The problem isn't giving the people a say; it's that the people have stopped electing smart people who do know a lot.
Certainly though, a big part of why that is is that people think they know a lot, and that their opinion should be given as much weight as any other consideration when it comes to policymaking.
Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing
(Of course there's a long discussion to be had about other contributors to this, such as lobbying and whatnot)
> Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing
We’re in such a “you’re either with us or against us” phase of politics that a discussion with the “other team” is difficult.
Combine that with people adopting political viewpoints as a big part of their personality and any disagreement is seen as a personal attack.
Arrow tells us that no voting system is perfect. But he doesn't say that no system is good enough. Other results suggest that the right kind of method can reduce polarization.[1]
In addition, "dictatorship" is kind of a technical term: picking a voter at random and electing their favorite is a dictatorship in the technical sense, but not in the colloquial sense.
And it doesn't as much say "polarization leads to dictatorship" as "Condorcet cycles lead to dictatorship". If voters were somehow forbidden from creating majority cycles, then the Condorcet relation passes all of his criteria. In practice, Condorcet cycles are extremely rare, at least under current conditions.[2]
The thing is, punishment cannot strictly be punitive - there must be an opportunity to learn and grow, otherwise nothing changes.
When we "punish bad behavior" in adults by, for example, sending them to jail for crimes, without providing counselling and other services to get their life back on track, where does that lead us?
When we "punish bad behavior" in adults by, for example, kicking them out of the family for shitty views, where does that lead us?
The trick, as I highlighted, is walking the line between these 2 things. Many people don't, and just jump to the punishment.
So, the particular problem here is the internet and social media in general.
Make them go away and most of our political divide starts to disappear, with that said TV news is pretty crazily divided these days.
Simply put your idea does not work when there is huge amount of active propaganda with the entire purpose of causing confusion and division. "This video will make you angry" hits on the psychology of what's occurring. People don't spend most of their time communicating with 'the other side'. They spend most of the time attacking purpose built strawmen to solidify their convictions.
as the other reply, you should still teach your toddler why they should not do certain things. That might be the bridge building.
Not demonizing a person for their needs, but instead making sure that their strategy of getting their needs met is criticized and yes maybe punished. BUt still acknowledging their need in the process.
And which side has been driving the majority of the polarization over the past several decades? It's right-wing billionaires and far right groups that don't care for liberal democracies. There's plenty of things to criticize the Democratic party in the US over, but at least they're not trying to reshape America into some form of Christian Nationalism or techno fascism.
Sure, but those are still part of what I'm talking about. Someone taking the "you're with us or against us" position? Call them out on it and tell them they're doing more harm than good to their cause. Someone taking a disagreement way too personally? Try to help them take a step back and get some perspective.
Of course, there's a lot more nuance than all that - sometimes, taking things personally is warranted. Sometimes, people really are against us. But, that shouldn't be the first thing people jump to when faced with someone who disagrees - or, more commonly, simply doesn't understand - where they're coming from.
And of course, if it turns out you can't help them understand your position, then you turn to the second part of what I said - accountability. Racist uncle won't learn? Stop inviting them to holidays. Unfortunately, people tend to jump to this step right away, without trying to make them understand why they might be wrong, and without trying to understand why they believe what they believe (they're probably just stupid and racist, right?) - and that's how you end up driving people more into their echo chamber, as you've given them more rational as to why the other side really is just "for us or against us"
(I'm not suggesting any of this is easy. I'm just saying it seems to play a part in contributing to the political climate.)
A lot of families have broken apart due to politics in the past decade in the US.
---
> A 2022 survey found that 11% of Americans reported ceasing relations with a family member due to political ideas.
> A more recent October 2024 poll by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) indicated a higher figure, with 21% of adults having become estranged from a family member, blocked them on social media, or skipped a family event due to disagreements on controversial topics.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is in telling me this? I mean... I'm literally advocating for that as a measured response to things?
I'll just say that "ceasing relations with a family member" is not "breaking a family apart"
(This is the sort of rhetoric usually used by those who were kicked out of the family; blame the politics for ripping their family apart and not their shitty beliefs)
Totally agree. One thinks the other lacks critical thinking, the other thinks "they" have no common sense. And politicians and the media (both mainstream and social) have encouraged and exploit this for personal gain.
At the end we're left with people just saying things without having any knowledge of actual facts, because the sources of information lack the basic facts, purposefully reporting a biased and superficial version of reality.
God forbid you think both teams should be ejected into the sun. Choosing between two shit sandwiches is going to lead to people being extremely polarized over wedge issues that don't materially impact most peoples' lives.
A magical utopia because everyone clearly truly believes in their exact same political beliefs but are temporarily deceived or intimidated by the status quo.
And how do you reckon that'll come about when society is more divided than ever and can't come to any sort of conclusions about how to fix the economic circumstances?
> You can't force society to care about itself.
"Society" isn't some abstract entity. It is made of humans. No, I can't "force" anyone to care about these things, but I can try to convince them of it.
It's more productive than this doomer narrative, at least.
Too reductive for my liking. I always found Zappa’s persona to be hypocritical—-making a point of condemning the drug culture of his contemporaries while drinking gallons of coffee a day and smoking like a chimney.
I think you’re onto something here with people thinking they know a lot, but isn’t the real issue anonymous internet posting? Having to take zero responsibility for sharing ideas has ruined intelligent discourse society-wide: Web 2.0, then social media, turned out to be the beginning of the end of experts having credibility. Journalists, scientists, all experts became demonized by persuasive bots or anonymous internet posters. Instead of a world of democratized intelligence as promised, we got a world of “anyone’s opinion is valid, and I don’t even need to know their credentials or who they are.” If we forced everyone to have to stand by everything they said online on every forum, we’d have a lot fewer strong opinions and conspiracies, IMO. People (voters) would be thinking a lot harder about their ideas and seeing a lot fewer validations of the extreme parts of themselves.
My hottest take is that it wasn’t anonymity, but auto correct, that spelled (literally) the end. Without autocorrect and auto-grammar, ideas were tagged with the credential/authority of “I can use they’re / their / there” correctly, which was a high ass bar.
You think people don't have those ideas in person? They absolutely do, and not being anonymous does not stop most of them.
While I agree the Internet has contributed to this belief, I do not see how being anonymous or not would fix that. To say nothing of the myriad other issues that would come with a non-anonymous Internet.
>I do not see how being anonymous or not would fix that.
I mean there are some valid things that show up here. For example Bob is racist, and Steve is racist, but they don't know they are deeply racist. You typically have to slowly enter into conversation to ensure you don't offend them.
Being anonymous can shortcut this process. You show up on a semi-local forum as Anon1 and talk to Anon2 about how you want get rid of all those dirty $_fill_in_the_blank's. You realize you share the same convictions, and it's safer to exchange details on who you really are.
Now, it's correct non-anonymous internet is bad, especially if you are a targeted group that hasn't done anything wrong, for example gay groups.
You don't need to be a targeted group for anonymity to be important, nor do you need a "valid" reason to be anonymous on the Internet. I have yet to hear a compelling reason otherwise.
People like to say, "Well you're not anonymous IRL" and ... well, yes, we are. We are not forced to say, "My name is X and I live at Y" when we stay stuff in public
>We are not forced to say, "My name is X and I live at Y" when we stay stuff in public
I mean these days you can pretty much be immediately identified by facial recognition. Not saying it's a good thing, but it is the world in which we live.
If you're mad at one, then be mad that the other because this is what technology enables.
It's more like we've fell into a raging torrent screaming down river at 30km/h and the best we can do is a backstroke 1km/h upstream.
I mean, I'm not saying it's impossible to slow it down or stop it, but I feel that in itself would require it's own dystopian level of enforcement as it opens up game theory to the one that defects and progresses technology as the winner in being able to control others.
We flew towards the sun, and went to high, and then the sun swallowed us.
It’s still “new tech” to our monkey brains and it takes a long time, and probably a lot of destruction, before our we develop better cultural norms for dealing with it. Our cultural immune system has only just started to kick in.
The cultural chasm between technocrats and politicians reminds me of the old trope about "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". That hasn't been bridged either, has it? It's a bit like those taboo topics here on HN where no good questions can be entertained by otherwise normal adults.
Here's something from someone we might call a manchild
For I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. The freezing cold makes one swift.
Lichtenberg has something along these lines too, but I'll need to dig that out :)
Here's a consolation that almost predicts Alan Watts:
To make clever people [elites?] believe we are what we are not is in most instances harder than really to become what we want to seem to be.
I think parent-poster is saying that politicians and technocrats have a gulf between how their view the world and how well they communicate with one-another. However after that point (ironically?) it isn't clear what what their purpose is for including the quotes.
I think the most-charitable interpretation for the "baths" quote [0] might be: "For the people I'm trying to communicate with, lightly touching on deep subjects is actually fine." (Both most-charitable to Nietzche, and also to the poster quoting him.)
After thinking some time, I think the baths quote is saying that, contrary to common wisdom, it isn't necessary to have intense, long discussions about "deep" subjects - small, quick conversations can still be as productive.
I think there's some truth here. I've held for a long time that minds are not changed overnight or in a single discussion - this happens over time, as you repeatedly discuss something, and people consider their own views and others. To that point, I suppose small conversations would work.
Still, I don't think it can be one or the other. Many subjects we're referring to are very complex and require more in-depth analysis (of the problem, and of our views) than a short conversation.
You got the gist (tho I hoped all would've explored the Lichtenberg a lil bit as even more relevant to TFA) my bad!
Mainly-- should be/have fleshed out more-- deep convos (every-where but especially in ephemeral settings like HN, with strangers, adversaries, children, across genders, etc-- to address your accusations of a false(?) dichotomy) should be conducted in jokes -- cautiously!
Mechanism is emo-honesty. Practise absolutely needed. That's the paradox you might be looking for?
sorry for the heavy touch in this response :)
I almost found the Lichtenberg quote ..
Truth[s] come from the [minds] of fools and children, satirists [elite,populist,all of the above] etc etc
Thanks Google!
Strangely, it also gave me Cato via Montaigne (technician having convo with politician over millennia?)
Cato, was reproached that he was a hard drinker
[Catonis] Sæpe mero caluisse virtus.
(a gentle prod to serious minds wine is, a nod to "in vino veritas" I guess)
Aside: both Cato and Lichtenberg might be more humorous untranslated Vs Nietzsche, experts/natives could correct me
Somewhere, I am not the historian to say, teaching people the basics of an education, that being “reading, writing and arithmetic”, failed to recognize the critical role that communications play in everything people do, and try to do. That phrase ought to be “reading, writing, arithmetic, and conveying understanding” because that would include why one reads and why one writes, and connects that to the goal of conveying an understanding you have to others. However, this is the root issue.
General society being generally poor communicators is caused by this lapse in our understanding of education. The understanding that the purpose of an education is to both use it and to help others understand what you may and they do not, as well as understand how to gain understanding from others that they have and you do not.
Because we do not teach that an education is really learning how to understand and how to convey understanding in others, the general idea of an education is to be an owner of a specialized skill set, which one sells to the highest bidder.
This has caused education to be replaced by rote memorization. Which in turn created a population that is only comfortable with direct question and answer interactions, not exploratory debate for shared understanding. This set the stage for educators, nationwide, to teach students to be databases and not critically analyzing understanders of their vocations.
Note that the skills for conveying understanding in others, additionally carries the skill how to recognize fraudulent speech. Which, as of Dec 2025, is the critical skill the general population does not have that is potentially the death of the United States.
When a population of people do not have an emphasis on critical analysis, but rote memorization, as the basis of their education that then creates a population that has heightened sensitivity to controversial lines of reasoning, lines of reasoning where there are no clear answers. Life itself has a large series of mysteries based on faith, religion being chief, which in a population that is comfortable with debate to convey understanding is perfectly safe to engage in discussions about mysteries within these areas requiring faith. But a society that is not comfortable with such discussions, one that thinks debate’s purpose is to "win, at all costs" then such discussions are taboo. They get shut down immediately. When people cannot debate to understand, but as a combat, learning is not accomplished. And useful critical analysis skills are not taught.
I have no idea if such a national situation can be manufactured, but I believe this is where we are at as a nation. We no longer produce enough adults with developed critical analysis skills to support democracy. Democracy depends upon an educated population with active critical analysis capabilities, a population that can debate to a shared understanding and accomplish shared goals. That foundational population is not there.
This can be fixed, but it may take more than a generation. Our educational system needs foundational revisions, which include additional core subjects, chief of which being how to communicate and convey understanding in others. Which lies at the roots of our demise, this lack of this basic skill.
>General society being generally poor communicators
period dot.
Don't insinuate there was a golden past where humans in general were great communicators, it didn't exist. Furthermore the need to communicate in the modern world has increased network sizes many times over what humans developed in the 'monkeysphere'. For all most of all human evolution the number of people you interacted with and communicated with was relatively tiny, like 150 or so.
Before we developed radio communication to crowds was a rare thing done by few people. Radio itself lead to massive crowds but few communicators themselves (Propagandists quickly realized its power for example). And really TV was much the same. But in the last 40 years we've had a geometric explosion in the ability to communicate by the average person. In terms of societal growth, this is a tiny sliver of time. Now your 'average idiot' can communicate with the world, poorly, and still garner a huge audience, and or work requires much less 'doing things' and communicating.
Nowhere do I claim that such a "golden past" existed. I am saying that the critical skill of communication to convey information, to gain information, to learn via one-to-one communications is rapidly being lost. It is not respected by education, it is not taught, and it is truly one of humanity's greatest skills: conveying understanding. Which has the side benefit of teaching one one how to identify illogical speech.
Certainly though, a big part of why that is is that people think they know a lot, and that their opinion should be given as much weight as any other consideration when it comes to policymaking.
Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing
(Of course there's a long discussion to be had about other contributors to this, such as lobbying and whatnot)