= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (474)
What happens if we extend that reasoning to most adults as well? Is there some reason that most people become magically competent at 18? Perhaps things would be even better if voting were restricted further to some competent class of people?
(Of course that's politically impossible, but it's an interesting thought experiment)
The problems with restricting the vote by some criterion of competence are:
1) the criterion will get subject to Goodhart's law, this can be mitigated by using straightforward criteria, e.g., age.
2) the people meeting the criterion will act in ways that are in their interest but not in the interest of the people who do not fit the criteria, this is less of a problem with age because children already have adults, namely their parents, who have an interest in their children's well-being.
That seems like a really serious problem. How much better off would children be if they were a special interest group and not their parents?
Probably a lot worse since they generally don't have the experience to know what policies are actually in their interest.
Well, at a certain point they're just pushing buttons at random ... but assuming a degree of filtering*, I would expect them to have at the very least a net positive effect. Although I suppose it's possible (probable?) you have a lower opinion of children than me.
Come to think, even the interface could be enough to ensure this.
*Possibilities:
Most of these can also be combined in various ways, of course.
Many of your proposed filters do not really address Eugine_Nier's point about Goodhart's law.
If there is any structural bias in the first generation of vote filters, there are many reasons to be concerned that those who do not like the measure will not be sufficiently powerful to cause changes to the vote filters going forward.
Wait, I thought Goodhart's law was the one about "teaching to the test"?
Yeah, not all of those are equally good. I suspect they may all be better than the current criteria, but don't hold me to that.
Evidence?
The way student counsel elections tend to play out is not encouraging to your case.
Also the problem with most of your proposed tests is that in practice they're likely to degenerate into the test writer or administrator attempting to determine how they'd vote.
Having considered this further, I would no longer endorse that statement. Rather, I would expect a net positive effect relative to other types of voter.
While this is a problem - and one that, I suspect, rests on trying to control future government's decisions - I'm going to go through the different ideas there, just for fun.
Obviously, does not apply.
Almost certainly applies, but then, if you trust democracy anyway...
Applies, barring certain safeguards, or the "random people" option if you like democracy and juries.
Technically applies, but we already have schools, so...
Not allowed to vote until a certain age (significantly lower than 18.)
Probably doesn't apply ... I guess someone who gets disproportionately old or young votes might try to change the age limit, for that reason.
Depends on how much you trust doctors.
Since this was the original and "default" proposal, obviously, this applies. Although it might be hard to sneak into an English exam.
Yes, I've attended one of those schools. The social science curriculum included some extremely blatant propaganda.
Not really.
True. This is not usually considered a good argument against voting or schools, although perhaps it should be.
"Explain, in your own words, why The Party is a glorious protector of our freedoms ..."
Just kidding, I suppose you could make it easier to grade answers that agree with you higher - "why (or why not" questions where you're expected to go for "why", that sort of thing. And biased correctors would find biased answers more persuasive, I guess ... it would be a lot harder than sneaking bias into a social science exam, though. (And that's a stupid idea anyway :p)
Don't forget that it's a piece of paper issued by the state that makes you a doctor as opposed to someone illegally practicing medicine.
I think there would be knock-on effects for deliberately allowing incompetent doctors to qualify in order to indirectly mess with their ability to competently assess voters.
That's not to say it might not be tried, I suppose ...