The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

[joe1776]

Imagine that a math class of 33 bright, well-trained students have taken an exam. Imagine that 25 students answered question number ten with the same answer while 8 students gave different answers. In this hypothetical, we know intuitively that the majority opinion on question number ten was the correct answer. The premise: When the answer to a problem is certain, as answers are on math tests, the majority opinion of a bright, well-trained group will always make the correct decision.

Unlike the questions on a math test, most public policy decisions don't have certain answers. However, because of the outcome bias and the hindsight bias decision-makers can't be fairly judged after the outcomes of their decisions are known. Thus the premise: Even when the answers are uncertain, the majority vote of an expert panel can be accepted as the correct answer given the evidence available at the time.

The international advisory panels will be online. Their discussion-debate will be in writing making it possible for all citizens with an Internet connection to be well-informed. The panel members will be located all over the world and so unable to collude thus partisanship won't be a factor.

I'll call it the Management Panel: This group of 33 will be the first constructed. Its members will build a hierarchical system of panels and manage the process including feedback. It will avoid influencing individual decisions of the expert panels. I foresee a few rich philanthropists, motivated to make this a better world, investing to start the project.

The public needs to be assured that the panel is unbiased on the issues. So, panel members will be randomly selected by computer from a list of qualified applicants.

When they're unbiased, highly intelligent people are more likely to make better decisions. So, IQ test scores will usually be a factor in qualifying the applicants.

Qualified applicants will have the experience and training needed to be considered an expert.

Governments are unlikely to willingly give up their power, so we can't expect them to quickly adopt the expert panel process. That's why the panels will initially serve in an advisory capacity only. However, by following the online discussion, their citizens will be well-informed. And, as the quality of life improves for those nations following the advice, the international advisory panels will grow in influence in the world.

The international composition of the panels eliminates the problem of the nationalism bias, governments acting is their own selfish interests.

When combined with the binding arbitration process, expert panels can quickly provide fair solutions to controversies large and small. For example:

-- The Israelis offer their position online in writing.
-- The Palestinians offer their position online and in writing.

Negotiation has repeatedly failed to solve this controversy, thus binding arbitration is necessary. A 33-member international panel, selected randomly by computer (no Israeli or Palestinian members) discusses and debates the issue online in writing for all the world to see. Then, it resolves the issue fairly. The panel then assumes command of a UN military unit to keep the peace until the military is no longer needed.

While I don't foresee an eventual world government, I think it's likely that 150 - 200 national governments will be well-aligned with the policies recommended by the international advisory panels.

 

[Nakosis]

Imagine that a math class of 33 bright, well-trained students have taken an exam. Imagine that 25 students answered question number ten with the same answer while 8 students gave different answers. In this hypothetical, we know intuitively that the majority opinion on question number ten was the correct answer. The premise: When the answer to a problem is certain, as answers are on math tests, the majority opinion of a bright, well-trained group will always make the correct decision.

Unlike the questions on a math test, most public policy decisions don't have certain answers. However, because of the outcome bias and the hindsight bias decision-makers can't be fairly judged after the outcomes of their decisions are known. Thus the premise: Even when the answers are uncertain, the majority vote of an expert panel can be accepted as the correct answer given the evidence available at the time.

The international advisory panels will be online. Their discussion-debate will be in writing making it possible for all citizens with an Internet connection to be well-informed. The panel members will be located all over the world and so unable to collude thus partisanship won't be a factor.

I'll call it the Management Panel: This group of 33 will be the first constructed. Its members will build a hierarchical system of panels and manage the process including feedback. It will avoid influencing individual decisions of the expert panels. I foresee a few rich philanthropists, motivated to make this a better world, invest to start the project.

The public needs to be assured that the panel is unbiased on the issues. So, panel members will be randomly selected by computer from a list of qualified applicants.

When they're unbiased, highly intelligent people are more likely to make better decisions. So, IQ test scores will usually be a factor in qualifying the applicants.

Qualified applicants will have the experience and training needed to be considered an expert.

Governments are unlikely to willingly give up their power, so we can't expect them to quickly adopt the expert panel process. That's why the panels will initially serve in an advisory capacity only. However, by following the online discussion, their citizens will be well-informed. And, as the quality of life improves for those nations following the advice, the international advisory panels will grow in influence in the world.

The international composition of the panels eliminates the problem of the nationalism bias, governments acting is their own selfish interests.

When combined with the binding arbitration process, expert panels can quickly provide fair solutions to controversies large and small. For example:

-- The Israelis offer their position online in writing.
-- The Palestinians offer their position online and in writing.

Negotiation has repeatedly failed to solve this controversy, thus binding arbitration is necessary. A 33-member international panel, selected randomly by computer (no Israeli or Palestinian members) discusses and debates the issue online in writing for all the world to see. Then, it resolves the issue fairly. The panel then assumes command of a UN military unit to keep the peace until the military is no longer needed.

While a don't foresee an eventual world government, I think it's likely that 150 - 200 national governments will be well-aligned with the policies recommended by the international advisory panels.

When is this going to happen?

 

[joe1776]

When is this going to happen?

I don't know. I feel more confident in predicting that an idea that makes sense will happen but not confident at all in predicting when.

My idea wasn't possible at all until 20 years ago and the advent of the Internet. So, the when might also depend on factors that haven't happened yet.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Imagine that a math class of 33 bright, well-trained students have taken an exam. Imagine that 25 students answered question number ten with the same answer while 8 students gave different answers. In this hypothetical, we know intuitively that the majority opinion on question number ten was the correct answer. The premise: When the answer to a problem is certain, as answers are on math tests, the majority opinion of a bright, well-trained group will always make the correct decision.

That premise is not true at all. How did you come up with this nonsense?

 

[joe1776]

That premise is not true at all. How did you come up with this nonsense?

Assuming a bright, well-trained group, you think the answer of the majority could be mistaken on a math problem? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Assuming a bright, well-trained group, you think the answer of the majority could be mistaken on a math problem? That makes no sense to me.

Of course the majority could be mistaken. Most of the time they probably wouldn't, but there are certainly problems that can trip up a majority of a group, even if the group was experts. Perhaps the brightest of the brightest are in the minority. There's no reason to assume the majority is always correct.

 

[joe1776]

Of course the majority could be mistaken. Most of the time they probably wouldn't, but there are certainly problems that can trip up a majority of a group, even if the group was experts. Perhaps the brightest of the brightest are in the minority. There's no reason to assume the majority is always correct.

Based on probability, I would expect the 33- member majority answer on a math test to be wrong only if their instruction was wrong (poorly trained).

In fact, if the test showed the majority answer to be wrong, by my reckoning it'd be more likely that the test answer was incorrect.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It could be a truism to say that the majority are usually wrong when knowledge and expertise are necessary to decision making.
Democracy is probably the worst way to make intelligent choices.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Based on probability, I would expect the 33- member majority answer on a math test to be wrong only if their instruction was wrong (poorly trained).

In fact, if the test showed the majority answer to be wrong, by my reckoning it'd be more likely that the test answer was incorrect.

More likely, maybe, but there are always exceptions. And with math in particular, especially advanced math, the minority opinions can often be correct, because there are often some real genuises who stand out from the rest, regardless of training, at least in my experience. I have a BS in math and all of us were fairly expert at math (compared to the general population anyway, not compared to PhD's), but there was always one guy who was so much smarter than the rest of us it was crazy. His exam scores were almost always straight 100s and if his answer differed from the majority of the class (which it often did), then he was almost always correct.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

More likely, maybe, but there are always exceptions. And with math in particular, especially advanced math, the minority opinions can often be correct, because there are often some real genuises who stand out from the rest, regardless of training, at least in my experience. I have a BS in math and all of us were fairly expert at math (compared to the general population anyway, not compared to PhD's), but there was always one guy who was so much smarter than the rest of us it was crazy. His exam scores were almost always straight 100s and if his answer differed from the majority of the class (which it often did), then he was almost always correct.

He might have been a genius at maths, but was he intelligent. Would you have sought his advice on social problems.

 

[joe1776]

More likely, maybe, but there are always exceptions. And with math in particular, especially advanced math, the minority opinions can often be correct, because there are often some real genuises who stand out from the rest, regardless of training, at least in my experience. I have a BS in math and all of us were fairly expert at math (compared to the general population anyway, not compared to PhD's), but there was always one guy who was so much smarter than the rest of us it was crazy. His exam scores were almost always straight 100s and if his answer differed from the majority of the class (which it often did), then he was almost always correct.

I can understand how the majority can be wrong on a problem re:very advanced math. But my premise is based in the idea that the majority would not get the same wrong answer. If there's a remote possibility that that could happen, I'm not concerned with it.