Citizen J wrote:Which brings me to another point that is not entirely off topic. We may never select better leaders when the average human regularly abuses his own intellect. Both studies and history show that the average human makes decisions first, then engages his intellect to *justify or rationalize* that decision. It's the complete opposite of what we are supposed to do with our brains. It brings to mind something said of Eddy Bernays' theories - that you can change the minds of millions but not the opinion of one man. The single man can be intelligent, thoughtful, rational, and logical. But not the masses. The masses are ruled by their emotions and seek justification or rationalization for their feelings. This is the 'Achilles heel' of democratic and representative systems. The average man does not "correctly think"* and, thus far, no amount of education has managed to adequately alter this condition.
- Under equally distributed information uncertainty the masses perform better than individuals.
- Unless you're capable of measuring the preferences of all individuals in society there is no "correct policy" that can be derived through rational thought.
- The idea of a dynasty of selfless, benevolent dictators is arguably even more absurd than the idea of rational voters.