People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

"As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don't have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries."

"Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of governmentis merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.""

I think this was obvious but now that it is "scientifically explained" maybe we should evolve as a society before we evolve our social system.

It's a good thing we have scientist to tell us how stupid people are; but at least they have empirical evidence to support their claims.

Honestly with how readily available information is in this age, it's surprising how some people seem to be so reluctantly ignorant.

Tell me something I dont know......

Democracy always assumes the best of people. The early democratic thinkers (Locke, Paine, Rousseau) have an idea of man as a thinking, rational, free and smart being. This is far from the reality of the ignorant, stupid, irrational, nature of most people. The truth is most people dont even know what is good for them. Just watching democratic campaigns anywhere in the world will show you how people are so influenced by vague ideas or rhetoric.

I think we are slowly becoming the species that the democratic ideal assumes, however there are a lot of obstacles in the way such as religion, ignorance and the defence of the status quo that people often engage in.

Democracy = mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Republic ftw.

I came in here expecting an Onion article. Tis a sad day when satire turns to reality.

Which is why most countries have a Republic (or claim to). :|

Which is why most countries have a Republic (or claim to). :|

SpartanMSU

That is old news, the vast majority of people don't vote based on the actual principles of the party.
I've always vouched for a obligatory test to confirm whether the voter has knowledge about the party, saves the world some ridiculous voting cam pains and preventing dark room policies.

That is old news, the vast majority of people don't vote based on the actual principles of the party.
I've always vouched for a obligatory test to confirm whether the voter has knowledge about the party, saves the world some ridiculous voting cam pains and preventing dark room policies.

rastotm

There is truth in this assessment.... some 2 millenia after the Greek philosophers first pondered democracy, humanity as a whole remains every bit as immature.

There is truth in this assessment.... some 2 millenia after the Greek philosophers first pondered democracy, humanity as a whole remains every bit as immature.

Jinroh_basic

Fortunately there's no type of government that's better.

Fortunately there's no type of government that's better.

airshocker

Why is that a good thing?

I don't see how this is relevant in today's world since there is NO democracy on earth. If you are going to respond that the US is a democracy then don't waste your time and go back to school (I mean this nicely). But yes, in general people are very stupid, especially...well....mostly Americans.

I'd say people aren't involved and knowledgeable enough. It's not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of effort and access to information.

they effectively prevent lower-than-average leaders to win? i'm not so sure about that..

I don't see how this is relevant in today's world since there is NO democracy on earth. If you are going to respond that the US is a democracy then don't waste your time and go back to school (I mean this nicely). But yes, in general people are very stupid, especially...well....mostly Americans.

nightshade869

Sounds about right, the most mainstream candidate always wins :P

Thank God then that there are corporate interests behind the curtain pulling the strings, the leaders we elect definitely couldn't handle it.

It's often aptly demonstrated by people who make sweeping and erroneous generalizations . . .

sonicare

It's often aptly demonstrated by people who make sweeping and erroneous generalizations . . .

Why is that a good thing?

Blade8Aus

Because I get to keep my freedoms?

I think it is professional politicians that break the idea of democracy. We should go back to the lottery.

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why is that a good thing?

airshocker

Because I get to keep my freedoms?

So long as everyone else says you do.Minishdriveby

So long as my representatives say I do, actually.

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why is that a good thing?

airshocker

Because I get to keep my freedoms?

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Blade8Aus

Because there is nothing better? Nothing secures my freedoms like democracy does.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]So long as everyone else says you do.airshocker

So long as my representatives say I do, actually.

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

airshocker

Because there is nothing better? Nothing secures my freedoms like democracy does.

But why is it a good thing that there's nothing 'better' than democracy?

If the majority doesn't want you to have your freedoms you won't. dkdk999

If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes.

Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little.

But why is it a good thing that there's nothing 'better' than democracy?

Blade8Aus

I've already answered this.

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

airshocker

Because there is nothing better? Nothing secures my freedoms like democracy does.

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

But why is it a good thing that there's nothing 'better' than democracy?

airshocker

I've already answered this.

Then why do you need to have the right to vote, if it's potentially for the worse?

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Because there is nothing better? Nothing secures my freedoms like democracy does.

Anarchy secures total freedoms, even a dictator could ensure that you get all basic rights and still have a say in how the country should be run in theory.Crunchy_Nuts

No it doesn't.

As for the dictator, anything they say goes. That doesn't mesh well with freedoms. Barack Obama can't order a police officer to take me into a shed and shoot me. A dictator could.

Then why do you need to have the right to vote, if it's potentially for the worse?

Blade8Aus

Because voting gives me a say in how things are being run. As we saw in 2010, the democrats lost over 700 political positions nationwide. Democrats heard that message loud and clear.

This argument has the false assumption that this mass incompetence is inherently fixed in humanity. (If you don't believe me, read the title, which clearly connotes inevitability.) Their research only concerns social behavior, which is, to a great extent, a product of socialization, not just something set in stone. Ergo, improved education and increased political awareness are entirely viable solutions to this problem.

All this shows is that education and political awareness are necessary for a good democratic society.

Kinda goes hand in hand with my idea of freedom and liberty. I mean how Ron Paul says people should be free and have the liberty to do what they want without the government getting involved. My response to that is that a lot of people are to stupid to make the right decisions and that impacts the people around them. Their have been laws put in place for that exact reason; the stupid decisions people make will not only affect them but the ones around them and that isn't right. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility but the government should serve the purpose of not allowing people who make stupid mistakes affect the ones around them. To clarify, when I say the people around them, it doesn't necessarily mean the persons mother or daughter or brother etc. but also the guy you just hit with you car because you were talking on your cell phone. It doesn't apply to everything but the government should be involved in certain ways.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Crunchy_Nuts

Because there is nothing better? Nothing secures my freedoms like democracy does.

Pure democracy is chaos because of crowd dynamics.

If the people get so roused that they become irrational, then they start to make irrational, dangerous decisions.

Irrational, dangerous decisions always lead to disastrous consequences.

-

Anarchy is chaos because it is unequal.

Countries that aren't anarchic would easily trump any anarchic society, as governmental structure implies efficiency.

Bloated governments are inefficient...but small, focused governments are much more efficient than no governments at all.

-

Honestly, the only type of government that works is a representational government.

And as we've seen, dictators (even in the best of cases) haven't promoted a free and healthy society since the Roman Empire.

So the only remaining choice (for a representational government) is representative elections.

-

And it's true that representatives tend to pander to the lowest common denominator...promising people entitlements instead of focusing on maintaining an efficient infrastructure.

It seems like the only government structure that trumps all of them is a representative group of individuals who are completely rational.

This group of individuals only enacts what's best for maintaining a free, equal, fair, and healthy society.

But of course...that can never happen.

So it looks like we're stuck with representative elections for now.

Anarchy secures nothing. There is no law in anarchy, but having no law does not equate with having secured freedoms. sonicare

No it doesn't.

As for the dictator, anything they say goes. That doesn't mesh well with freedoms. Barack Obama can't order a police officer to take me into a shed and shoot me. A dictator could.airshocker

Yes and a republic could in theory choose to nuclear bomb itself too. Even with a dictator measures can be put in place to ensure that they do not can not cross the line and yet still have a single, focused leader.

Crunchy_Nuts

No, a Republic couldn't. And no, there's nothing to stop a dictator from doing whatever he wants.

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]

Yes and a republic could in theory choose to nuclear bomb itself too. Even with a dictator measures can be put in place to ensure that they do not can not cross the line and yet still have a single, focused leader.

airshocker

No, a Republic couldn't. And no, there's nothing to stop a dictator from doing whatever he wants.

Exactly.

The idea of a dictator just doesn't work because men with power tend to get overwhelmed by it.

You need a group of people wtih checks and balances...a representative oligarchy that always does what's best for the country.

And given the limitations of humans, that seems impossible.

Scientists say a bunch of BS things. Wonder what all the liberals are saying now, since apparently everything that scientists say is true acordding to them because of the "holy" scientific method. lmao

Pure democracy is chaos because of crowd dynamics.

If the people get so roused that they become irrational, then they start to make irrational, dangerous decisions.

Irrational, disastrous decisions always lead to disastrous consequences.

-

Anarchy is chaos because it is unequal.

Countries that aren't anarchic would easily trump any anarchic society, as governmental structure implies efficiency.

Bloated governments are inefficient...but small, focused governments are much more efficient than no governments at all.

peterw007

You're assuming that people have no idea what they want and that they inevitably drift towards the irrational. Even worse, you're assuming that people are always prone to becoming so dangerous and irrational as to cause great detriment to society. Your assumptions are entirely false, or at least very unrealistic. Surely, even if there are countless reckless and dangerous people in a pure democracy, there will also probably be many people who oppose the chaos and try to bring about order in society. After all, it is in their self-interest to live in peace. Moreover, it's not like caring and humanistic people are nonexistent.

Also, anarcho-collectivist organization can be very efficient. If you want a concrete example, read about the anarchist revolution in Catalonia.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]If the majority doesn't want you to have your freedoms you won't. airshocker

If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes.

Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little.

Scientists say a bunch of BS things. Wonder what all the liberals are saying now, since apparently everything that scientists say is true acordding to them because of the "holy" scientific method. lmao

kingkong0124

Also, if the main argument of this article were sound, then liberals would be the ones worrying, if anyone. In fact, they'd be the first to get upset.