Scientists Say People Aren't Smart Enough For Democracy To Flourish

cold fjord writes "The inability of the incompetent to recognize their own limitations is a story that has been covered before on Slashdot. But, what happens when you apply that finding to politics? From the article: 'The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. The research shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. If people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments...democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."'"

Comments

Way to post a story that's 2700 years old.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Republic

Re:As Winston Churchill Said

[Nimey]

He also said that the best argument against democracy is a 15-minute conversation with the average voter.

Well, it's sorta like this

[Moraelin]

The first problem is that most people just aren't knowledgeable of advanced theory and precedents in any domain. That's not to say they're "dumb" or "stupid", just that they don't know everything, because nobody can know everything.

Basically, unless you're a physicist, imagine that you had to pick which form of energy supply should you back for interstellar travel. Should we pursue producing anti-matter (which can store incredibly much energy, but is so ridiculously ineffective to produce that we'll need several breakthroughs before it's even feasible to use like in Star Trek) or should we go with micro-black-holes and Hawking radiation, basically harnessing the incredible energy released as a small enough black hole evaporates? Both actually pack the same joules per kilogram, because at the end of it, both will have converted mess into energy as per e=mc^2. Maybe the black hole promises a bit less losses.

But anyway, imagine you had to vote on which of the two should get a trillion dollars in research grants to get us off this piece of rock before some mass extinction event gets us.

Now that's not to say that you're dumb or anything. You're a smart and educated person, and perfectly capable of rational thought and logical decisions. But unless you're a physicist, you won't know enough to understand what the choices are, much less to pick the best. They get a physicist proponent of each of the two to explain until they're blue in the face, but chances are even after a year you still won't know enough to make an informed choice.

Now worse yet, imagine that it's not just YOU who gets a vote, but also that hippie chick who only heard of "quantum" in some bogus quantum chi crystal pendants she wears. And that dude who actually believes that the universe is less than 6000 years old and less than 6000 light years across, because the bible says so. Yeah, I wouldn't rely on him to estimate the amount of energy for star travel correctly, when he literally believes that everything is three million times closer than the scientists think. And millions of other woefully unqualified people.

You probably see how the result of that vote will be no closer to picking the right one, than flipping a coin.

And those are probably the worst, because, quoth Bertrand Russell, "[i]The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.[/i]" YOU, if you're not a physicist, and are all that smart and educated, will probably realize, "wait, why are they asking me? I don't know enough to judge that." Whereas the guy who thinks "quantum" is the mystical force in his new crystal pendants he bought from some dodgy site, will actually be more likely to think he knows enough about it.

In effect, it's just Dunning-Kruger in action. The less you actually know, the more you'll grossly overestimate what you know.

And it's really getting worse for topics where everyone thinks they know something about, like economics. You'll find very few people who actually understand what, say, Keynesian vs Austrian School economics say. Or to what extent they even make testable predictions. Or to what extent they were ever actually tested.

But you'll find a LOT of people who think they know EXACTLY which theory will fix the economy, and furthermore, which candidate has the best grip on it, and exactly what they should do differently about it too.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with letting people vote on it.

Re:Easy

[buchner.johannes]

"incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people"

Not sure why it took "research" to understand this. I thought everyone knew this.

The idea of the effect they showed was that this:
  - Competent workers estimate e.g. effort for a project more correct, and conservatively. They understand difficulties and feel less sure about difficult projects. They are more competent in evaluating the work of others, and understand what they don't understand about a project.
  - Incompetent (less experienced) workers underestimate the effort for a project and feel sure of their abilities to achieve it (more than they should). They are less good in evaluating others, and don't see any areas where they don't have the expertise to make judgements.

Combining the two, incompentent or simple untrained workers (e.g. secretaries) will not delegate problematic areas to experts. The chain of judgement/delegation ends at incompetent people. here is the previous research

There is a danger in governments that "small" officials think they can solve issues without consulting experts because of this effect, and a half-assed solution is the result.

Of course it is difficult to judge for an outsider whether a politician will be a good leader and can work well once elected into a certain position. But that's why we vote for parties and directions, and not for individual people.

Re:Not smart Enough?

[Kjella]

He could have been right at the bottom of his class, and taking the easiest classes possible, for all we know.

For all you know, I don't think you graduate magna cum laude being bottom of your class. And as relevant to the topic: QED.

Re:Not smart Enough?

[JustNilt]

before spouting off about it.

There are other parts that apply but this is pretty specific:

(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.

I'm not entirely sure but you may have just demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger Effect nicely. :)

Re:Not smart Enough?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

They pay sales tax on everything they buy.
They pay property tax on any land they own or rent and most pay some form of property tax on any vehicle they own too.
They also pay income tax in the form of employer-side SSI.