Comments for entry "National Intelligence" at Dilbert.com Blog

Comment from kb5won

MonPMCDTE_Rthth

I wanted to make Scott Adams readers aware of another group of folks who are discussing how this tool should work that will: "simplify the legwork involved in participating intelligently in politics. For example, instead of having to do separate research on each person running for office, have a simple way to compare them on points that matter to me. Instead of having to watch all legislation that's coming up, have the site notify me that something I care about is happening soon, allow me to auto-generate a form letter to my rep, or send an email just by clicking a button. Instead of having to research who gives money to what campaigns, have that info aggregated in one place. Let me see what my rep stands for, not based on campaign promises but based on his/her voting record. And so on. Americans, on average, are dumb and lazy. But if you make it convenient enough, people will participate. Finding the people you knew in high school used to be a pain in the ass, Facebook made it easy. Let's do the same thing for managing our representation." how it started: http://www.dancarlin.com/blog.php/entryview/129 discussion: http://dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33491 I think this problem is big enough that all Americans should want to solve it; look forward to Dilbert folks adding to the solution!

Comment from Stui

FriAMCDTE_Rthth

Yes a country can have a national intelligence, or a collective IQ if you like. We have a lot of New Zealanders migrating to Australia, which lowers the collective IQ of both countries.

Comment from WATYF1

WedPMCDTE_Rthth

[It's the job of news organizations to mould the public mindset and perception into a particular, useful shape.] Um... no, it's not. Seriously... is it any surprise why we're in the position we're in when THIS is the view that so many people have about journalism. People don't want to think. They just want to be told what to think. WATYF

Comment from BobNL

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

Update (just read an article on Brazil). Maybe Brazil is a better example for "national Intelligence" or "good governance" as it is called by the IMF then China. In 20 years time Brazil has managed to eliminate a lot of crime and poverty and become a top 10 economic power, out of a situation economic crisis and extreme inflation. This was mainly under a social-democratic president and the last few years under a socialist president.

Comment from mijj

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

> "It's not the job of news organizations to educate voters either. The point of the news is to inform citizens of what is new and noteworthy" excuse me? It's the job of news organizations to mould the public mindset and perception into a particular, useful shape.

Comment from Dog of Justice

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

The track record of authoritarian systems over the past few millennia suggests that impressive short-term performance is usually "fake alpha"; it's almost always only a matter of time before the goals of the authority diverge too much from the national interest. I can't entirely rule out the possibility that this time it's different and something like the Singapore model will dominate the 22nd century, but I think (and hope) that more representative systems will win out, at least in the West. Incidentally, goal divergence is the reason why Americans are correct to be wary of "eggheads". An intelligent and competent political leader who does NOT represent your interests is often of negative value to you. There are some who claim that the ineffectiveness of modern American governance is simply a matter of the people getting what they want, good and hard; but I'm certain this is not the whole story, since there are several crucial destructive policies that have been implemented and continue to be defended against the will of the American majority. (Again, the "good" news is that if China doesn't change its system of government, it's pretty much doomed to being captured by its own parasitic elites.)

Comment from crogers23

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

>In our system, citizens are expected to self-educate. Why do people need to become doctors or lawyers in their free time? I know - it was an analogy, but becoming informed on the issues of the day is no where near as rigorous as 4 years of medical school or 3 years of law school. >A sentence you never hear in America is "I wonder what the smart people think we should do." There's a good reason for this - most folks don't want the "smartest" people making the decisions. This is often because book-smart people (Harvard faculty types) often have little practical knowledge on most issues and little leadership experience. >Our only real hope is the Internet. Disagree - I'd argue the Internet is likely our downfall. The Internet encourages sloppy thinking, by reading bits and pieces of random bloggers' brain droppings.

Comment from ardwyer7

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

Scott, I have emailed through the "Contact Us" area greater detail for my idea. I have been working on use cases for a website that seeks to use crowd-sourced problem-solving to work a problem through to the best possible solution. The website would start by creating an issue. The issue would be made up of 4 components; Facts, Problem, Solution, Action. Each component can have multiple entries for the issue and the best one will be voted to the top. The sections would be managed by administrators and the users to either vote down dumb entries or administrators would remove language and themes deemed unacceptable by the websites usage policy. The Facts components could be limited and any additional information could be linked. This should help to keep the overall issue focused on what is an achievable solution. The problem section would allow for requests for information. I may want to work the problem of large financial institutions but we may want to put out a request for a report on the economic loss caused by large financial institutions. Someone could either find the information or work to create it and link it to the problem section. The best problem statement would be voted up. The Solution section would seek to have everyone agree upon the best solution to the overall issue. This section would have the ability to submit counterpoints that identify collateral damage or unidentified consequences that the solution may need to be modified to mitigate. This would be based on how acceptable the user base deems these counterpoints. If a solution has too many weaknesses a better solution will be voted up. Finally the Action section is the most important part of the website. All this gathering of information is useless if the issue cannot be corrected. While the solution may be the passage of law, the Action section is to decide on ways to exert pressure to see the law enacted. Whether the idea is public shaming or civil disobedience, it must identify how to see the solution through to enactment. Here also the users can identify unforeseen consequences and vote up only the best action statement. Why post this great idea online? Because someone needs to see this through and if this isn't me so be it. We have too much collective intelligence that is being squandered because we cannot leverage all of our special skills and see issues through to enactment. If anyone wants to work with me on this idea I will be making a Craigslist employment post in the San Francisco section. Won't pay anything though :)

Comment from MTBob

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

I'll guess, yes. But we won't. A little more on point: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/american-exceptionalism-other-countries-lessons/index.html

Comment from MTBob

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

DUCK! Don't make any eye contact, and very slowly back away. http://jezebel.com/5922412/womens-ten-biggest-complaints-about-mens-ten-biggest-complaints-about-women?tag=relationships

Comment from WATYF1

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

- [Isn't this the Wikipedia model? I just donated $20 so they wouldn't require corporate sponsorship and could remain free from bias.] It's cute that some people think Wikipedia is free from bias. Anyone who's been involved in edits on a controversial topic (and hell, even some non-controversial topics) knows that there is bias on Wiki. WATYF

Comment from WATYF1

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

- [What we need is... a way for arguments and information to compete in a way that kills the weak ideas and leaves only the strong.] We already have this. It's called "history". And there's nothing more "complex" about today's issues. You constantly appeal to that fallacy when trying to present your ideas. Men are still the same. They still react in the same ways. Making the same mistakes will still produce the same failures, and so on. WATYF

Comment from BobNL

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

[You might criticize China's leadership for being heartless and brutal, but that's a separate discussion.] IMHO, that's where you are wrong (that being a separate discussion). The effectiveness and the brutality of China are tied together. There is no way to pursue your interests so effectively as China is doing, without sacrificing one or two goals along the way, in this case environment and human rights. The great weakness of democracy is that you must allways compromise between different interests. Neglect a few of those interests, and you are way faster and more effective. There are several countries led by dictators that have shown this in the past.

Comment from Drowlord

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

I checked out Diffen. I decided to look up the difference between cats and dogs. The site informed me that they make different sounds. I guess that's everything I need to know in order to make a choice between adopting a cat and adopting a dog... I wonder if a politics-oriented solution would be as informative and useful.

Comment from EMU

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

Just had a 2s look at diffen. Looks good. From what I understand, your goal is to create something "objective" (whatever that means) out of the commercials of two competing vendors (trying to sell, for instance, health care to voters). So, you ask each vendor separately for their pitch and take notes of their points. Then you have two point lists, which will not overlap much (vendors have no interest in comparisons and purposefully design their pitches that way). But you can compile a list of all points, with free slots. Then you ask the vendors to fill in the free slots (i.e. where the competitor has a strong point). There you are. The problem is that someone has to do it. I fear that requires a human. As for weighting, I don't think you can do that for everybody. Normally, each customer decides on the importance of each feature for him. All you can do is make it easy to assign weights or priorities.

Comment from AtlantaDude

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

The Economist magazine created a site with debates on policy issues. http://www.economist.com/debate/archive They set it up with professionals representing each side and a professional moderator, plus an area off to the side that incorporates user comments. Users "vote" to determine the winning side. It sounds like the perfect set up, but unfortunately it gets way too long-winded to hold my interest. Maybe if somebody could design a dumbed-down USA Today type version, it could attract a broader audience.

Comment from MAJWD1

TuePMCDTE_Rrdrd

I agree witht might7sd...who will determine "the facts". I think the diffen model is fine, the challenge is populating it with truth. However, Scott...you do get points for thinking up the best unexecutable idea of the day. Ahhhhh....now I see where all of those great strips originate....I was going to take credit for the "best unexecuteable idea of the day", but I proabably got it from you.

Comment from Zowie

TueAMCDTE_Rrdrd

I like your idea. But I don't share your judgement about Chinese leaders acting in that countries' best interest. China has polluted its own land and rivers so much.... it's kind of destroying itself fast.

Comment from Therion

TueAMCDTE_Rrdrd

How to get information? Well, for a start...half the population should stop watching Fox News. Why are you making this more complicated than it really is? Republicans are retards. There's the information.

Comment from SonofRojBlake

TueAMCDTE_Rrdrd

"What system could you devise to guarantee that the information is unbiased and, importantly, it appears that way to all observers?" No system could fulfil this criterion, even in principle, because many (most?) observers will have a vested interest in deriding the site as biased because it disagrees with them - EVEN IF IT IS PROVABLY UNBIASED. And those people are better than the smart people at getting their message out there, out of proportion to their numbers and actual influence. Conservapedia exists, and you've heard of it. QED.