Do we live in a Scientocracy?

[Popcorn Sutton]

A program would select the right person for the job, no one evaluates it, it's like winning the lottery.

But you win because you're smart. And while you're in office you can go down the list and check it off one by one and ask if people are satisfied. Get as many language samples as possible.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[imatfaal]

Can we add a little to it through? At least add a bit about the language sample and statistics. Or add more involving other sciences.

And if there's one about scientocracy can I get involved?

 

I wouldn't if I were you - why not learn more about both wikipedia and political science before pushing your views on others. Students should not use wikipedia - but they do, and if a child had copied your definition of scientocracy they would have been hauled up before the teacher or maybe even failed their exam/test.

 

A program would select the right person for the job, no one evaluates it, it's like winning the lottery.

But you win because you're smart. And while you're in office you can go down the list and check it off one by one and ask if people are satisfied. Get as many language samples as possible.

 

This is the problem with reading your threads

"it's like winning the lottery" is in marked contradiction with "But you win because you're smart"

 

So is it a Sortition (which is a form of democracy where places are assigned by lottery) or is it a Meritocracy (which is where you prosper if you deserve it)? IT CANNOT BE BOTH.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It's more of a meritocracy.

 

I don't know how the pay system would work though.

 

I don't know if I agree completely with those definitions either.

 

It's a sortician.

 

It could be either but whichever one actually works.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[Dekan]

Perhaps we should test politicians, by asking them science questions, before they're allowed to stand for election.

 

The questions could be very basic. For example, "What's the nearest star?" (ack ACC)

 

This might produce the following responses:

 

90% : "Uh - how's that again?"

5% : "Alpha Centauri"

4% : "Proxima Centauri"

1% : "The Sun"

 

Then you could rule out the 90% as too dumb, and the 1% as too clever by half.

 

Thus leaving the 5% and 4% respondents to go forward as suitable candidates.

 

If this were done, mightn't we have a Moon Station by 2020?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I do like the post above because he understands the gist of the idea, and yes we might have a moon station by 2020.

 

I didn't address part of swansont's post earlier,

 

 

Also, why does a system have to be a democracy in order to be a scientocracy?

 

The system would inherently be democratic, right? It requires the participation of the people in order to determine significance.

 

While I was reading the wikipedia article on Sortition (my brain started to hurt so I couldn't read the entire thing), it seemed very hopeful to me that a system like that would exist. I have to ask, here at SFN, is there a sortition going on? I searched meritocracy on Google as well, and I started reading about someones idea to implement it. I got excited about it because I thought that it was describing everything I wanted in a society as well, but when I saw them say that behance.net was the way to get involved, and then looked at the website, I realized that it was just another attempt at making a LinkedIN or Facebook, which was unfortunate to see. Also, the slogan of Meritocracy is something along these lines- "You win because you deserve it." In my experience, the word "deserve" can have a negative connotation. If people are being put into positions of power, and other people know that it is on the premise of "deserving it", wouldn't you think that it might cause an uprising of some sort? It's like, "oh they get to flaunt their intellect in front of us because they deserve it. I'm smart too, but I don't deserve it?"

 

Anyway, if there is a Sortition that I can get involved in, I would gladly take that option. I would also get involved in a Meritocracy, but it seems too contemporary to have enough ground to stand on at this point.

 

The way things are right now, for me at least, is very miserable.

 

Generation Y

I'd gladly work for free if my living expenses were paid for and I could live a life investigating the universe and spreading the word of science.

[swansont]

 

The system would inherently be democratic, right? It requires the participation of the people in order to determine significance.

 

 

Why? Are "the people" inherently qualified to determine the answers?

A program would select the right person for the job, no one evaluates it, it's like winning the lottery.

But you win because you're smart. And while you're in office you can go down the list and check it off one by one and ask if people are satisfied. Get as many language samples as possible.

 

Who programs the algorithm, and what criteria do they use?

 

Again: what is a "language sample"?

[Popcorn Sutton]

No, but we can use what they say to determine significance.

[swansont]

Perhaps we should test politicians, by asking them science questions, before they're allowed to stand for election.

 

The questions could be very basic. For example, "What's the nearest star?" (ack ACC)

 

This might produce the following responses:

 

90% : "Uh - how's that again?"

5% : "Alpha Centauri"

4% : "Proxima Centauri"

1% : "The Sun"

 

Then you could rule out the 90% as too dumb, and the 1% as too clever by half.

 

Thus leaving the 5% and 4% respondents to go forward as suitable candidates.

 

If this were done, mightn't we have a Moon Station by 2020?

 

 

Why is the right answer "too clever by half"?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I can do the algorithm, or at least help someone do it. You need a lot of storage though, especially for something on this scale.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps we should test politicians, by asking them science questions, before they're allowed to stand for election.

 

The questions could be very basic. For example, "What's the nearest star?" (ack ACC)

 

This might produce the following responses:

 

90% : "Uh - how's that again?"

5% : "Alpha Centauri"

4% : "Proxima Centauri"

1% : "The Sun"

 

Then you could rule out the 90% as too dumb, and the 1% as too clever by half.

 

Thus leaving the 5% and 4% respondents to go forward as suitable candidates.

 

If this were done, mightn't we have a Moon Station by 2020?

The fact that someone can seriously suggest that the correct answer is "too clever by half" is all the proof that we need that we are not in a scientocracy.

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

Why? Are "the people" inherently qualified to determine the answers?

 

 

Who programs the algorithm, and what criteria do they use?

 

Again: what is a "language sample"?

The criteria would be that if someone wants to be considered as a candidate, their entire language sample would have to be segmented so as to have every sequence contained within the sample put on a list.

 

For everyone who doesn't want to be considered for candidacy, just match the maximal sequences to sequences on the candidates list.

 

The candidate who scores the most common sequences advances.

 

A language sample is just whatever someone cares to say about whatever. Whether they write it down, say it out loud, use sign, we can use pattern detection to gather the data.

 

Some details may need to be fleshed like, like if the system is hierarchical, if it's exactly the same as democracy but with a different type of election, or whether it's more similar to other types (I'm leaning towards a sortition as the most similar). Also, whether the monetary system will have to be the same, or whether we should divide the system into those who live for money (which is honorable because we would need those people) and those who live to advance understanding, make better policy, eliminate stipulations, speak publicly, but don't see the need to be payed for what they do, as long as they can live to do what they love.

 

Also, I don't even know what "too clever by half" means...

Edited January 10, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[swansont]

The criteria would be that if someone wants to be considered as a candidate, their entire language sample would have to be segmented so as to have every sequence contained within the sample put on a list.

 

For everyone who doesn't want to be considered for candidacy, just match the maximal sequences to sequences on the candidates list.

 

The candidate who scores the most common sequences advances.

 

A language sample is just whatever someone cares to say about whatever. Whether they write it down, say it out loud, use sign, we can use pattern detection to gather the data.

 

 

 

Pattern detection? What data? What in the world are you talking about? Is there some secret, hidden meaning in what people say that you expect to be revealed?

 

And what does this have to do with a scientocracy?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Scientocracy- Basing public policy on evidence.

 

It's like using Bayes. Gather a bunch of evidence from what people say, that's the evidence/data. Match what the candidates say to the data (pattern matching). Predict what candidate is best suited for the position based on the evidence.

 

I'm saying that if someone is illiterate, use speech recognition (pattern detection). If someone is deaf, use sign recognition (also pattern detection). Turn it into text so the algorithm can analyze it and put on a list.

 

It has to do with a scientocracy because statisticians are scientists, and if we listened to what they had to say and stopped doing this whole "wait for the vote" things, policy would change at the right time and it would speed up the growth of the economy.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[swansont]

It has to do with a scientocracy because statisticians are scientists

 

No, they aren't.

 

if we listened to what they had to say and stopped doing this whole "wait for the vote" things, policy would change at the right time and it would speed up the growth of the economy.

I haven't seen anything you've proposed that would speed up the selection of representatives.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It depends on how significant the representative is with regards to spatiotemporal proximity.

[swansont]

I fear your language sample contains no data.

[Popcorn Sutton]

What do you mean? If someone says that we need to "legalize gay marriage" then that's data.

[Bignose]

I don't see how it fixes anything Popcorn. Why wouldn't someone just submit a sample that is designed to get the maximal score, no matter what they believe? Anytime a single metric is used to determine something like this, you're going to have people who game the system. Considering how much lying happens in politics today, I would strongly suspect that many people would have little problem writing exactly what would maximize the score.

[swansont]

What do you mean? If someone says that we need to "legalize gay marriage" then that's data.

 

Because politicians never pander and go against what they promised.

[Popcorn Sutton]

In a scientocracy, the role of a politician is to reduce the significance of significant issues, not to enforce their beliefs.

 

It's like evolutionary biologists carrying out their work even though they are fundamentalists.

 

And we wouldn't have to deal with politicians who were elected because no one else cared to vote, in a scientocracy, no one would even have to vote, especially if we just used their data to select the politicians out of the crowd.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that the Wikipedia page should be edited at least to include references to meritocracy and sortition, but before I make the edit I want you guys to at least come to a conclusion that it's ok for me, or for you guys to do that.

 

Long story short, I think my idea of a scientocracy is summed up very well as a sortition. I could not have done a better job explaining it myself than how it is explained in the Wikipedia. The name is MUCH less contentious as well.

 

That page is truly a work of art.

[imatfaal]

I think that the Wikipedia page should be edited at least to include references to meritocracy and sortition, but before I make the edit I want you guys to at least come to a conclusion that it's ok for me, or for you guys to do that.

 

Long story short, I think my idea of a scientocracy is summed up very well as a sortition. I could not have done a better job explaining it myself than how it is explained in the Wikipedia. The name is MUCH less contentious as well.

 

That page is truly a work of art.

 

Look - Sortition has nothing to do with Scientocracy and is seen as a form of Democracy. The two are not the same. You clearly do not understand this subject so please do not edit the wiki on it; even though it is a pretty poor wikipage.

 

Sortition has many things to be said for it - the system works very well in every form it has been tried, I can dig out a few references as I seem to remember an Italian study about a year ago. But Sortition has very little, if not to say nothing , to do with Scientocracy.

 

Please do not edit the wikipedia page.

[Popcorn Sutton]

After rereading the first section on both a sortition and a meritocracy, I've decided that scientocracy does not conform to either, but it does have similarities.

 

I posted that without reading the prior comment. When I was reading about the sortition the other day, I skimmed past the first section and read the latter parts, which seemed to conform to what I consider to be a scientocracy. Again, I have to ask, what is a scientocracy? What do you consider to be a scientocracy, Imatfaal? Would you call yourself a scientocrat?

Edited January 12, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[imatfaal]

A Scientocracy is a form of government within which decisions are made using scientific methods and reasoning.

 

Rather than accepting the will of the mob or crowd (democracy), or the rich, or experts, or aristocrats; in the scientocracy evidence would be sought in an empirical manner, the data would be handled scientifically through good statistical practice, and policy decision would be based on the predicted superior outcome for the available monetary/fiscal/societal expenditure.

There can be no scientocrats - the decisions are not made by an individual or committee of any sort; there is no one in a position of greater influence if the system is running correctly. There are technicians - but in preference they would never really know the policy results that their data handling has caused. We are no way near a scientocracy - and I am not sure that I would welcome the changeover towards one; the possibilities of authoritarian rule are huge and we have so little understanding of the "soft-sciences".

 

But the idea of evidence-lead policy making is brilliant - the more the better.

[Popcorn Sutton]

A Scientocracy is a form of government within which decisions are made using scientific methods and reasoning.

 

Rather than accepting the will of the mob or crowd (democracy), or the rich, or experts, or aristocrats; in the scientocracy evidence would be sought in an empirical manner, the data would be handled scientifically through good statistical practice, and policy decision would be based on the predicted superior outcome for the available monetary/fiscal/societal expenditure.

 

So, let's consider adding this bit to the Wikipedia page.

 

 

There can be no scientocrats - the decisions are not made by an individual or committee of any sort; there is no one in a position of greater influence if the system is running correctly. There are technicians - but in preference they would never really know the policy results that their data handling has caused. We are no way near a scientocracy - and I am not sure that I would welcome the changeover towards one; the possibilities of authoritarian rule are huge and we have so little understanding of the "soft-sciences".

 

But the idea of evidence-lead policy making is brilliant - the more the better.

 

In a democracy, we would need scientocrats in order to get the system started (if we didn't want to do it through a revolution). I think that what you described here is very well written, but I don't see how it could lead to an authoritarian rule, unless you consider the policy scientists, and the whole synergistic system of "scientocrats", as the authoritarian power. But even then, it wouldn't lead to a Lysenkoism, and the reason for that is that we have evidence to support an alternative. It's like how the train has evolved. Engineers take into account all the previous accidents as evidence, and use that data to support alternatives. I think that we are a little more mature in these days, and that if we did notice even the slightest symptom of an authoritarian rule, we'd silence it before it became a problem.

 

In conclusion, hopefully we can sit back, do our armchair science, watch the idea take off, and if we get lucky, we'll see some country, state, province, university, or city implement it. Then, once it has happened, we can watch to see whether the system is self-perpetuating or self-destructing. Then and only then will we have the evidence to guide us.

 

In the meantime, we can at least be vocal about it. We can show our students that the topic is worth discussion, gather their opinions, and see what the bulk of the evidence suggests. I don't believe that this method is going to give much clarity on the subject, and I think we all know how distorted ones views can be when they develop a bias, but it would be interesting to see what people have to say about it.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton