EnthusiasticNature94

joined 3 weeks ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, both sides are wrong here.

Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Doing okay.

Just picked up my cat's ashes today, but also ate some pizza with my bf.

I did okay on my midterms. Got an 85%.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So this is the manual that the bad tech support lines use. 😭

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Technology isn't there yet. Try again in 20 years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm not proposing anything specific, no. I said it was an example (and I even bolded the text).

I don't really have a stake in the specific example I gave, so I can't really comment much else on your critique of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

So would ASL, yet here we are.

The education system is for schooling, not learning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

So would ASL, yet here we are.

The education system is for schooling, not learning.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

We're cooked. 😭

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

This is a really good response. Thank you.

I think we can have both the benefits of democracy being decentralized and resistant to systemic manipulation, and of technocracy having some minimum bar to deter ignorant individuals from harming society. There are trade-offs for sure, but currently, we the people ultimately voted for someone who openly said he'd impose tariffs (among other things).

One potential example (among many, many possibilities) is a system where academic organizations and think tanks stake their reputation to nominate candidates, and then the people vote on them.

For example, let's say the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) nominates a pro-tariff candidate to manage economic policy. And then let's say the people end up voting for them. After the tariffs wreck the economy, the reputation of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) will deteriorate considerably. In the next election, the people will vote the candidate out and ignore future EPI nominations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, this is probably the main criticism of technocracies.

I personally advocate for a more decentralized version of technocracy. I don't really have stake in which decentralized system is best, but each decentralized system has at least some minimum bar to deter those who have absolutely no idea what they're doing from assuming power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

AI can type tedious snippets faster than me, but I can just read the code and revise it if needed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

You can still have a technocratic system that allows moral weights to be 'baked into' it.

For example, currently, in some states, judges are elected. The people decide what kinds of judges align with their values.

However, most of these states require judges to have a law degree to run, which is technocratic—you cannot run for a judge position without graduating from law school (and passing the bar in some states) first.

Sure, there are no good solutions and a vast amount of conflicting legal theories on how to address or interpret certain things, but as a whole, the judicial system is at least more grounded in some understanding of the law rather than random individuals who were able to market their way into judicial power.

I imagine a similar thing would happen for other issues.

view more: ‹ prev next ›