In 6 experiments, … priming high power led to more abstract processing than did priming low power. (more)
To many of us it seems obvious that collective choice often goes very wrong. Yes there are many real and serious coordination problems, and yes collective choice institutions can and do often address such problems. Even so, democratic policy often seems quite dysfunctional.
There have been many attempts to account for democracy’s dysfunction, but it has turned out to be hard to make much sense of such accounts via formal game theoretic models using selfish rational agents. Bryan Caplan’s celebrated book The Myth of the Rational Voter, argues instead that voters are “rationally irrational,” indulging in varied irrationalities regarding their political beliefs, because their very low chance of being pivotal (i.e., decisive) in an election means each voter’s vote matters to them mainly for non-outcome reasons, such as personal identity, group loyalty, personality signaling, etc.
While Caplan is insightful, Tyler Cowen once noted that democracy skeptics tend to distrust policy decisions made by randomly selected voters, even though such voters could be confident that their choices matter. You might think that random voters deciding would be better than ordinary democracy. Even so, if you’d also be wary of policy choices by random decisive voters, then you must think something else goes wrong with democracy besides a low chance of voters being pivotal. But what?
Longtime readers should not be surprised to hear my suggestion: even random pivotal voters tend to think in a far mental mode. When we make concrete choices about our own immediate lives, especially for our private consumption, we are in a pretty near mental mode. Since near-far depends on distance in time, social distance, and unlikeliness, our mental mode becomes farther when our choices are about a more distant future, are about a wider scope of people, are seen by more people, are about more unlikely situations, or are unlikely to matter. So citizen votes in a democracy are pretty much a far fest (especially regarding unlikely far future techs).
Of course this analysis suggests that autocratic rulers also think in a rather far mode, suggesting that choices by random voters wouldn’t be much worse than those by a randomly selected king. Autocratic rulers selected via a vicious and ruthless contest for power might think in a more near mode, but more serving their own private ends, which might deviate greatly from ours. Ideally we’d select firm CEOs in part for their ability to maintain a nearer mental mode, while adhering to rules limiting their ability to exploit firms for personal gain.
Futarchy’s slogan, “vote on values, but bet on beliefs,” suggests that it might encourage collective choices based on more realistic near-mode evaluations of policy consequences, though voting on values would still retain a far fest of values. I’m not sure how best to deal with that.
loading...
Brian 
michael vassar 
Proper Dave 
Gil 
anon 
bo 
[...] am certainly no cheerleader for democracy, but I think Robin Hanson goes to far here. Longtime readers should not be surprised to hear my suggestion: even random pivotal voters tend [...]
By The Success of Republican Democracy « Modeled Behavior January 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm
[...] can’t save risk-averse voters from themselves, if they don’t want to be saved. While humans today don’t care much for the future, random human and institutional [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Are Dictators The Future? March 20, 2011 at 7:08 pm
[...] we refuse to compromise on key ideals that we hardly care about in workplaces. Voting is indeed a far fest, while we submit hyper-farmer style to domination at work. GD Star Ratingloading… Trackback [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Coworker vs. Class Envy July 12, 2011 at 3:02 pm
[...] which tend to be made in near mode, with abstract public opinions about good policy, which tend to be formed in far mode. Autocratic regulation goes wrong similarly, since power tends to put [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Is Selfless Evil Far? September 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm
[...] as they choose to use products made and distributed by multinational firms. But alas voting is a far fest of idealism, where the ideal of nationalism has more influence. GD Star Ratingloading… Tagged [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Causes Of Corruption October 11, 2011 at 11:00 pm