Would people here please learn to read an entire article that’s been linked to instead of taking the title of it as if it really summarized the article? Furthermore, would people please learn that an article about a scientific theory often isn’t an accurate explanation of that theory? At no point have Dunning and Kruger ever said that people aren’t smart enough for democracy to flourish. That’s merely the headline of the article. Dunning and Kruger’s theory isn’t about democracy at all. It’s about the inability of people to accurately estimate the extent of their knowledge of a subject. Even Matto Nagel, whose research is quoted in the article and who does talk about democracy, doesn’t say that democracy can’t flourish. What he says is that it won’t be the cure-all that it’s claimed to be by some people. He says that it will eliminate some of the worst of the candidates, but it’s not good for distinguishing between so-so candidates and truly good ones.
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
Would people here please learn to read an entire article that’s been linked to instead of taking the title of it as if it really summarized the article? Furthermore, would people please learn that an article about a scientific theory often isn’t an accurate explanation of that theory? At no point have Dunning and Kruger ever said that people aren’t smart enough for democracy to flourish. That’s merely the headline of the article. Dunning and Kruger’s theory isn’t about democracy at all. It’s about the inability of people to accurately estimate the extent of their knowledge of a subject. Even Matto Nagel, whose research is quoted in the article and who does talk about democracy, doesn’t say that democracy can’t flourish. What he says is that it won’t be the cure-all that it’s claimed to be by some people. He says that it will eliminate some of the worst of the candidates, but it’s not good for distinguishing between so-so candidates and truly good ones.
[/QUOTE]
The flaw(s) I see are that there is a ‘better’ position (i.e. empirically better), and that it matters somehow. We, The People, elected GW Bush, who was an idio…er, who was suboptimal as a President. Last time I checked, the country was still here (it was still here after Carter as well…and pretty much every other president that was considered by a large non-zero number of voters to be suboptimal as well). Why? Well, because the President is basically just a titular head. He didn’t/doesn’t NEED to be an expert on tax theory, or economics. He simply had to nominate folks who were. Granted, he nominated experts that had a specific political view point…which is pretty much in line with the folks who voted for him (not once, but twice). The same goes for the most idiotic candidate running today. They might actually BE idiots, but the structure of our system is such that it limits the amount of harm any individual can do (in the case of the President by, if nothing else, the fact that they can only have two terms). There is a whole under the hood structure in place to support the President…literally a cast of thousands who provide and present the information that he or she (hopefully someday) uses to make their decisions. What we all vote for is a candidate that most closely matches our political and perhaps world view point among the various candidates. Anyone who votes for a politician with the misguided concept that these folks are experts at ANYTHING, or even that they should be, is more of an idiot than the candidate they are voting for.
Yeah, I only skimmed the article. However, the main thrust did seem to be that people are unable to distinguish between narrowly and vertically specialized initiatives such as tax law. Well, there is a shocker. I’m educated, but my education is in a very narrowly specialized field (IT…and within that I’m specifically an infrastructure engineer, with only a good knowledge of systems, or security, or a bunch of the other narrow specializations in my own field). And guess what? The folks who DO know a lot about tax law, or economics (narrowly specialized in a few aspects of that broad field) most likely don’t know dick about data networks…or myriad other things. The job of the President, or of the average congress-critter isn’t to BE a narrow, vertical specialist…but, instead, to be a politician, able to have some sort of political vision, the ability to convey that vision to us ignorant schlubs in the weeds, and, if elected, to hire a team of vertical specialist experts to tell them what they can, in reality, actually do.
THAT’S why democracy works. Better than anything tossed up thus far, as an effective way of governing. Which is why it’s flourished, despite the fact that at no point in the past, or today, have the majority of the folks out there voting really been well educated in the myriad fields necessary to make informed decisions concerning highly specialized and vertical fields like tax law or economics.
-XT
I would say that a better example would be the FDA. Making sure farmers, corporations, restaurants, pharmacies, drug manufacturers, and other people who make a profit on the things you put into your body have standards they need to meet before being allowed to sell something is important to me. Making sure that all of those people and companies know that if they don’t meet those standards they will be punished is important to me too. Before 1906 a company could cram a bunch of random crud into a jar and sell it as strawberry jam even if no strawberry had ever come near it or doctor rancid meat or eggs to mask the smell and sell it as a fresh product.
Safety standards are necessary in almost every industry. For example, without them airlines can force employees to fly without proper rest periods and endanger the lives of their passengers and crew. Making sure a company can’t endanger their customers for a profit is one of the most valuable things government can do IMO.
The proper level of regulation is debatable. When a heavily regulated and subsidized industry implodes, it is not an example of market failure.
It is an often expressed sentiment, but is a statement of faith, not fact.
[QUOTE=Terr]
It is an often expressed sentiment, but is a statement of faith, not fact.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, then you should have no trouble supporting this assertion with historical fact, yes? So, which form of government in the history of humanity has, over multiple instances, been as successful as the various flavors of democracy? With the facts on your side you should be able to easily put down this dastardly assertion of faith, right?
-XT
Historical fact? No. But it wasn’t claimed to be “best system in history”. It was claimed to be “best system” period. That’s a statement of faith.
Here is the original quote from WC: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
So, yeah, he meant ‘worst system in history…except all of the others’. If you have some counters that this is incorrect, I urge you to provide it. I’m no history expert, but I can’t think of any other SYSTEM that has been anywhere near as successful, unless longevity is the prime requisite. If you can think of any then feel free…otherwise, it seems like it’s both a catchy phrase AND fairly accurate as well, at least for some definitions of ‘best’ (or ‘worst, except all others’).
-XT
I was not replying to “WC”.
I can think of one that I think is better. But no, it has not been tried.
[QUOTE=Terr]
I was not replying to “WC”.
[/QUOTE]
Um…that’s where the quote originally came from, and what the poster was referring too. Seriously…did you not know that it was from Winston Churchill?? (I’m assuming you DID know who ‘WC’ was of course)
So, no then. That would mean it’s NOT a faith based assertion, while your own that hasn’t been tried is purely theoretical at this point, never having been tried. Correct?
-XT
Yes, amazingly, I do know who Winston Churchill is. And I was not replying to Winston Churchill or to his quote, as you may have noticed but ignored.
Wrong. Since the statement did not qualify the “best system”, yes, it is a faith-based statement. BTW, that’s how most people quote this, no matter how “WC” stated it.
Ah…so, you knew where the quote came from, but decided to just address the poster who paraphrased it as if you didn’t, and as if it came right out of the blue. Yeah…that makes perfect sense. 
[QUOTE=Terr]
Wrong. Since the statement did not qualify the “best system”, yes, it is a faith-based statement. BTW, that’s how most people quote this, no matter how “WC” stated it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, because most people paraphrasing it really don’t know who ‘WC’ is, no doubt…and pretend like it’s really not a quote from him, but instead comes engraved on stone tablets handed down by smelly nomads with long beards. Or something.
At any rate, since you have no counter examples that indicate that it IS a faith based assertion, and instead want to play semantic games, I think leaving it there would be the wisest course…though the irony of the threads subject juxtaposed with this digression certainly has given me a chuckle or two tonight. Thanks for that…it’s been a grim couple of weeks for me, and a good chuckle is almost as priceless as something you can’t get with a VISA card…
-XT
I respond to posters. Not to Winston Churchill. You may reply to Winston Churchill if you prefer.
I am willing to bet that out of 10 people who say it, 9 will not know on whose quote they are supposedly basing it on.
xtisme, your comments in post #42, regardless of whether they are right or not, have little or nothing to do with the point of the article and with the point of the research of Dunning, Kruger, and Nagel. So what was the point of quoting my post? I suggested that people should actually read the article (and, even better, should read some more about the Dunning-Kruger Effect). Your post, in effect, said that you don’t actually care about anybody’s OP, so you feel free to ignore them and post about a different subject. You seem to think that your opinions are so valuable that you can’t be bothered reading any links people give, since the time you spend writing your posts is so much more valuable to us than the time you might spend trying to understand anyone else’s point.
I submit that when an entire industry implodes that be the definition of market failure.
I would point out that trying to persuade a Free Marketeer (which includes most Libertarians) that a market has failed is pointless, since it is an article of faith to them that market failure is impossible.
Of course you also have to define what ‘failure’ means. Many people made out like bandits, so to them it was hardly a market failure.
One person’s “market failure” is another person’s inefficient and unsustainable system correcting itself.
Only if the industry was was being allowed to operate as the market dictated, which no way was true before the crash. It was a crisis made in Washington DC, not Wall Street.
I would argue that the FDA is about the worst possible argument you could make, to support this notion.
- Even libertarian-leaning folks like myself would agree that some sort of governmental mechanism is needed when significant negative externalities exist, to forgo the Tragedy of the Commons.
No such thing exists when it comes to putting food or drugs in your own body.
Company A proposes to sell a food or drug to Party B (you) and the effects are borne by you, and you alone. There are no costs imposed on any Party C, who was not privy to the original transaction.
So there is no need to “vote” or delegate control of the transaction to anyone else - government or otherwise. You have 100% control over the decision.
- If you really, really like the advice the FDA provides, you are free to take it voluntarily. Follow their advice and guidelines to the letter, if you so desire.
Others may not wish to do so. In fact, people travel outside the USA all of the time to purchase drugs or medical procedures that are not allowed in the USA. So clearly, there are those amongst the citizenry who do not like the mandates, enforceable by law at the point of a gun, that the FDA imposes on America.
- The FDA is an unelected bureaucracy. There is no way to “vote” out the FDA, or its leaders, or change its budget or rules. It’s about the worst possible governmental body you can create if you as a citizen don’t like what it does to your freedom and options…because there is no way to change it.
Your language above seems to suggest that companies can “force” you as a customer to do this or that. No such force exists. You have 100% control over all of the transactions that you describe in your post above, by choosing (or not choosing) to participate.
The only legal use of force in the United States is the province of government.
The information asymmetry between the consumer and the food producers doesn’t bother you at all?