanations of how federal, state and local governments work together.

I think this could be a big problem for Europe though because of the European Union.
But I don't think it's that much of an issue for the United States since the US is basically one big country.

When you say governments of different countries working together, I'm uneducated enough to not know what you mean tbh. :p
Other than EU and military alliance like NATO ofc.

---

I'm talking foreign policy, trade deals, etc. No country will ever make any agreements with a country with this type of lottocracy policy because at any moment some guy could come in who decides to tear everything up for any reason. When dealing with other countries, you'll only get the worst possible deal no matter how competent your current leader or decision maker is because the next guy could nullify what you agreed on and you have no guarantee that won't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I'm talking foreign policy, trade deals, etc. No country will ever make any agreements with a country with this type of lottocracy policy because at any moment some guy could come in who decides to tear everything up for any reason. When dealing with other countries, you'll only get the worst possible deal no matter how competent your current leader or decision maker is because the next guy could nullify what you agreed on and you have no guarantee that won't happen.

---

Ahh, googling trade deals found some example:
"China agreed to buy the goods in a trade deal with the US agreed last January in exchange for reduced tariffs on $120bn worth of goods. The agreement was seen as phase one of a deal aimed at resolving the trade war between the world's biggest economies."

Lol, coming from a very very small country - I'm pretty sure stuff like that doesn't exist in our country. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Lottocracy is a recommended new form of government at the near end of this video: vsauce video (like, that's nearly the whole point of the 30min video)

The idea is that it's a form of government where decisions are made not by elected leaders but by people chosen, literally, at random. Individuals chosen at random would have only their conscience to guide them more so than the politicians today - who have a power, money, reelection bias.
Obv it'll never happen. If nothing else - those at power would never let it. Or so I assume so.

After watching the video, to me, people's ability to reason is now looking bleak. A change like that or another seems necessary in order to reduce our inherit human flaws? I rather be on a boat with an inexperienced captain than on a boat who's captain has a fetish to slam into icebergs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's also the suggestion of having a national deliberation day, where people get together in groups and deliberate. I'd personally like that one tbh. Otherwise the societies progress stagnates due to our inability to truly reason on our own.

---

I can't help but feel like you're giving an unfairly negative view here of societal or worldly progress simply because the video encourages disillusionment with the idea that any single person cannot be very rational.

However, the fact is, and as the video goes to great lengths to point out, is that humans beings are social creatures (and are evolved to be as such). In the vast majority of times we like to be social and discuss things. When we go to learn or teach, its almost always (save for *terrible* teachers) done in a group or classroom of some sort. In the vast majority of cases, when we're trying to learn or think about things (that may be considered of a "rational" nature or concern), we discuss it with other people. After all, who doesn't like to feel "smart" or "intelligent" as judged by their peers? I mean, I have yet to see a learning program (or anything in society really) that actively discourage group discussions. Nor I have yet to see a person who didn't care about opinions they had unless they considered the subject to not be very relevant or important to them.

With regards to this subject, I don't really have any serious concerns for humanity/society unless there's some sort of pervasive or dominate culture that actively discourages discussion or "intellectual pursuits" in general.

As for the video's points regarding most social media, I would argue that it's simply not designed or optimized for group discussion. After all, most of the time they are designed to fulfill entertainment purposes (and to get as much data about you). Regardless of social media, I still think there will be some points in our lives where we go to discuss with one and another (ex: commonplace schooling). Just maybe not as much that might be optimal, but still something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Given the option, I'd be the first to give my consensus to the idea.

But tbh, for that idea to anywhere realistic - I think the server would have to be the size of a big city?

---

Realistic questions regarding practicality aside;

How do you suppose a computer, presuming there was no error in rationality by the very humans that built it, would resolve ethics? Would ethics even exist in its perspective? After all, ethics is about what "should" be; per some (moral or not) justification by a human being.

Furthermore, regardless of the answers to the questions before-hand, wouldn't these questions by themselves necessarily suggest that an AI ruler, even if perfect in its attributes, would be unfit to rule and lead humanity simply because it is obviously not human nor is evolved to be human in the way that human reasoning has become?

Well, I think we have to accept a few things. Firstly, no matter how much I or anyone else bitches about how stupid people are, the reality is that we are progressing as a species. So stupidity isn't a stronger force than intelligence - at least not on the scale of centuries.

Secondly, group decisions aren't necessarily the most rational. It depends entirely on how they are reached. I think the intelligence of a group is more or less equal to the intelligence of the smartest member.

I'm too drunk to remember where I was going with this lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Given the option, I'd be the first to give my consensus to the idea.

But tbh, for that idea to anywhere realistic - I think the server would have to be the size of a big city?

---

Probably :)
I doubt it's something that could be done in next couple of centuries. Call me pessimistic, but maybe not even within the current millennium?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinGG99

Realistic questions regarding practicality aside;

How do you suppose a computer, presuming there was no error in rationality by the very humans that built it, would resolve ethics? Would ethics even exist in its perspective? After all, ethics is about what "should" be; per some (moral or not) justification by a human being.

Furthermore, regardless of the answers to the questions before-hand, wouldn't these questions by themselves necessarily suggest that an AI ruler, even if perfect in its attributes, would be unfit to rule and lead humanity simply because it is obviously not human nor is evolved to be human in the way that human reasoning has become?

---

Fair, let humans judge humans.
But economics and stuff leave to the AI. That part can be done by just math? Also, it'll probably find the best usage/choice of technology for the longevity of the planet, environment and energy resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

Probably :)
I doubt it's something that could be done in next couple of centuries. Call me pessimistic, but maybe not even within the current millennium?

---

The great filter will kill us before the great AI overlord saves us. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Fair, let humans judge humans.
But economics and stuff leave to the AI. That part can be done by just math? Also, it'll probably find the best usage/choice of technology for the longevity of the planet, environment and energy resources.

---

Economics is also debatable within itself (due to the theory of subjective value) unless you're going for a perceived (namely objective) equality of resource availability, which would often be the most sensible option for a computer to handle I suppose. In which case, the biggest road-block isn't the AI itself but getting most (if not all) people to think that they want that equality-centric economy more than anything else they could have achieved in a non-AI led, but probably uncertain, economy.

I really like the idea but I do not think it could ever work.

It draws on how jury's function but those are heavily manipulated. Some veto process would always need to exist to prevent crazy people making decisions and that would place power in the hands of those who veto. Also the decision making process is heavily manipulated with lawyers working to convince jury's they are obligated to vote in a certain way.

Another issue is understanding many maco issues can take literal years. I have a very rough understanding of how little I know when it comes to economics and I can not imagine I would be well suited to make decisions on economic policy's. I can not imagine 'the average person' doing very well on a great number of issues. It would also eliminate any pattern of 'the most fit' preforming the function intellectually.

Then there is the problem of accountability. Things like balancing a budget would become near impossible and I feel like money would get spent endlessly. Every time someone pushed a bill to help starving puppies or whatever the average persons empathy would push them to vote in favor but without individuals to be held responsible for balance I feel like it would push society to a point of collapse.

As Oops pointed out foreign policy would not function. I feel like a lot of foreign policy is just power structures deciding to work with or against etch other which would be problematic when you have removed the existence of a power structure.

Very interesting concept though. I like it much more than the ideas of outright voting in mass given how information manipulation seems to be the latest game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

I really like the idea but I do not think it could ever work.

It draws on how jury's function but those are heavily manipulated. Some veto process would always need to exist to prevent crazy people making decisions and that would place power in the hands of those who veto. Also the decision making process is heavily manipulated with lawyers working to convince jury's they are obligated to vote in a certain way.

Another issue is understanding many maco issues can take literal years. I have a very rough understanding of how little I know when it comes to economics and I can not imagine I would be well suited to make decisions on economic policy's. I can not imagine 'the average person' doing very well on a great number of issues. It would also eliminate any pattern of 'the most fit' preforming the function intellectually.

Then there is the problem of accountability. Things like balancing a budget would become near impossible and I feel like money would get spent endlessly. Every time someone pushed a bill to help starving puppies or whatever the average persons empathy would push them to vote in favor but without individuals to be held responsible for balance I feel like it would push society to a point of collapse.

As Oops pointed out foreign policy would not function. I feel like a lot of foreign policy is just power structures deciding to work with or against etch other which would be problematic when you have removed the existence of a power structure.

Very interesting concept though. I like it much more than the ideas of outright voting in mass given how information manipulation seems to be the latest game.

---

AAahhh..
fiiiine, call me convinced. ;(

Gotta wait for our old and savior, the AI Overlord then! :>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Well, the video suggests people are programmed to reach strong decisions in groups rather than alone, and that our reasoning skills are designed to be shared with and contribute to other's thought process rather than built up in isolation.

---

I just noticed something I missed the first time me watching that video.

You can just look at what some people believe, then come up with reasons why they're right - and they'll love it. Politics. You can become a leader not by leading but by following the consensus.

Likewise, one might think that the internet can give a person as many different perspectives as never before in the history of humankind and that would make them smarter - right?
Wrong. It's easier than ever before to escape from accountability by finding places where everyone believes the same as you. People look for lone reasoners who can defend their intuitions for them. The reasons they give don’t have to be good just good enough so that can feel like justification exists.

The whole purpose of reasoning.


Everything we know about the credibility of lone reasoners suggests that leaders and those in charge everywhere should be held accountable by as many different perspectives as possible.

The more I think about it the more I feel like our world is governed by confirmation bias. I felt similar before and still am about cognitive dissonance. It's the same thing - just opposite.
But the feeling about cognitive dissonance was just "ok, I guess it's really hard for humans to change opinions".
Now the feeling is the whole social structure of the world is based on people confirmation biasing because humans are so stupid that idk how could we ever think that we're intelligent.

Politics is cringe so I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

I just noticed something I missed the first time me watching that video.

You can just look at what some people believe, then come up with reasons why they're right - and they'll love it. Politics. You can become a leader not by leading but by following the consensus.

Likewise, one might think that the internet can give a person as many different perspectives as never before in the history of humankind and that would make them smarter - right?
Wrong. It's easier than ever before to escape from accountability by finding places where everyone believes the same as you. People look for lone reasoners who can defend their intuitions for them. The reasons they give don’t have to be good just good enough so that can feel like justification exists.

The whole purpose of reasoning.


Everything we know about the credibility of lone reasoners suggests that leaders and those in charge everywhere should be held accountable by as many different perspectives as possible.

The more I think about it the more I feel like our world is governed by confirmation bias. I felt similar before and still am about cognitive dissonance. It's the same thing - just opposite.
But the feeling about cognitive dissonance was just "ok, I guess it's really hard for humans to change opinions".
Now the feeling is the whole social structure of the world is based on people confirmation biasing because humans are so stupid that idk how could we ever think that we're intelligent.

---

Yeah, it kinda is built on confirmation bias. The thing with everyone communicating and influencing eachother is everyone's opinions get gradually pulled closer together as they "settle around a mean average" and after a while people are just preaching to the choir. You end up with a massive lack of diversity of thought. Imagine a world where everyone is semi-isolated and forced to develop opinions for themselves. Opinions would probably be much less developed and cohesive in most people but there would be much greater variation. Even think about hundreds of years ago when different cultures had massively different attitudes from one another compared to today where everything is getting globalized and everyone is inundated with just a handful of the same cultural perspectives.

Even if people "fixed" social media to try and stop big tech "personalizing" your feed to only show you things that validate your worldview, the fundamental issue that this level of communication and interaction kills diversity would still remain. It's purely anecdotal, but the opinions younger people possess tend to be more coherent and conforming to a particular ideology rather than the erratic mishmash of random, personal ideas I often seem to get when talking to older people. It's ironic because you'd expect communication to create more ideas, and it definitely has that potential. But I think in practice it just seems to breed conformity as the most marketable ideas rise to the top and consume the others.

From that point of view, the current state of human thought where you appear to have all thought collapsing into a few ideologies whose borders are becoming increasingly pronounced and distant from one another might have been kind of inevitable.

That's a wildly anecdotal and whimsical take, and I don't even know whether this is a cohesive reply to what you wrote. I apologize if it isn't ^^.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Yeah, it kinda is built on confirmation bias. The thing with everyone communicating and influencing eachother is everyone's opinions get gradually pulled closer together as they "settle around a mean average" and after a while people are just preaching to the choir. You end up with a massive lack of diversity of thought. Imagine a world where everyone is semi-isolated and forced to develop opinions for themselves. Opinions would probably be much less developed and cohesive in most people but there would be much greater variation. Even think about hundreds of years ago when different cultures had massively different attitudes from one another compared to today where everything is getting globalized and everyone is inundated with just a handful of the same cultural perspectives.

Even if people "fixed" social media to try and stop big tech "personalizing" your feed to only show you things that validate your worldview, the fundamental issue that this level of communication and interaction kills diversity would still remain. It's purely anecdotal, but the opinions younger people possess tend to be more coherent and conforming to a particular ideology rather than the erratic mishmash of random, personal ideas I often seem to get when talking to older people. It's ironic because you'd expect communication to create more ideas, and it definitely has that potential. But I think in practice it just seems to breed conformity as the most marketable ideas rise to the top and consume the others.

From that point of view, the current state of human thought where you appear to have all thought collapsing into a few ideologies whose borders are becoming increasingly pronounced and distant from one another might have been kind of inevitable.

That's a wildly anecdotal and whimsical take, and I don't even know whether this is a cohesive reply to what you wrote. I apologize if it isn't ^^.

---

I like to believe it'd all become one eventually, and that's not a bad thing.

Maybe as a society we're not destined for doom in the long run after all.
But short term daily basis - we're destined for biased stupidity.

I hope I didn't contradict myself here.