Our Authoritarian Default

Many intellectuals, and intellectual wannabes, would, if pressed accept that UFOs seem sufficiently puzzling to justify more careful study. But they are reluctant to say or even think so, due to an eagerness to show allegiance and deference to the usual intellectual authorities, who have clearly marked UFOs as worthy of ridicule. 

Similarly, many would, if pressed, accept that cryonics seems to have a high enough change of success to justify it as a precaution. Yet most are reluctant to suggest or even consider it as a choice, for fear of seeming weird or of opposing medical authorities, who are seen as not only not endorsing it, but also opposing it. 

When I show my college students, or talk audiences, my many reform proposals, I can usually get them to admit that I’ve offered sensible reasons why these reforms might plausibly add big value, and they don’t see insurmountable obstacles. Even so, most don’t support them, and feel awkward about not being able to say why. Their strong default is that if some social institution isn’t part of our current world, and the usual authorities aren’t recommending them, they must have fatal flaws.

People feel this way even though they believe that the usual authorities are self-interested, chosen mainly by elite mutual admiration societies, and that elites typically don’t consider changes outsiders invented or initiated. 

In the rich west at least, most expect their nations and large government units to use elections to choose leaders, to let a free press expose problems via investigating many people and public records, and to have large organized political parties also able to seek out and expose problems in other parties. They also expect disciplinary actions come from independent judges applying neutral due process in public procedures. 

However, most are also well aware of, and okay with, most of the small orgs around them, including families, clubs, churches, and firms, having far fewer of these accountability mechanisms. Even though such accountability is similarly useful in such small orgs. 

Most people can be shown that it is possible at low cost to add the new accountability mechanism of prediction markets to check on leader claims, and the effectiveness and progress of their projects, and that doing so would likely substantially moderate the tendency of leaders to lie and exaggerate. Even so, such informed folks are not much interested in taking advantage of this possibility, neither for their small local orgs nor for their nations and other big governments. 

Thus most seem basically okay with their leaders often lying and exaggerating to them on key org issues. But if so, why do they also seem to prefer more accountability for national leaders, including investigative journalism?

I think the main reason we want more accountably for national leaders, compared to local leaders, is pride. We are told that it is shameful to be dominated by these (but not other) leaders, and so we are proud to have some degree of control over them, to show we are not so dominated. But even so we are basically okay with worlds run by authorities and their buddies; the kinds of accountability we use don’t threaten this.

I also think the main reason we are okay with accountability via investigative journalism is that we know authorities have great powers to suppress and retaliate against them. Only media orgs with substantial support among elites could mount a credible criticism of leaders, and we are okay with elites fighting among themselves for whom among them should rule. But we want to keep those fights among elites. 

And this is why, I think, we don’t want accountability via prediction markets. That would allow most anyone, not just elites, to challenge our leaders and other authorities. We cringe at this. Doesn’t matter if the challengers are right in their claims, we fear the instability when conflicts spread beyond elite infighting. 

Added 25Oct: Related: “People believed dire problems—ranging from poverty to drunk driving—were less problematic upon learning the number of people they affect. … [If] world is good, … widespread problems have been addressed and, thus, cause less harm" (more)