Can stupid people make legitimate political decisions about complicated stuff?

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

I don't think so and I don't think the movers and shakers of the world think so either.

I have come to appreciate just how worthless my opinions are over the years due to having a mediocre intellect. It made me wonder how modern democracy could ever be taken seriously.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

You are so right, the smart people will never allow the stupid majority to rule the world. Therefore they invented the representative democracy. Is cheaper and more effectiv than dictaturships. What is the inbuilt intelligence test? Only smart people are rich and the best of all worlds is ruled by money.

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

You are so right, the smart people will never allow the stupid majority to rule the world. Therefore they invented the representative democracy. Is cheaper and more effectiv than dictaturships. What is the inbuilt intelligence test? Only smart people are rich and the best of all worlds is ruled by money.

Yes, there is no point in participating if you know you are not in the genius category. Your opinions will never be anything other than the carefully designed framework of arguments the smarter psychopathic people will have planted in the various media and thought organs they control. People start from different places so wealth isn't a perfect reflection of salient abilities but in an evil darwinian world it is definitely the only test that matters. Benevolent dictatorships probably did exist at one point. Too bad humanity is way past that peak of civilization. The best thing that could happen now is if everything was exterminated.

 

[ma0]

Not from my experience no, for them it mostly boils down to "I support this person" with no further elaboration.

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

Not from my experience no, for them it mostly boils down to "I support this person" with no further elaboration.

Yeah people just identify with one side or team and then they are manipulated into getting worked up over what are often unimportant issues. Once their identity is heavily invested in one team they are usually forever lost, manipulated and played like a fiddle by the puppeteers all the way to the grave.

 

[ATownSerenity]

I can't blame the people. They're victims of years of propaganda.

 

[moya117]

maybe? but for me, im stupid myself and i don't think i can make political decisions, especially stuff that will effect everyone. i do know whats "good and wrong" and im entitled to my own opinion but eh political decisions... especially that effect other ppl... i can't take risk...

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

I can't blame the people. They're victims of years of propaganda.

This is true. It has been going on for centuries but really ramped up since ww2.

 

[SecretDissociation]

Absolutely not, unless there is a formula for these 'stupid' people to follow, that leads them to the correct decision. Stupid peple can't make good or correct decisions because they wouldn't have the logic, and common sense to. Kind of like getting old, you get stupid (whether willingly or unwillingly, see: Trump).

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

I really do hope the smarter winners stop pretending democracy is a valid model sometime in the near future. If they're not psychos they'll find a way of quietly lulling the inferiors to sleep and then, while they are sleeping, death.

 

[Carrot]

I think the answer is yes. I don't think it's about stupidity. I'd like to believe that most people are reasonable and can understand that getting along is best for everybody overall. I think the issue is that some smart people are evil and manipulate others, deliberately misinform for years. The "stupidity" is manufactured by those who benefit from doing that. If people make their choices based on incorrect information (which somebody spread for some reason, financial or other), then good luck.. We would need to prevent this from happening in the first place. And we haven't been doing a good job at it.

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

I think the answer is yes. I don't think it's about stupidity. I'd like to believe that most people are reasonable and can understand that getting along is best for everybody overall. I think the issue is that some smart people are evil and manipulate others, deliberately misinform for years. The "stupidity" is manufactured by those who benefit from doing that. If people make their choices based on incorrect information (which somebody spread for some reason, financial or other), then good luck.. We would need to prevent this from happening in the first place. And we haven't been doing a good job at it.

Wouldn't that also mean that there is no reason for having a democracy? People would just come to agreement about getting along. Whoever the final decision maker would be would be reasonable and everyone else would trust their reasonableness. Has modern democracy ever amounted to voting for a party or leader who agrees with the other parties and leaders? If it is just disinformation and misinformation that nullifies the purported benefits of democracy then I guess that has been going on from the beginning. It''s way too late to stop that crazy train now.

And what about complicated issues that overlap with economics and monetary or fiscal policy? Or evaluating the best legal or constitutional framework that would be objectively best overall so that everyone can get along? I am not convinced it could ever happen even without misinformation. Even with good faith mediators for different issues there will be disagreements. How do people arrive at an opinion of how to resolve them? Through more experts and mediators? Why bother having the plebs involved at all? I guess there are ways of making it work better than a dictatorship but it's still based on the big lie that the plebs make their own decisions rather than being guided toward decisions that others made for them. And at this point I'm not even sure it is better than a dictatorship.

 

[Carrot]

When I answered 'yes' to the title question, I was thinking of a different thing. I think that most people are capable of understanding politics on a basic level (that should but isn't taught in schools, at least not when I was in school). You don't need "stupid" (a bit too simplistic word) people in power understanding and making decisions about complicated stuff,, you need to teach people about how and why not to vote a certain type of people in.

I really do hope the smarter winners stop pretending democracy is a valid model sometime in the near future. If they're not psychos they'll find a way of quietly lulling the inferiors to sleep and then, while they are sleeping, death.

What is a better system? Democracy, despite many flaws, is the best system we have ever had.

Ideally you would have a "good" person as a dictator, but that just doesn't happen. Giving enourmous power to a single person with no consequences for their actions does not end well eventually. Take a look at some of the dictatorships in the world and you should see their issues, people have no way to change it other than through a bloody revolution. In a democracy you can vote people out, so they have a reason to care about the people (if they already genuinely care about others no matter what, that's great and the best case scenario. if they don't really care about others, they still are encouraged to care about others too for personal gain - this is not ideal, but still better than a dictatiorship).

One problem I see is that dictatorships around the world try to dismantle other democracies, make you think it's bad or inefficient and spread misinformation. I can say that 1+1=3 and I will not get punished in any way. No fine. No prison. This one is relatively harmless, but some misinformation may not be. And I see people in power say things that are obviously false and that is very concerning, some people believe that and that is very concerning. And even if every country was a democracy, there would still be some people who try to game the system and try to end up in dictatorships. Democracy, by default, is in decline unless taken care of. Evil wins by default.

I do not wish anybody to end up in a dictatorship. To be at a whim of a single or a small group of people is scary. You never want to be ruled by some small group of people. And if you think that one person would be reasonable, good, well meaning then that is not necessarily true. Just take a look at some of the worst dictatorships in the world. You only need one failed dictatorship to cause a lot of issues and harm, not only to that country but others as well.

And I think that a "stupid" (which is a terrible word, but I go by the title) person can understand that.

 

[SVEN]

If this is the world the alleged "smart" people have created I'd say it's time to give us thickos a go.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

So you're saying that you're stupid and therefore incapable of making legitimate political decisions, yet you confidently state that stupid people, such as yourself, should not be allowed to make political decisions, such as deciding that stupid people should not be allowed to make political decisions. Curious.

Mostly joking, but I thought it was worth pointing out since no one else has.

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

So you're saying that you're stupid and therefore incapable of making legitimate political decisions, yet you confidently state that stupid people, such as yourself, should not be allowed to make political decisions, such as deciding that stupid people should not be allowed to make political decisions. Curious.

Mostly joking, but I thought it was worth pointing out since no one else has.

Yeah that's partly why I also only share my sub-par thoughts on a suicide forum.

When I answered 'yes' to the title question, I was thinking of a different thing. I think that most people are capable of understanding politics on a basic level (that should but isn't taught in schools, at least not when I was in school). You don't need "stupid" (a bit too simplistic word) people in power understanding and making decisions about complicated stuff,, you need to teach people about how and why not to vote a certain type of people in.



What is a better system? Democracy, despite many flaws, is the best system we have ever had.

Ideally you would have a "good" person as a dictator, but that just doesn't happen. Giving enourmous power to a single person with no consequences for their actions does not end well eventually. Take a look at some of the dictatorships in the world and you should see their issues, people have no way to change it other than through a bloody revolution. In a democracy you can vote people out, so they have a reason to care about the people (if they already genuinely care about others no matter what, that's great and the best case scenario. if they don't really care about others, they still are encouraged to care about others too for personal gain - this is not ideal, but still better than a dictatiorship).

One problem I see is that dictatorships around the world try to dismantle other democracies, make you think it's bad or inefficient and spread misinformation. I can say that 1+1=3 and I will not get punished in any way. No fine. No prison. This one is relatively harmless, but some misinformation may not be. And I see people in power say things that are obviously false and that is very concerning, some people believe that and that is very concerning. And even if every country was a democracy, there would still be some people who try to game the system and try to end up in dictatorships. Democracy, by default, is in decline unless taken care of. Evil wins by default.

I do not wish anybody to end up in a dictatorship. To be at a whim of a single or a small group of people is scary. You never want to be ruled by some small group of people. And if you think that one person would be reasonable, good, well meaning then that is not necessarily true. Just take a look at some of the worst dictatorships in the world. You only need one failed dictatorship to cause a lot of issues and harm, not only to that country but others as well.

And I think that a "stupid" (which is a terrible word, but I go by the title) person can understand that.

What sorts of things do you think some people who one should know not to vote into power and/or dictators say that are false? I am sure they have sources and arguments for whatever they say. Maybe you are smart and consequently have reason to believe you've unpacked everything so that you can be sure of what is accurate and what isn't but most people just choose a side based on a fabricated identity and then believe what they are told to think of as more ethical and accurate by the smart people who advocate for that side. They use media to pass on their approved versions of reality and ethical choices. Are you able to go farther and fact check everything? I'm not and I don't think most people are either.

In my opinion, some dictatorships could function as well or better than what I see as fake and unnecessary democratic systems but there would have to be an ideal that motivates them to act for the good of their country. Too much pluralism also makes it harder to address competing interests so it would probably only work in a more homogenous society than what we currently have in "the west".

 

[avoid]

I don't think intelligence is the only factor based on which to disqualify people from voting for a democratic representative. Smart people can be misled too no matter how capable they are of critical thinking. And should people who take no real interest in politics be allowed to vote? And when politicians misrepresent facts or accuse each other of lying: how much time will you invest in trying to discover the truth for your single vote to count?

If the question is "who to allow or deny a vote" then I think voting should be restricted to people who pass a small exam of non-politically biased questions, by which I mean questions with answers proven to be factually true. Just a 5-question exam on a computer at a government location when you renew your ID every x years. The questions can range from significant historical events, to easy math problems, to understanding the political system, to pattern recognition. The point of the exam is not to restrict voting to an elite group of people but to exclude those who lack elementary knowledge. Ideally, the exam should also weed out people who are susceptible to common misbelieves, but questions on such topics (examples) may result in controversy.

Most countries already limit certain groups from voting in elections. The most common limitation is age because children and teenagers tend to lack a sufficient understanding of political, social, and economic issues. And some countries prohibit mentally incompetent individuals from voting in elections for the same reason underage people cannot vote: a lack of understanding. My point is that there's already a bar to clear before you're eligible to vote, and taking an exam would raise this bar to a higher level and hopefully prevents people from believing politicians that peddle lie.

TL;DR
"Stupid people" can't make a complex political decision. But their opinion is worth a vote during elections, provided they're not gullible enough to believe misconceptions that are thoroughly debunked many times over. Maybe voting should be a privilege earned by passing an exam.

 

[Carrot]

What sorts of things do you think some people who one should know not to vote into power and/or dictators say that are false? I am sure they have sources and arguments for whatever they say. Maybe you are smart and consequently have reason to believe you've unpacked everything so that you can be sure of what is accurate and what isn't but most people just choose a side based on a fabricated identity and then believe what they are told to think of as more ethical and accurate by the smart people who advocate for that side. They use media to pass on their approved versions of reality and ethical choices. Are you able to go farther and fact check everything? I'm not and I don't think most people are either.

In my opinion, some dictatorships could function as well or better than what I see as fake and unnecessary democratic systems but there would have to be an ideal that motivates them to act for the good of their country. Too much pluralism also makes it harder to address competing interests so it would probably only work in a more homogenous society than what we currently have in "the west".

i don't like smart vs stupid in term, but I was going with the title.

When I say "people", I mainly mean politicians here.

1. Do people lie or keep changing their mind? That is not a good sign. Having an open mind and being able to change based on ebidence and facts is a good quality though.
2. Do people care about facts? Or just make things up however it fits them?
3. Are people able to admit when they are wrong? Nobody is constantly correct, everybody makes mistakes.
3. Are people consistent in their views? Sometimes I see news of some commited crime and some people instantly think of their nationality or skin color without any evidence. Even worse, they might use some argument (he is from country X, I knew it), but if it doesn't fit their views they don't say such thing (he is from the same country as me, but you can't judge a whole country based on the crime of one person). Make up your mind and stick to it.
4 Do people follow what they say, preach? Many people in power claim they are religious (christian), but their actions don't seem to follow. Even those who truly believe in a religion can make mistakes, but sometimes it's obvious when they are not. Theh expect you to follow some rules with a promised reward after death, but they don't follow those rules themselves. Strange.
5. Do people actually answer the question? In politics the answer often is no and we should call them out. This is also true when corporate representetives talk. For me this is obvious, many people blindly believe what others say in good faith, but there are plenty of bad actors in the world.
6. Teach about manipulation and scams in schools. I fell for something incredibly trivial at some point in my life. It won't happen again. People fall for stuff at different ages.
7. Do people blame others all the time instead of fixing the problem? Blame, blame, blame. Fine. Even if they are correct (which often they are not), what are they going to do about it? Will it really fix the problem?

These are some things to watch out for. I understand that people don't have time to verify everything and stick to their bubbles, but there is something wrong when "sides" say the opposite thing. One has to be incorrect. Maybe we should start punishing those who lie, including media.

I can also bring up Timothy Snyder, "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century", who brings up interesting points. It's fairly short and ideally should be watched with full attention.


I'd prefer to not give actual examples but you can look at countries like Russia, North Korea (those two should be obvious) and China (less obvious, but they support Russia for a start). If you allow one or small group of people to rule, it really doesn't end well. They want you to believe democracy can't work.

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

I would be in favour of punishing the notoriously sadisitc liars who've taken power.

Especially agree about revising facts and opinions based on "evidence"...

In the end the question is "do you trust those who rule over you", regardless of the political model. In most democraties most people will answer yes even though they shouldn't. So that seems like a successful model. For those in power. Then there are they others who, no matter what "freedoms" they are supposedly granted are curiously never happy. They should probably answer no to that question but then they need to figure out why it got so bad and that forces them to question certain quasi religious beliefs they have been trained never to question. That's not humanity anymore. It's cattle and the black box can never be opened.

I would sooner trust an idealistic and honest dictator than the people who take power by lying and using behavioural conditioning while claiming to offer freedom because "democratie".

Looks like I am going to die soon though so it matters even less than in the beginning.

Average dummies get all worked up over their purported political ideals but they are just "NPCs" being used and laughed at.

 

[Winterreise]

Main components of democracy is power restriction , distribution of power among many institutions, and ... corrective mechanisms.

If parlament acts like children and screaming at each other , nothing gets done.
Thats the whole point.

The system rewards cooperation. It rewards concensus. You must work together, Bring people together. Be a listener.

 

[Higurashi415]

Being wise is more important than being smart in politics by far.
Being smart without being wise would lead one to justify their own feelings using fancy words and concepts regardless, which I suppose is what you think stupid people do.

 

[Winterreise]

I dont think your trust is worth anything , against a man who has unlimited power , and do as he please. Who controls the media, the borders, the courts. You are willing to give all your control away? Its like choosing not to chose.
You are attacking the system itself for the faults of human.

Humans are faulty , hypocritical , emotional. Leaders come and go. Most are mediocre.

But the system should remain. Strong , fair , solid, uncharismatic, patient, neutral , timeless, non discriminating, unemotional.