Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Founders, investors, successful business owners and CEOs are more likely to show sociopathic behaviour than the average person next door.

They are the least competent group to be given power to shape any societal rules and contracts or to define how the humanity should look like.




Exactly. If anything, we need to transition to a democratic model based at least in part on sortition. Randomly selected citizens assemblies have already shown promise in Ireland, France, and elsewhere.


How do you ensure the people that are selected have any significant level of intelligence, or desire to better their country rather than just themselves, or have any applicable life experience or knowledge that would lead them to make good, wise, decisions? How can you ensure that if it's a random selection?


We don't ensure any of that currently for any of our politicians. In fact the system we have in place now has perverse incentives to ensure exactly the opposite, both on intelligence and self-interest.

So a purely random selection would seem like an improvement at this point.


It's the same as voting. You give everyone a vote because that is the least exploitable, fairest approach given the situation. You don't try to determine who is "most qualified to vote" because you end up with what the republicans are doing now. The likelihood that you accidentally recruit a power hungry dictator by virtue of his random selection to some position of power is much less than that individual maliciously seeking it of his/her own volition.


You don't ensure any of that anyways.


It doesn't matter if they have a significant level of intelligence or desire to better their country. That's the beauty of the system. If you have a large enough sample and a well-designed deliberative structure, even a group of average, self-interested individuals will be able to perform well.

The deliberative structure used is based on research into group decision-making, and is usually some form of system where people split into small discussion groups that engage in structured discussion, then present something to the broader group, then discuss again, then shuffle into different groups and repeat the process.

The fact that people are self-interested also doesn't pose a problem, so long as the sample is large enough. You probably want at least 100 for good measure, depending on the population being represented. Because it's a representative random sample (ideally it's not fully random, but weighted to represent population demographics), you get a broad slice of the population and therefore many competing interests. An individual may wish to further their own interests, but this would conflict with the interests of everyone else. Overall, the group's incentive is to do a good job, because they live in society and their decisions will affect them.


If sortition is used to select the members of a second legislative chamber, then we would expect the randomly chosen set of people to have the same average intelligence as the general population. This chamber would have the right to veto and suggest changes to legislation, but not initiate it or unilaterally change any laws.

Just as politicians may not be experts in the specific areas that they legislate on, the members of this second chamber would have the right to ask for input from specialists. This could be seen as an extension of the right that juries have in some states to ask questions of expert witnesses.

Even if, in practice, the second chamber end up mostly listening to advisers (or lobbyists) provided by the existing political parties, they would at least have to hear a variety of opinions, let's say in proportion to the partisan leanings of that chamber. This would eliminate gerrymandering and other problems like campaign financing.


Don't forget the most out of touch to the struggles of the majority of people.

Makes me think of Gwyneth Paltrow doing the food stamp challenge but ending up buying shit no person on food stamps would purchase.


>> Founders, investors, successful business owners and CEOs are more likely to show sociopathic behaviour than the average person next door.

This argument is being taken as a Gospel. Seems to be a work of people who gave us the Stanford Torture Experiment. Given 50% of the so called psych studies are not reproducible. Basing foundational changes on this kind, fast-food pop psy is not a great idea.

We have wisdom of thousands of years in the classics and religious texts, I would rely on them.


Classics and Religious texts suggest that stoning is an appropriate punishment for premarital sex, that bloodletting is a good cure for just about anything, that the earth is the center of the universe… I will take my chances with imperfect science.


Scientism is a religion, a modern one at it.


Saying X is Y without any evidence to support it is neither helpful nor convincing, unless it is self evident. Suggesting science is equivalent to religion is most certainly not evident. In fact, I’d argue the only evident thing about that statement is that it is incorrect.

There may be some people that misunderstand science, or who try to apply it outside of the regime where it is appropriate, and that is an issue (science can never answer the question: is an action moral, for instance).

But the institution of science is as far from religion as it can get. Religion asks you to believe things because an individual or a book tells you that it is so, and rewards those who take those statements on faith. Science, on the other hand, asks you to test a statement, to use the scientific method to attempt to falsify hypotheses, and through an interactive and iterative process improve your understanding of the phenomena in question.

That difference is why science has taught us more about the world in the last 400 years than religion has in 4000. Hell, science taught us more about the world in the last year than religion has since cavemen were drawing the sun on cave walls.

That’s not to say religion is useless or necessarily negative. It can be, just like any other institution. And frankly, there is just not that much overlap between the realms of religion and science. Science does not attempt to answer questions about the existence of god, or the morality of actions.

The issue is when religious people or organizations attempt to use their religion to answer questions about the physical world. That’s when science is needed.


They said "scientism", not "science". They're focusing on the social aspects of what you were saying:

> "Classics and Religious texts ... I will take my chances with imperfect science"

In fact, you directly disagree with one of the reasons you gave for "believing" in science:

> "science can never answer the question: is an action moral, for instance"

> "[religion said] stoning is an appropriate punishment for premarital sex"


A skeptic does not take pride in a 50% reproducibility of science.

Learn the distinction between knowledge and wisdom before lecturing about science.

Most important emotion the OP has to contend with jealousy. I myself am a bowl of mediocrity but I do not label every other success or successful person as a sociopath using garbage science.


Thousands of years in the classics and religious texts also point to "the rich fuck over everyone else; eat them".


And then there will be a new set of rich and powerful, cloaked in the robes of the new ideology, and wielding its power to destroy their enemies and solidify their hold on power. Including many of the people who led the last revolution. We see it pretty much every single time.


Give animals more food than they need and they will share it with their friends. This IS reproducible and points to sociopathic behavior in the wealthy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: