• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Online Advisory Panels: In the Near Future for Governing?

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Franklin Roosevelt used brain trusts to advise him during his administration. After WW2, one of those brain trusts became the Rand Corporation which still advises the government for a fee. This idea was inspired by FDR's brain trusts.

The primary problem:
Human societies are cooperative endeavors which must be governed. Governing involves two phases: planning and implementation. Both phases involve decision-making. And, while some are better than others, all the governments of the world can be described as inefficient decision making systems.

The secondary problem: Once a government gains power, it's hard to change of remove it. Violent overthrows have been the most common method. However, that is a high price to pay when there is uncertainly about the efficiency of a replacement system.

The global advisory panels model is a promising, possible solution for both problems.
Online experts discuss, debate and vote to advise the governments of the world. This model can be built and tested online without the support of existing governments. If, over time, the nations that follow the advice fare better than those that do not, the influence of the advisory panels will increase over time and eventually render the existing governing models obsolete.

Why do the current governments fail?
Efficient government decision-making involves selecting decision-makers based on three main factors:

1. Maximizing the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers.
2. Maximizing the relevant experience of the decision-makers.
3. Minimizing the relevant bias of the decision-makers.

The current governments of the world, democracies mostly, using elections and appointments to select decision-makers, are weak on all three factors.

The basic structure of the expert panel model can be demonstrated in an elementary school classroom. Imagine a class of 33 very bright third-grade students being tested on long division. Instead of grading them individually, they will be voting as a panel on the correct answers. On any test where the correct answers are certain, as they are in Math, the answers given by the class's majority will, almost surely, result in a perfect score.

From the classroom to the Internet: A panel of 33 very intelligent experts on any issue will make decisions after an online, written discussion-debate session. These experts might live anywhere in the world if they have Internet access. Even though the correct answers, unlike math problems, will be unknown, we can be confident that the decisions of the expert panel's majority will be the best answer based on the evidence currently available. We can also expert panels to advise on a way to test their advised plan before full implementation. Anyone with Internet access will be able to follow the discussion.

Maximum intelligence: The expert panel process would maximize the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers by choosing panel members from a list of the highest scorers on a well-accepted, standard test of intelligence.

Maximum experience: The panels would maximize relevant experience by assuring that the candidates are qualified in training and experience. For example, 33 experts on food safety would advise governments on food safety policy. 33 experts on the climate would advise governments on climate policy.

Minimum bias: Bias is the arch enemy of truth and justice. Elections and appointments of decision-makers in current governments almost guarantee partisan biases that will hinder progress. In the expert panel model, bias will be minimized mainly in two ways:

1. Expert panelists will be selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified candidates. This avoids the biases inherent in elections and appointments. For example, in existing governments, corporations and wealthy people can use their money to influence election campaigns. That won't be a problem for the online expert panels.

2. The panels will not have leaders. The historical evidence is persuasive that, even when they mean well, individuals who are very ambitious for the power to lead are likely to abuse the power if they attain it. Abuses of power are biases in the decision process. No individual on the expert panels will have more influence over the decision than any other.

The executive panel: Only the top-ranked executive panel, with its members being among the highest tested on intelligence, will have no specific expertise. They will be charged with the responsibility of seeing the Big Picture. After organizing itself, the executive panel will create sub-panels organized into a hierarchy. It will probably choose to guide those sub-panels using simple mission statements.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Franklin Roosevelt used brain trusts to advise him during his administration. After WW2, one of those brain trusts became the Rand Corporation which still advises the government for a fee. This idea was inspired by FDR's brain trusts.

The primary problem:
Human societies are cooperative endeavors which must be governed. Governing involves two phases: planning and implementation. Both phases involve decision-making. And, while some are as better than others, all the governments of the world can be described as inefficient decision making systems.

The secondary problem: Once a government gains power, it's hard to change of remove it. Violent overthrows have been the most common method. However, that is a high price to pay when there is uncertainly about the efficiency of a replacement system.

The global advisory panels model is a promising, possible solution for both problems.
Online experts discuss, debate and vote to advise the governments of the world. This model can be built and tested online without the support of existing governments. If, over time, the nations that follow the advice fare better than those that do not, the influence of the advisory panels will increase over time and eventually render the existing governing models obsolete.

Why do the current governments fail?
Efficient government decision-making involves selecting decision-makers based on three main factors:

1. Maximizing the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers.
2. Maximizing the relevant experience of the decision-makers.
3. Minimizing the relevant bias of the decision-makers.

The current governments of the world, democracies mostly, using elections and appointments to select decision-makers, are weak on all three factors.

The basic structure of the expert panel model can be demonstrated in an elementary school classroom. Imagine a class of 33 very bright third-grade students being tested on long division. Instead of grading them individually, they will be voting as a panel on the correct answers. On any test where the correct answers are certain, as they are in Math, the answers given by the class's majority will, almost surely, result in a perfect score.

From the classroom to the Internet: A panel of 33 very intelligent experts on any issue will make decisions after an online, written discussion-debate session. These experts might live anywhere in the world if they have Internet access. Even though the correct answers, unlike math problems, will be unknown, we can be confident that the decisions of the expert panel's majority will be the best answer based on the evidence currently available. We can also expert panels to advise on a way to test their advised plan before full implementation. Anyone with Internet access will be able to follow the discussion.

Maximum intelligence: The expert panel process would maximize the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers by choosing panel members from a list of the highest scorers on a well-accepted, standard test of intelligence.

Maximum experience: The panels would maximize relevant experience by assuring that the candidates are qualified in training and experience. For example, 33 experts on food safety would advise governments on food safety policy. 33 experts on the climate would advise governments on climate policy.

Minimum bias: Bias is the arch enemy of truth and justice. Elections and appointments of decision-makers in current governments almost guarantee partisan biases that will hinder progress. In the expert panel model, bias will be minimized mainly in two ways:

1. Expert panelists will be selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified candidates. This avoids the biases inherent in elections and appointments. For example, in existing governments, corporations and wealthy people can use their money to influence election campaigns. That won't be a problem for the online expert panels.

2. The panels will not have leaders. The historical evidence is persuasive that, even when they mean well, individuals who are very ambitious for the power to lead are likely to abuse the power if they attain it. Abuses of power are biases in the decision process. No individual on the expert panels will have more influence over the decision than any other.

The executive panel: Only the top-ranked executive panel, with its members being among the highest tested on intelligence, will have no specific expertise. They will be charged with the responsibility of seeing the Big Picture. After organizing itself, the executive panel will create sub-panels organized into a hierarchy. It will probably choose to guide those sub-panels using simple mission statements.
I fear the corporations will find a way to buy the experts anyway.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I fear the corporations will find a way to buy the experts anyway.
And well they should. Balance is needed against
the slackers, theocrats, criminals, misanthropes,
altruists, authoritarians, commies, etc who would
steer government in their direction.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Ahhh...rule by the philosopher-kings and the meritocracy...

What could possibly go wrong?

[probably no worse than the plutocracy is doing...]
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Franklin Roosevelt used brain trusts to advise him during his administration. After WW2, one of those brain trusts became the Rand Corporation which still advises the government for a fee. This idea was inspired by FDR's brain trusts.

The primary problem:
Human societies are cooperative endeavors which must be governed. Governing involves two phases: planning and implementation. Both phases involve decision-making. And, while some are better than others, all the governments of the world can be described as inefficient decision making systems.

The secondary problem: Once a government gains power, it's hard to change of remove it. Violent overthrows have been the most common method. However, that is a high price to pay when there is uncertainly about the efficiency of a replacement system.

The global advisory panels model is a promising, possible solution for both problems.
Online experts discuss, debate and vote to advise the governments of the world. This model can be built and tested online without the support of existing governments. If, over time, the nations that follow the advice fare better than those that do not, the influence of the advisory panels will increase over time and eventually render the existing governing models obsolete.

Why do the current governments fail?
Efficient government decision-making involves selecting decision-makers based on three main factors:

1. Maximizing the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers.
2. Maximizing the relevant experience of the decision-makers.
3. Minimizing the relevant bias of the decision-makers.

The current governments of the world, democracies mostly, using elections and appointments to select decision-makers, are weak on all three factors.

The basic structure of the expert panel model can be demonstrated in an elementary school classroom. Imagine a class of 33 very bright third-grade students being tested on long division. Instead of grading them individually, they will be voting as a panel on the correct answers. On any test where the correct answers are certain, as they are in Math, the answers given by the class's majority will, almost surely, result in a perfect score.

From the classroom to the Internet: A panel of 33 very intelligent experts on any issue will make decisions after an online, written discussion-debate session. These experts might live anywhere in the world if they have Internet access. Even though the correct answers, unlike math problems, will be unknown, we can be confident that the decisions of the expert panel's majority will be the best answer based on the evidence currently available. We can also expert panels to advise on a way to test their advised plan before full implementation. Anyone with Internet access will be able to follow the discussion.

Maximum intelligence: The expert panel process would maximize the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers by choosing panel members from a list of the highest scorers on a well-accepted, standard test of intelligence.

Maximum experience: The panels would maximize relevant experience by assuring that the candidates are qualified in training and experience. For example, 33 experts on food safety would advise governments on food safety policy. 33 experts on the climate would advise governments on climate policy.

Minimum bias: Bias is the arch enemy of truth and justice. Elections and appointments of decision-makers in current governments almost guarantee partisan biases that will hinder progress. In the expert panel model, bias will be minimized mainly in two ways:

1. Expert panelists will be selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified candidates. This avoids the biases inherent in elections and appointments. For example, in existing governments, corporations and wealthy people can use their money to influence election campaigns. That won't be a problem for the online expert panels.

2. The panels will not have leaders. The historical evidence is persuasive that, even when they mean well, individuals who are very ambitious for the power to lead are likely to abuse the power if they attain it. Abuses of power are biases in the decision process. No individual on the expert panels will have more influence over the decision than any other.

The executive panel: Only the top-ranked executive panel, with its members being among the highest tested on intelligence, will have no specific expertise. They will be charged with the responsibility of seeing the Big Picture. After organizing itself, the executive panel will create sub-panels organized into a hierarchy. It will probably choose to guide those sub-panels using simple mission statements.

This must be about the tenth thread you have started on this topic. It is just as mad - and sinister - now as it was when I responded the first time. You seem fixated on it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The fundamental problem of government is not "inefficiency". It's corruption. We only need efficiency in government during a crisis. The rest of the time we need careful deliberation and precision. Both of which are highly susceptible to coercion and manipulation. There are no "panels" that we can empower that cannot be coerced or manipulated to favor one agenda at the expense of another. And this is true within a society 20 people, or a society of 200 million people.

So the real question becomes how do we set up a decision-making process that will best insure that the decision being made will best serve those who are being most effected by it. And one obvious way to do that is to make sure that ALL those being effected by the outcome of a decision being made get to participate in the making of that decision. Yet even then, people being who they are, this is still no guarantee that those people will not be coerced or manipulated into making a decision the outcome of which will end up harming them.

So I think there would also need to be some very specific rules, guidelines, and goals set forth for any group of people making decisions that will effect themselves and others. And those rules would have to be inviolable by that group or decision-making committee. They could not choose to ignore them. I'm not sure what those ruled would need to be, but I think they would have to be put in place to protect social cohesion and well-being, to protect environmental viability and well-being, to protect economic cohesion and well-being, and to protect personal or individual well-being.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
And well they should. Balance is needed against
the slackers, theocrats, criminals, misanthropes,
altruists, authoritarians, commies, etc who would
steer government in their direction.
Yeah, I know, rule by the people, for the people could ruin businesses.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah, I know, rule by the people, for the people could ruin businesses.
The "people" are diverse & loaded with various
flaws & dysfunctional agendas. They need
to have their views countered, lest they gain
too much control, & kill the golden goose that
supports them.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The "people" are diverse & loaded with various
flaws & dysfunctional agendas. They need
to have their views countered, lest they gain
too much control, & kill the golden goose that
supports them.
Geese make good Christmas dinners.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Geese make good Christmas dinners.
Once the people kill all the geese, they'd
discover that they've no more geese to eat.
Thus, cooler heads should have a say.

I notice that it's common among liberals to
be illiberal in the view that they want only
people they like to have a say in government.
They'd rule with an iron fist over others, either
subjugating or eliminating them.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The fundamental problem of government is not "inefficiency". It's corruption. We only need efficiency in government during a crisis. The rest of the time we need careful deliberation and precision. Both of which are highly susceptible to coercion and manipulation.
To me, when its decisions routinely go off the correct course a government is inefficient. It doesn't matter whether they go off course because of corruption or stupidity.


There are no "panels" that we can empower that cannot be coerced or manipulated to favor one agenda at the expense of another. And this is true within a society 20 people, or a society of 200 million people.
How would you go about coercing or manipulating the panels I've described? I can't think of a way to do it.

So the real question becomes how do we set up a decision-making process that will best insure that the decision being made will best serve those who are being most effected by it. And one obvious way to do that is to make sure that ALL those being effected by the outcome of a decision being made get to participate in the making of that decision. Yet even then, people being who they are, this is still no guarantee that those people will not be coerced or manipulated into making a decision the outcome of which will end up harming them.
Ordinary citizens are affected by the outcome of most decisions of government. The only way to get them participating directly would be by a national referendum. There might be a few policies where that could be done, but governing involves too many decisions to make self-governing possible.

So I think there would also need to be some very specific rules, guidelines, and goals set forth for any group of people making decisions that will effect themselves and others. And those rules would have to be inviolable by that group or decision-making committee. They could not choose to ignore them. I'm not sure what those ruled would need to be, but I think they would have to be put in place to protect social cohesion and well-being, to protect environmental viability and well-being, to protect economic cohesion and well-being, and to protect personal or individual well-being.
We have those rules now (constitutional law) and they don't work. The problem is that it is impossible to write something that can't be deliberately misinterpreted ( finding loopholes) to allow what was intended to be prohibited by law.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I notice that it's common among liberals to
be illiberal in the view that they want only
people they like to have a say in government.
It's more like they want only people to have a say in government.
And in their mind corporations are not people.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's more like they want only people to have a say in government.
And in their mind corporations are not people.
Corporations are owned & run by people.
These business provides jobs & products you want.
The many anti-business loons would trash them.
But if you want them silenced, then it should
be so for corporations favored by liberals too,
eg, The Democratic National Committee.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Corporations are owned & run by people.
These business provides jobs & products you want.
The many anti-business loons would trash them.
But if you want them silenced, then it should
be so for corporations favored by liberals too,
eg, The Democratic National Committee.
We can agree on that. The people running and owning corporations get one vote per person and a per person limit on financing campaigns.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
How about an example? What do you think is likely to go wrong with the idea presented in the OP?
Any group, given power, will start to look after their own interests; any set of rules set up to make allocation decisions about resources of any sort will attract those who will try to game the system for their own reward...and they will eventually come to control the process...
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Any group, given power, will start to look after their own interests; any set of rules set up to make allocation decisions about resources of any sort will attract those who will try to game the system for their own reward...and they will eventually come to control the process...
You are generalizing but that isn't going to work with my groups because they are unlike other decision-making groups:

1. They have no power, they advise only;

2. They are selected randomly by computer from a group of qualified people, so they have no common self-serving interests

3. Their only contact is written and online and can be read by anyone with Internet access.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You are generalizing but that isn't going to work with my groups because they are unlike other decision-making groups:

1. They have no power, they advise only;

2. They are selected randomly by computer from a group of qualified people, so they have no common self-serving interests

3. Their only contact is written and online and can be read by anyone with Internet access.
They sound quite irrelevant, to me. As the people in power (and actually making the decisions) will completely ignore them.
 
Top