Certainly. It is an empirical question; one that you would want a history/political science major as a colleague in, but not to run entirely.
I majored in history, and I wouldn’t be surprised if my approach of emphasizing stability rather than problem solving was common among people with similar educations. Rather than have government solve problems, I am concerned with having government not collapse into anarchy or civil war and wait for people to invent useful things so human progress goes steadily upward. I can see why political scientists would want their field to be about more than not failing, since there is so much potential for government to do good, and good governments are so much better than average or poor ones. Even a mid-sized nation has not just more resources than a bunch of major charities combined, but other legal advantages and advantages of sovereignty as well.
primary source
Basically, if you are wrong about what is rational, all can learn from any mistake and use the essay and thinking behind it, rather than political systems, as the basis of a rationality discussion.
P( People achieving their goals through peaceful persuasion. I Democracy )
I carefully said people “felt” persuasion would work that mattered directly. If people really can achieve their goals peacefully but think they can’t, they will not be peaceful. If people really cannot but think they can, they will be peaceful. And peace is good.
congress man
That’s one word, congressman, which is important because female Representatives vary on whether they prefer to be called congressman, congresswoman or congressperson. Males prefer congressman or congressperson.
average quality and quantity of treatment
I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the US has poor average health outcomes per dollar spent because of diminishing returns and wealth disparities. In other words, if another country spends $10,000 on two people with a disease, and the US has one individual buy $30,000 worth of care and another $2,000, the US may have worse average care per dollar simply because treating the second American left low-hanging fruit and it was hard to productively spend the last $20,000 on the first person, even if all marginal dollars were spent as well as possible. There are also questions of which system best incentivises new discoveries: recall that the recent malaria vaccine was thought to quite possibly work before the recent study was conducted but was not mass produced and distributed because it was (correctly) thought worthwhile to make sure in such cases with double blind experiments in the field. This was an example of sacrificing lives for research efficiency/money/the unit of caring.
Possibly. I was thinking more of something like not enough time spent on suggestion relative to others. But I wouldn’t doubt it. I expected this Post to be bad (though admittedly not such a huge fail). Most of the time when I suck at thinking, and I notice it, it’s got something to do with proposing solutions too early.
I don’t think it’s that simple.
Probably isn’t. But it is simple enough to be a practically approachable statistical problem.
That’s one word,
Lol, I suck. I’ll leave it the same as personal punishment.
if you are wrong about what is rational, all can learn from any mistake and use the essay and thinking behind it, rather than political systems, as the basis of a rationality discussion.
Gotcha
If people really cannot but think they can, they will be peaceful.
“Can’t x”, and “Will x” or “Did x”, are contradictory. But I hear what you are saying, I think. Attitude is an extremely important factor, if not the most important factor, in how brutally people handle their political differences.
But if people who were not politicians, could feel as confident about their work, as they do about the work of their doctors and nurses, then I don’t think we would have to worry nearly as much about how we are going to settle our political disagreements. The experts are on it. They’ll figure out the best way for us all to get what we want available. But then again a doctor will rarely if ever benefit from not giving you proper treatment; politicians benefit from not instituting the best policy constantly with a diverse range of creative cons.
Of course, public opinion certainly does affect what policies are likely to succeed, and to find public opinion you need randomized polls (much like democracy except not self selecting), but you need more than that too. Information independent of public opinion. However, if you can convince your neighbors to write down “socialist” in next year’s census, successful gamblers will notice this and exploit it for all it is worth.
It seems intuitive to me (and I realize that isn’t much) that a society where we use a betting market to dictate policy, would be very conducive to rational political debate, in both elite and hobbyist gamblers. Peace is good; and obviously, political scientists would produce more peace than democratically elected officials. But so would almost any other group that was rewarded for increasing happiness. Not war means more peace. More peace means more happy. More happy means more reward.
I majored in history, and I wouldn’t be surprised if my approach of emphasizing stability rather than problem solving was common among people with similar educations. Rather than have government solve problems, I am concerned with having government not collapse into anarchy or civil war and wait for people to invent useful things so human progress goes steadily upward. I can see why political scientists would want their field to be about more than not failing, since there is so much potential for government to do good, and good governments are so much better than average or poor ones. Even a mid-sized nation has not just more resources than a bunch of major charities combined, but other legal advantages and advantages of sovereignty as well.
Basically, if you are wrong about what is rational, all can learn from any mistake and use the essay and thinking behind it, rather than political systems, as the basis of a rationality discussion.
I carefully said people “felt” persuasion would work that mattered directly. If people really can achieve their goals peacefully but think they can’t, they will not be peaceful. If people really cannot but think they can, they will be peaceful. And peace is good.
That’s one word, congressman, which is important because female Representatives vary on whether they prefer to be called congressman, congresswoman or congressperson. Males prefer congressman or congressperson.
I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the US has poor average health outcomes per dollar spent because of diminishing returns and wealth disparities. In other words, if another country spends $10,000 on two people with a disease, and the US has one individual buy $30,000 worth of care and another $2,000, the US may have worse average care per dollar simply because treating the second American left low-hanging fruit and it was hard to productively spend the last $20,000 on the first person, even if all marginal dollars were spent as well as possible. There are also questions of which system best incentivises new discoveries: recall that the recent malaria vaccine was thought to quite possibly work before the recent study was conducted but was not mass produced and distributed because it was (correctly) thought worthwhile to make sure in such cases with double blind experiments in the field. This was an example of sacrificing lives for research efficiency/money/the unit of caring.
Is that the same as proposing solutions early?
Possibly. I was thinking more of something like not enough time spent on suggestion relative to others. But I wouldn’t doubt it. I expected this Post to be bad (though admittedly not such a huge fail). Most of the time when I suck at thinking, and I notice it, it’s got something to do with proposing solutions too early.
Probably isn’t. But it is simple enough to be a practically approachable statistical problem.
Lol, I suck. I’ll leave it the same as personal punishment.
Gotcha
“Can’t x”, and “Will x” or “Did x”, are contradictory. But I hear what you are saying, I think. Attitude is an extremely important factor, if not the most important factor, in how brutally people handle their political differences.
But if people who were not politicians, could feel as confident about their work, as they do about the work of their doctors and nurses, then I don’t think we would have to worry nearly as much about how we are going to settle our political disagreements. The experts are on it. They’ll figure out the best way for us all to get what we want available. But then again a doctor will rarely if ever benefit from not giving you proper treatment; politicians benefit from not instituting the best policy constantly with a diverse range of creative cons.
Of course, public opinion certainly does affect what policies are likely to succeed, and to find public opinion you need randomized polls (much like democracy except not self selecting), but you need more than that too. Information independent of public opinion. However, if you can convince your neighbors to write down “socialist” in next year’s census, successful gamblers will notice this and exploit it for all it is worth.
It seems intuitive to me (and I realize that isn’t much) that a society where we use a betting market to dictate policy, would be very conducive to rational political debate, in both elite and hobbyist gamblers. Peace is good; and obviously, political scientists would produce more peace than democratically elected officials. But so would almost any other group that was rewarded for increasing happiness. Not war means more peace. More peace means more happy. More happy means more reward.
For improving to a Pareto optimum yes, but probably not for choosing among them.