Skip to comments.People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say
Posted on 02/28/2012 8:11:50 PM PST by Olog-hai
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. 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, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, 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.
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 dont have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
I’m pretty sure the sub-title to this article is “Scientists aren’t smart enough to come up with something better”
That’s why we’re an effing REPUBLIC!
He’s close. It’s that University Deans and boards aren’t smart enough to attract professors that have common sense.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.
“People” are smart enough, they are just ignorant of facts because they are busy trying to provide for their families and don’t have government grants paying their freight.
It’s all a case of rule of law versus rule of man. These “scientists” are obviously advocating for the latter.
I’ve heard that one before. What’s the standing of sheep and wolves in a republic, again?
So that’s why we got Obama when it was so obvious?
1. no resume
2. been in the Senate for two years
3. most left record in Senate (Do you want this guy to be President of ALL the people?) ah... NO!!!!!!
4. won over hillary by being the “anti-war” candidate because
he was in state senate in 2003
A monkey could have figured out what a disaster Obama would be.
Even if you are FOR single payer, did you really want one party social
change, the total overturning of the House, and a near Civil War,
and the Supreme COurt hearing for 6 hours Obamacare???
What an A-HOLE we have as President.
What an A-HOLE.
at least FDR was a war leader.
LOL, probably the same. It would just take longer with bipartisan support.
That’s it, I’m in, sign me up for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Wait, isn’t that like democracy except only the union leaders get to vote? I guess we’ll gust have to follow King Obama, he’ll know what to do.
This is why government should be as limited as possible.
This is why government should be as limited as possible. The markets can handle the rest.
Even if government were composed of super-geniuses, it would become rampantly dysfunctional. Problems of bounded rationality, etc. make every sort of central planning unsustainable.
Only have to take a look at the technocracy over in Europe to verify that.
Uh, hate to bring this up, but the USA is a Republic, not a democracy.
If you read the article, it attacks the republican form of government and its processes as well.
Actually it sounds like they are describing our current administration. We must vote them out as soon as possible since they are “incompetent people”!
“Thats it, Im in, sign me up for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat”
As long as I can be The Dictator then I’m fine with it. Otherwise, we’re gonna have to make other arrangements. ;-)
This is verwy series.
Wad we gonna do nows?
I know...we does coin flip!
This how we pick which scientist dude get to pick leader!
MY Bad. I forgot to thank you for the thread. My apologies to you.
My comments were directed only at the author of the article.
I did read the article twice, but found no mention of a republic or of a republic style of government.
I thought that the last paragraph revealed the author’s true interests.