Asklemmy

43943 readers

893 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Do you have a form of government you invented/conceived, either as an idea or for fiction (or a favorite from someone else)? How does it work? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As kids, we're told only people who go to college/university for politics/economics/law are qualifiable to make/run a country. As adults, we see no nation these "qualified" adults form actually work as a nation, with all manifesto-driven governments failing. Which to me validates the ambitions of all political theorist amateurs, especially as there are higher hopes now that anything an amateur might throw at the wall can stick. Here's my favorite from a friend.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Double blind is great in science where a finite and known set of variables are being tested.

Real life policy-making does not have the benefit of involving a finite and known set of variables.

Generally speaking, I think it’s important to understand the distinction between a logical calculation of a finite (hence calculable) system, versus the phenomenological reality of navigation in the world, which by its nature always involves more information than one can be capable of articulating.

Sorry if that sounds eggheadish. I don’t know how to say it otherwise without expanding it into a huge wall of text.

Beyond the known and articulated, there is the known and unarticulated. For example “How to make cookies” can be conveyed in finite words (a recipe), but “How to catch a baseball” can be conveyed only through practice.

Systems such as you’re describing are good for handling articulated competency, such as the cookie recipe. But I fear that “making good decisions about what to do” isn’t something that can be conveyed merely in words.

This seems to me to be related to the idea of a “double blind” scenario, in that in order to “blind” the parties one needs to know what information is valid to consider and what information isn’t.

[–] thenextguy 1 points 3 months ago

The blind part is just around name, gender, race, ... but prior experience and education would clearly be important to know.

I know my idea has many flaws, and I didn't propose it seriously. But I really like the idea of removing popularity and money and cronyism from the path for choosing people to represent us and run our government. It should be a temp job and a responsibility and not a career.