Democracy needs ignorant people, says science

[wa3zrm]

You might think that democracies work best when people care and know about the key issues. But a new study argues that for a democracy to function at all, you need lots of ignorant people blindly siding with the majority.

That's the argument put forward by Princeton researcher Iain Couzin and his team, who make the argument that a fully informed electorate would collapse into an unworkable hodgepodge of minority factions or risk being dominated by a single forceful minority group. But if most voters don't really think about the issues, they will just tend to side with whoever is popular, allowing majority rule to continue and democracy to keep functioning. Yeah, you might want to check your last shreds of political idealism at the door for this one.
Couzin and his team argue for what we might call a sweet spot of ignorance. There needs to be just enough people who know anything about the issues to act as leaders for everyone else, but the majority disintegrates if there are too many viewpoints pulling in different directions. And while that seems to pretty aptly describe the last decade (at least) of American political discourse, I'd feel better if I knew just how the researchers arrived at their conclusions.
Why, by studying the behavior of fish, of course. Specifically, they looked at golden shiners, a species that is naturally attracted to the color yellow. …

(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...

[jet80]

more so on a communist country, you just have to accept what the leader gives you, how ignorant is that

[sgreger1]

The success of a democracy is directly tied to how educated the electorate is. Under any other circumstances, the smart people will quickly develope schemes to fool the stupid people into doing their bidding and voting against their own interests in favor of those that benefit the smart people. Voila, America in a nutshell.

[sirloot]

lol how many viewpoints can there be ? either your for _______ or against _______ or indifferent to _______ (fill in your own subject)

[sgreger1]

Modern democracies have figured out that it doesn't matter whether you have a voice or not if they can control whether your opinion is valid. Therefore, the stupider the electorate, the easier it is to control their opinions and therefore their votes.

[WolfenJack]

If you sell the illusion that if you work hard you can be (or at least buy) anything you want then the majority (masses) will be too busy chasing the next carrot to keep up with the issues. They call it capitalism. Funny how only very small minority of the people ever acheive that dream and when they do they end up screwing it up with drugs or sex scandals...and oh how we little people love to watch them fall! I guess I could do something about it, but I, like most Americans, don't want to give up the lifestyle I have become accustomed to, average as it may be. I am so conditioned that I actually enjoy my television and my laptop. It requires so much less of me than actually participating in real life. Could be worse, I could be a Native American, confined to a reservation. What would I think of democracy then?

[sgreger1]

If you sell the illusion that if you work hard you can be (or at least buy) anything you want then the majority (masses) will be too busy chasing the next carrot to keep up with the issues. They call it capitalism. Funny how only very small minority of the people ever acheive that dream and when they do they end up screwing it up with drugs or sex scandals...and oh how we little people love to watch them fall! I guess I could do something about it, but I, like most Americans, don't want to give up the lifestyle I have become accustomed to, average as it may be. I am so conditioned that I actually enjoy my television and my laptop. It requires so much less of me than actually participating in real life. Could be worse, I could be a Native American, confined to a reservation. What would I think of democracy then?

Luckily, Capitalism's race for the carrot leads to immense amounts of production and generally results in the most wealth for the most people (as well as the highest standard of living). Capitalism in all of it's follies still remains a million times better than any other system ever conceived by man. Look at every communist nation, destroyed, it's people living in hunger, or else they are really capitalists calling themselves something they are not. Like China, you think China is rich because of it's communist element? Lol, China has only succeeded because it embraced capitalism in the last few decades. Same with cuba! Look at the vast differences between North and South Korea. As always the capitalists (south) live in paradise whilst the communists (north) lay in famine. And even in places like N Korea who are so hardcore communists that they decry Russia for having "stabbed communism in the back", even they stay afloat by secretly having an underground capitalist society that exports things like ginsing to china whilst importing the basic necessities like socks and underwear, because the communist system is unable to provide for them. Like all communist countries, the capitalist element is the only thing keeping their economy afloat.


The "socialism" spoken about in sweden for example isn't real socialism, the government doesn't own the means of production, private property is allowed, business is allowed etc. It is all capitalism with other things blended in. But the one thing that makes every rich nation (and poor nation alike) any money is the idea of capitalism.

I defy you or anyone else to name one system that has worked more effectively in generating the most wealth for the most people. Sure, it doesn't distribute it equally, which is why we try to integrate socialist elements into it, but make no mistake, the idea of a man working and being paid a fair sum for his labor, or me selling something to you, is the basis of all modern society.

[Snusdog]

I think you will find that John Adam's foresaw our current dilemma and already had a solution for it.

JA (in opposition to Thomas Jefferson) maintained a restricted Republic

In other words, if you do not contribute............you do not vote

or in laymen’s terms

If you do not contribute to the pot by way of taxes..........you do not get a say in how the national funds are spent

and before you get cynical or go all bleeding heart on me

some 60 years ago there was no welfare...........people took care of people

There was accountability and care….council and insistence...........as well as handouts

People took care of people………….yes conmen would game the system…….but not for long……because caregiving was a personal endeavor
now we just throw impersonal money at the problem……..the check comes in the mail

Notice the result………………… you (who are reading this right now) don't have to care......the wellbeing of the person living just a mile form you is a mere concept………..a forum discussion......It is not a concrete reality that you have to deal with personally……..you don’t have time……….and besides.........that is what the government is for

Thus, in the name of humanity.......kindness.....and human rights...............we have become the most impersonal society in world history

No contribution…………….no vote

Love thy neighbor...........or verily……… he shalt steal thy food

[Snusdog]

Oh.............and by the way...........last I checked...............we are not a democracy

Dumbass Princeton boys.........but don't let me or 200 years of American history get in your little research project's way.................

[EricHill78]

I am one of the ignorant masses I'm not going to lie.

[sgreger1]

I think you will find that John Adam's foresaw our current dilemma and already had a solution for it.

JA (in opposition to Thomas Jefferson) maintained a restricted Republic

In other words, if you do not contribute............you do not vote

or in laymen’s terms

If you do not contribute to the pot by way of taxes..........you do not get a say in how the national funds are spent

and before you get cynical or go all bleeding heart on me

some 60 years ago there was no welfare...........people took care of people

There was accountability and care….council and insistence...........as well as handouts

People took care of people………….yes conmen would game the system…….but not for long……because caregiving was a personal endeavor
now we just throw impersonal money at the problem……..the check comes in the mail

Notice the result………………… you (who are reading this right now) don't have to care......the wellbeing of the person living just a mile form you is a mere concept………..a forum discussion......It is not a concrete reality that you have to deal with personally……..you don’t have time……….and besides.........that is what the government is for

Thus, in the name of humanity.......kindness.....and human rights...............we have become the most impersonal society in world history

No contribution…………….no vote

Love thy neighbor...........or verily……… he shalt steal thy food

Why that's because the system is all about whitey trying to keep me down by only allowing land owning folks to vote!

Lol, but really, it's a robbing peter to pay paul thing, when half the country doesn't pay income tax it's no surprise that they all vote for larger checks in the mail.

[Mordred]

And that's what's wrong with "science" these days. Too many people get funded to do nonsense research. I cringe whenever I read that A) has been "linked" to B). As if that means anything. If half of the resources spent on studies about cancer were actually spent on real science, looking at cells, DNA and experimental cures, we'd be much closer to a cure. But that actually requires you to know something, whereas everybody with Excell can make a study.

[justintempler]

Democracy only "works" when you have an informed public and in the case of a representative democracy when the lawmakers are informed.

The problem we have is:
People and lawmakers voting on issues they know nothing about, and in an effort to become informed they end up being educated by groups with "special interests".

i.e.
You don't know how to vote on an education issue so you listen to the teachers union to reach your decision.
The problem is the teachers union's goal may not be about what's best for educating our children but what's best for their own job security.
The result: The "informed" voter thinks he is supporting education but in reality is voting to protect the job security of teachers and not what is best for educating children.

If you want to understand the failings of Democracy I recommend a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Econ...4380469&sr=1-1

[sgreger1]

Democracy only "works" when ... in the case of a representative democracy, the lawmakers are informed.

This is the biggest flaw with our republic as it stands currently. The governing class have no idea about the issues they vote on. Look at SOPA ir Protect IP, the men voting on this admit they know little about how the internet works and yet they still refuse to be swayed when millions of young and middle aged people call them telling them they had better not support these bills. But they respond, "we have to stop the child pornographers and stop people stealing music, you wouldn't download a car would you!".

We have people voting on the internet who have never used it in their entire lives. This is the problem with our republican, our representatives can't represent us because they don't know or care what we want, they think that since they won the election they can just do whatever they want now regardless of what we think about it.


At least in a direct democracy you have to sway 300 million idiots as opposed to just a few hundred congressman.

[WolfenJack]

I defy you or anyone else to name one system that has worked more effectively in generating the most wealth for the most people. Sure, it doesn't distribute it equally, which is why we try to integrate socialist elements into it, but make no mistake, the idea of a man working and being paid a fair sum for his labor, or me selling something to you, is the basis of all modern society.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I think you areunder the assumption that I have some sort of solution in mind. On the contrary, I am simply complaining about the problem (like most good liberals do) LOL. I don't have the answer. It just seems that there must be a better way than this.

It's great to see folks weighing in on this topic. I enjoy seeing what others think.