Partisan political parties are dumb

 

1. They promote their one-size-fits-all doctrine instead of weighing the costs and benefits for each issue separately.
2. They excuse the same behavior as the other party, but somehow it is evil when the other side does it.
3. They justify corruption to win philosophical battles that are often meaningless
1. We can point to successful and failing examples of big and small governments, and so the size of the government can't be the only question that matters.
2. Corruption matters
3. Freedom matter
4. Whoever is in charge must respect the dignity and freedom of those out of power
1. Having a loyal opposition that supports our country and doesn't want to burn the the whole thing down when they don't have as much power as they wish must matter.
5. We need to respect the the legitimacy of the other side when they win.
1. We can't try to burn the whole thing down when we lose.
6. We must avoid authoritarians on both extremes
7. We have to be able to find ways to do two things at once. 
8. We must be able to find ways to reward hard work and not reward those that are evil or lazy while also strengthening our safety net.
1. Insisting on only one is making us stupid because we both want the same thing, and we both need to do it efficiently without too many costs. 
4. Their partisan battles distract us from real problems and obvious solutions
1. We can't make wise decisions when one side doesn't acknowledge any costs of the policy, and the other side won't admit any benefits.
5. Our partisan battles are keeping us from being efficient and effective
1. Our partisan battles cause us to promote incompetent people on our side, that prove their loyalty to our dogma, but do not show any competence at getting things done.

Partisan political parties make us dumb

1. They make us unconsciously biased (confirmation bias).
2. Their one-sided advertising and propaganda causes us to
1. Use a team approach to problem-solving
2. emotionally cheer-lead for our team,
3. think anecdotally, and to
4. use reason to win for our side, not identify the best solution
5. kill the necessary devil's advocate
6. kill lady justice that is shown with a blindfold to remove bias, and a scale to weigh pros AND cons, and costs AND benefits 

 

They promote the spirit of revenge, division, and hero worship
They cause us to fight against those we disagree with, instead of trying to address their concerns.
They cause leaders to win by

1. Loudly defending partisan dogma, instead of quietly making any sense.
2. Being mean and attacking the other side, instead of being great and bringing us together.
3. Ignorantly pretending our solutions will go away if the partisan approach is applied, instead of wisely following data and evidence, and weighing costs and benefits.
4. Showing anger and hatred instead of decency and respect.

 

A political party using evidence-based policy forums could win against Republicans or Democrats

a) What unstated assumptions must one accept to agree with this belief?

1. People who learn about evidence-based policy are supportive of it. 
1. Agree:
1. Evidence-based policy relies on scientifically tested facts, which can be more convincing than opinions or anecdotal evidence. 
2. It promotes transparency and accountability, as decisions are based on demonstrable evidence rather than personal biases or political interests. 
3. It encourages continuous learning and improvement, as policies are regularly evaluated and updated based on new evidence.
2. There are enough independents in some locations, or enough Republicans and Democrats can be swayed from their traditional party affiliations in order to allow us to win. 
1. Agree:
1. A growing number of voters are disillusioned with the two-party system and are open to alternatives. 
2. The success of independent candidates in some locations indicates that it is possible to win outside of the two major parties. 
3. As societal issues become more complex, more voters are looking for nuanced and evidence-based approaches to policy, rather than partisan ideologies.
3. Evidence-based policy forums could be made to be effective enough to produce better policies than the Republican and Democratic parties.
1. By drawing on a wide range of research and expertise, evidence-based policy forums can generate a broader and more innovative range of policy options. 
2. The focus on evidence over ideology can result in more pragmatic and effective solutions to societal problems.

What unstated assumptions must one accept to disagree with this belief

1. Too many people will always vote based on party loyalty to ever allow an evidence-based political party to win.
1. Disagree:
1. Recent trends show an increase in independent voters and declining party affiliation, indicating a potential openness to new political alternatives. Furthermore, increasing dissatisfaction with the current political climate might prompt voters to seek alternatives outside their traditional party preferences.
2. Those who want to keep the current system will say: "Evidence-based policy forums can not be designed to yield policies that align with the core values of a country's citizens."
1. Disagree:
1. Evidence-based policy isn't at odds with a votor's values. In fact, it is a tool to identify the policies that most effective at accomplishing the things they say they want. By using data and research to inform decisions, evidence-based policy can provide practical, effective solutions that fulfill core values like justice, equality, and prosperity.
3. The party system is too entrenched to allow for a new party to win over substantial numbers of Republicans or Democrats.
1. Disagree:
1. The current dominance of the two-party system doesn't mean it's unchangeable. History shows that political shifts can and do occur, often in response to societal changes. With the right message and strategy, a new political party that offers a compelling, evidence-based approach could resonate with voters dissatisfied with the status quo.

b) Alternative Ways of Saying the Same Thing:

1. A political party employing fact-based policy-making could appeal to Republicans or Democrats.
2. Republicans or Democrats could be won over by a political party that prioritizes evidence-driven policy development.

c) Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief:

1. The number of independent voters, plus the number of Republicans or Democrats who express willingness to switch party affiliation based on policy, in a given location. 
2. The success rate of people who try to explain the benefits of a specific well function in evidence-based policy forums (build it and they will come).
3. The popularity of policies resulting from evidence-based policy forums among Republicans and Democrats.

d) Most Common Shared Interests or Values to Encourage Dialogue and Understanding:

1. A desire for effective and rational policy-making.
2. A belief in the importance of evidence in decision-making.
3. A mutual interest in the success and betterment of the nation.

e) Most Significant Differences in Interests or Obstacles to Navigate:

1. Differences in core values and principles between Republicans and Democrats.
2. Party loyalty and the potential reluctance to switch affiliations.
3. Skepticism about the effectiveness of evidence-based policy forums.

f) Strategies to Encourage Open Dialogue, Mutual Respect, and a Shared Commitment to Truth:

1. Build a well-functioning web forum that does a good job of identifying the best policies. 
2. Find politicians willing to tie their votes to the outcome of online debate forums. This could be a hard connection where they are fully bound to the scores given to each argument and the math provided by specific counting algorithms, or a loose promise to show which arguments they accept or reject and show that the pro scores of the policy they accept have more points
3. Make social media posts that highlight the importance of evidence in policy-making.
4. Edit the evidence-based policy Wikipedia page. 
5. Promote the understanding that changing political affiliations based on policy does not equate to betraying one's core values.
6. Encourage people to trust that their core values would win an open, honest, well-organized fight. 
7. Encourage an environment where party loyalty is respected, but so too is the openness to new ideas and approaches.

We need a cost-benefit analysis political part to address the dogma:

Dogma, in essence, is applying truths without considering their conflicting counterparts. Undertaking the intricate task of balancing pros and cons in our minds is akin to complex mathematical equations. This complexity escalates when we must weigh the relative importance of competing truths.

The problem arises when we insist on a single belief being the ultimate truth, neglecting the relevance of differing perspectives in various scenarios. Our world is filled with advocates for compassion or strict justice, defenders of tradition, or proponents of societal reconfiguration. While many dogmas carry elements of truth, they require balancing with alternative approaches.

The virtues of compassion, kindness, and mercy are indisputable, but they are not one-size-fits-all remedies. There are instances where the application of these virtues can lead to unintended harm: excessive compassion towards adults can neglect children's needs, and misplaced kindness towards criminals may lead to additional victims. Even trust, a valued virtue, can sometimes be misplaced, resulting in tragic outcomes.

Political philosophies often revolve around single-word approaches, creating a tendency to avoid balancing opposing principles. The crux of political issues lies in the imbalance between order and chaos, novelty and tradition, justice and mercy. If you are not constantly weighing these opposing forces in your mind, you have succumbed to dogma.

Our current methods of debate are flawed. Broadcast media, for example, lacks an effective feedback or correction mechanism. It's difficult to trust entities that spread information without allowing for feedback. Those who control the media are often motivated by power or profit, using their control to propagate their dogma or addict us to content that promotes anger or hatred.

The time-based nature of broadcast news and infotainment is particularly damaging. Each time-based broadcast is designed for a different audience, limiting its depth and preventing it from building on previous broadcasts. Organizing content by time not only removes context but also prevents the grouping of related issues. This leads to a constant reiteration of shallowly addressed topics that fit within the average viewer's attention span.

To address this, we need a paradigm shift in how we communicate and debate. We need a system that allows for in-depth analysis and feedback, one that does not oversimplify complex issues for the sake of filling a time slot. Only by breaking away from dogma and encouraging a multifaceted perspective can we hope to make meaningful progress.

Dogma: Applying truths without regard for other truths:

The act of balancing pros and cons is a complex task, particularly when it involves weighing competing truths. Our world is replete with advocates for compassion, staunch defenders of justice, preservers of tradition, and champions of societal transformation. The fallacy emerges when we cling to a single belief as the infallible truth, disregarding the varying contexts that could shift its relevance.

While many dogmas harbor elements of truth, they require counterbalance from alternative perspectives. Virtues such as compassion, kindness, and mercy often hold true, yet there are circumstances where their application can inadvertently inflict harm. Trust, another highly-regarded virtue, needs to be tempered with caution. Blind, short-term compassion may inadvertently reward and perpetuate detrimental behavior.

Political philosophies that shun the balancing of conflicting principles foster an imbalance between order and chaos, tradition and innovation, justice and mercy. We must continually strive to strike a balance between justice and mercy, and discern when more order or chaos is warranted. The refusal to question these aspects implies a surrender to dogma and an unwillingness to embrace the complexities of our ever-evolving world.

Harnessing Collective Intelligence: A Proposal for Transparent, Data-Driven Decision Making

Peter Thiel has argued that aside from advancements in data, our society has seen little progress in the past century. Google's success, valued in hundreds of billions of dollars, stemmed from their innovative use of links as a voting system for website rankings. This suggests that we could apply similar principles to rank ideas directly, rather than merely directing users to external websites. Google's algorithm places trust in websites with more links, but this can be flawed as people often make mistakes.

A more robust algorithm could consider the number of valid arguments supporting a claim, rather than merely counting links to a website. By refining this approach, we could harness the power of big data to improve decision-making. What we need is collective, transparent intelligence, not closed, artificial intelligence.

Imagine a system where we assign scores to various elements, thereby building conclusion validity from evidence validity. These could include:Linkage scores, addressing the relevance of evidence to a conclusion,

• Uniqueness scores, indicating the lack of redundancy,
• Data validity scores, addressing verification,
• Logical validity scores,
• Bias-free scores.

This could provide a solution to life's most pressing challenges. Rational collective thinking necessitates the dissection, evaluation, and scoring of arguments. We can't begin to address our problems without this process.

Transparent, collective cost-benefit analysis is the key to avoiding major catastrophes such as wars, artificial intelligence threats, global warming, extinction events from comets, supernovae, and super-volcanoes.

As it stands, our public policy is declining in intelligence. We're filtering all our decisions through our limited attention spans, compounded by the demands of our full-time jobs. We must embrace the complexity of these issues and start working towards solutions.

Harnessing the Power of Crowdsourced Policy: The Cost-Benefit Analysis Party!

Welcome to the Cost-Benefit Analysis Party! Here, I plan to introduce a unique approach to crowdsourcing government policy that I've been refining over the past two decades. The primary goal? Automating conflict resolution and mediation processes.

A wealth of literature exists on effective conflict resolution. These tried-and-true techniques can be powerfully integrated into a policy analysis web forum.

A book that perfectly encapsulates the essence of my vision is David's Sling. It embodies the spirit of utilizing reason and logic to dissect policy matters.

This forum is designed to methodically analyze the potential costs, benefits, and risks of policy propositions. Each factor is evaluated based on the strength of its supporting arguments, thus determining its likelihood. This is not a simple process; it involves intricate mechanisms promoting quality argumentation. The defeat of weak arguments and the support of quality ones lead us to reliable conclusions about the potential outcomes of various policy actions.

Quality-promoting algorithms form the backbone of this framework. They incorporate elements of upvoting, downvoting, ranking, moderation, and expertise validation, akin to systems you'd see on LinkedIn, Wikipedia, and Kialo.

My vision extends beyond the forum itself. Why not establish a political party that endorses candidates willing to utilize this forum to inform their decisions?

In essence, this post serves as an argument for the potential effectiveness of crowdsourced policy forums. Together, we can revolutionize policy-making and foster a more inclusive, informed, and democratic future.

Revamping Democracy: The Imperative for Evidence-Based Political Parties

We stand at a crossroads. Our political parties and our collective decision-making processes are in disarray. The remedy? Replacing our existing political affiliations with parties rooted in cost-benefit analysis. This approach paves the way for rational political entities that resist the pull of personality cults and reject blinkered, one-sided worldviews.

Implementing the scientific method in politics is not just beneficial - it's vital. It is the fulcrum on which the future of democracy, freedom, and our planet balances. By harnessing the techniques of conflict resolution, we can chart the most effective path forward, meticulously weighing the costs, benefits, and risks associated with each policy decision.

Imagine open online forums that challenge the stronghold of special interests, biases, emotional reactions, and anecdotal evidence. Picture a political landscape that sidesteps the futile cheerleading and antagonism inherent in our existing political parties. Instead, the strength of our beliefs would be directly proportional to the robustness of the evidence supporting them.

This is more than a pipe dream; it's a necessity. Basing our policy decisions on solid evidence is the most cost-effective and reliable method for problem-solving. Moreover, it's the only approach capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges we face. Now, more than ever, we need to revamp our democratic processes to ensure a viable and sustainable future.

Curbing Hysteria: The Need for Reason and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Decision Making

In the latter half of 2009, a wave of fear swept over hundreds of Toyota owners. They raised a terrifying claim: their cars were suddenly accelerating out of control. The aftermath was a whirlwind of activity - Toyota recalled 10 million vehicles, settled numerous lawsuits, and paid fines exceeding $1 billion. The conclusion appeared self-evident - there was a significant flaw in the world's most popular cars. Except, there wasn't. What transpires when hysteria supersedes common sense?

Mentioned Podcast

Our society teeters dangerously close to the precipice if we continue making decisions based on narratives, biases, anecdotes, and infotainment. It's time we pivot towards a more pragmatic approach - a political party that leans on reason and cost-benefit analysis to steer its decision-making process.

Malcolm Gladwell's insightful podcast delves into the intricacies of public folly. Instances like the Toyota acceleration debacle wouldn't occur if we prioritized deliberation and rationality over raw emotion.

Sure, a billion-dollar fine for Toyota and a few months of fear may not signal the end of the world. But it serves as an alarming illustration of how misinformation and hysteria can proliferate unchecked. We must learn from these episodes and strive for a more rational, evidence-based society.

Redefining Democracy: The Case for a More Informed and Inclusive Voting System

In the realm of political thought, a provocative idea has emerged - should we lower the voting age to zero but weigh votes based on voters' understanding of relevant information? This concept was recently discussed by Robin Hanson:

"Can we extend voting to younger ages, but also weigh votes via informedness?" (Link to source)

That would combine the liberal and conservative approaches, such as from @jasonfbrennan.

Let me clarify - I'm not advocating for an immediate drop of the voting age to zero and the introduction of a test to rank votes. Instead, I'm more interested in questioning the roots of our current voting age limit. Is it a blanket assumption that older individuals possess more knowledge? That's certainly not always the case. So, why not consider testing knowledge directly, rather than using age as a loose proxy?

One might question, "Who gets to decide what it takes to be informed?" A fair counter, but couldn't the same be asked of our current system, "Who gets to decide how old is old enough to vote?"

This line of thought inevitably leads to another question: Should we judge individuals who are uninformed? It's not always their fault - they may have had poor educational opportunities or lack positive role models. This brings us to the crux of the matter: who bears responsibility if one's life is less than ideal? Traditional conservative thought posits that individuals should largely be held accountable for their own circumstances, under the belief that society functions more effectively when we assume the existence of free will.

The question I propose is this: "If you are uneducated, is that more a result of your circumstances or your age?" It seems unjust to penalize young, knowledgeable individuals by depriving them of their right to vote. In contrast, a person's lack of knowledge may be more attributable to their own choices than a child's youth is to their own.

Now, consider this: do we even need to vote for representatives anymore? In the age of the internet, we could potentially create an online platform for direct democracy. We could use a system similar to Wikipedia, where people propose costs, benefits, and risks for each policy. Everyone could post reasons to agree or disagree with the likelihood of these outcomes, allowing users to rank arguments. This dynamic could be continually updated as better arguments or new information emerge.

However, we should acknowledge that people are often resistant to change. Despite voicing a desire for progress, many people are inherently uncomfortable with it. But I firmly believe that reason will eventually triumph, though not without a certain amount of inevitable trial and error.

Creating a political party that operates on open cost/benefit/risk analysis might sound outlandish, but consider these points:

• There's no reason for the federal government to act without first conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
• There's no reason for such analysis to be hidden from public view.
• Wikipedia has demonstrated the efficacy of group efforts, provided quality is rewarded.
• There's no reason not to base our conclusions on the strength of the evidence.

As for the concern about implementing online democracy and using algorithms for decision making, consider the success of Wikipedia and Google. Both have demonstrated that algorithms can effectively analyze and prioritize quality content. The ultimate truth is that our conclusions should be based on the strength of the evidence.

In conclusion, I'm not a blind believer in technology as the panacea for all our woes. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we are organized. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. With the right tools, people can solve their problems. That's whyI'm a firm advocate for Direct Democracy.

In this potential new world of direct democracy, the question of who gets to decide what it takes to be informed could be answered fairly by the collective. We could implement a graded system, wherein if you match your parents' score, your vote is weighted 100%. Score twice as high? Your vote counts for 200%.

Now, some may argue that the use of algorithms in decision-making is a dangerous path. However, our current systems, such as the electoral college and primaries, already utilize algorithms. A direct democracy, even in its simplest form, cannot function without some sort of algorithmic assistance. In this context, I argue that an online democracy, utilizing algorithms and clear reasoning, could flourish, much like Wikipedia has.

Is there a potential for abuse in such a system? Certainly. However, Google has proven capable of outsmarting link farms, and Wikipedia has managed to maintain a high standard of quality through community efforts. I firmly believe in the strength of evidence and sound logic. We can identify and account for bias, we can discern causal relationships, we can dissect problems into individual components, and we can collect and analyze reasons to agree on the same page. Through the teachings of conflict resolution, we can focus on the interests of conflicting sides, rather than their positions, helping us navigate towards resolution.

To those who argue that reliance on technology is a fallacy, I would argue that I'm not placing blind faith in technology itself. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we organize. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. This approach requires a highly systematic and organized method to address our problems.

Ultimately, the goal is to equip people with the tools they need to solve problems. By bridging the gap between liberal and conservative approaches, as proposed by thinkers such as @jasonfbrennan, we could create a more balanced, fair, and effective political system. I believe that with the right tools and an openness to change, society can advance towards a more reasoned, more democratic future.

Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Capitalism: Building Bridges, Not Walls

The internet has given rise to numerous discussions, debates, and ideological sparring platforms. From LateStageCommunism to LateStageCapitalism, these forums often present divergent views of the world. While critical discussions are essential for growth, it's equally important to acknowledge the need for nuance and compromise, especially when discussing economic systems like capitalism and communism.

We indeed need to educate everyone about the gulags and the failures of communism, but simply mocking or belittling those who contribute to forums like LateStageCapitalism is not the solution. Winning hearts and minds is not about outdoing the other side in low-quality, over-simplistic rhetoric. It's about out-thinking them, out-facting them, and engaging them with empathy and respect.

One common critique that often surfaces in these discussions is the issue of monopolies. While opponents of capitalism criticize its potential for creating business monopolies, they often overlook the potential for monopolies in government. Transparency and competition should be encouraged in both sectors. We should unite in our common goal to fight corruption and oppose the concentration of power, the real enemy of free societies.

It's essential to question why people would want to give more power to the government, knowing that a leader like Trump could potentially wield that power. We must be consistent in our belief systems, advocating for less government interference regardless of who is in power.

In our democracy, why does the president have the power to pardon or dictate trade? Shouldn't we prioritize trade with the least corrupt or most free countries? As advocates of capitalism and democracy, we need to ask these questions and strive for answers that align with our principles.

On this subreddit, LateStageCommunism, we need to work not just to debunk misconceptions about communism but also to convert people to a more nuanced understanding of capitalism. This can be achieved by building on common beliefs and jointly fighting corruption and power concentration.

A fantastic resource for this perspective is "The Cost-Benefit Revolution" by Cass Sunstein. The book argues that government policies should be based on careful consideration of their costs and benefits rather than on intuition, popular opinion, or pressure from interest groups. This principle, which could be found here, aligns seamlessly with our advocacy for reason-based decision-making.

In my view, the goal of capitalism is to remove arbitrary power from government officials who decide our lives behind closed doors. We need science and reason to predict the outcomes of specific regulations. If a regulation fails to achieve its intended result, it should be automatically revoked. Good intentions do not justify harmful results.

Capitalism rewards effort and allows for failure, but it should not reward the idle descendants of successful ancestors indefinitely. Each generation should start from a relatively equal footing, promoting fairness and competition.

I consider myself a moderate. I believe in a capitalist approach for adults, where individuals are responsible for their own success or failure. However, I'm more of a socialist when it comes to children, advocating for equal opportunities for all, regardless of their background.

While I'm critical of well-intentioned government programs that inadvertently cause harm, I believe that intelligent analysis can determine which programs and regulations truly benefit society. The person responsible for making these decisions should be ruthlessly practical and concerned with real-world results.

Capitalism is often accused of being a utopian dream, but I believe it's the closest we've come to a system that works in the real world. It prioritizes efficiency, aligns motivation with results, and rewards hard work. It's not about worshipping a doctrine but about improving society based on evidence and reason. My politics are rooted in reality and the desire to see improvements in society, not emotional needs or tribal allegiances.

We should reject radicalism, which is the rejection of the ordinary, the imperfect, and the real for an unattainable utopia. We should focus on what works, continually improve it, and respect our history. We don't need to destroy to rebuild but to enhance what we have based on reason and facts.

I encountered comments on this subreddit that resonate with my beliefs. One comment suggested that we're united by our dislike of communism and that there's no point in discussing our disagreements. I believe we can balance unity with open discussion as long as our goal is improvement and not division. Let's not fall into the trap of fostering hatred, as was seen with the Russian-paid trolls who fanned the flames of division. We can win with honesty, openness, and positivity.

As for the comment that seemed to dismiss the idea of fixing capitalism, I understand the sentiment. However, acknowledging the imperfections of our system is crucial to its continual improvement. It doesn't mean we're betraying our beliefs, but rather that we're committed to making them better.

To the person who labeled my thoughts as "commie talk," I assure you I am not a communist. I have worked for moderate Republican campaigns and strongly believe in capitalism. However, I also believe in maintaining an open dialogue and not turning our space into an echo chamber.

In conclusion, our love for capitalism should not be a blind devotion to an unachievable utopia but a commitment to a system that we can continuously improve. Let's respect our past, acknowledge our present, and work towards a better future, guided by reason and facts. The only group worth being a part of values diverse perspectives and follows the side with the best arguments. In the end, we're all in this together, striving to create a world that is just, fair, and prosperous for all.

If you're interested in joining the conversation or learning more, you can visit GroupIntel or check out the IdeaStockExchange. Let's keep the dialogue open, respectful, and focused on creating a better world.

Harnessing Simulations and Collective Intelligence for Effective Leadership Selection

Our current method for electing our politicians has room for improvement. We often find ourselves questioning if there should be more prerequisites for potential candidates. What if we could leverage simulations and collective intelligence to determine who would make the best leader?

Before any election, potential candidates could be tested on their understanding of key areas such as economics and conflict resolution. If we don't test candidates before they are elected, we could at least educate them after they have won. For instance, they could spend two years prior to taking office being taught by the leading experts in various fields.

We must remember that elected officials are public servants - they work for us, not the other way around. In a well-designed simulation, virtual citizens could react to economic downturns, corruption, and infringements on freedoms, mirroring real-world responses. The simulation could incorporate real-time data on trade, stock market trends, inflation, and debt, along with "if/then" assumptions from reliable sources like the Congressional Budget Office.

If the simulation is accurate enough, it could potentially inform our choice of president. Tens of thousands of individuals could engage with the game, and their collective intelligence could help identify the most effective leadership styles and policies. This process is reminiscent of the film "The Last Starfighter", where exceptional performance in a video game results in real-world opportunities.

Transparency is crucial in this process. We should be making decisions based on open, understandable algorithms, not secretive backroom deals. After all, artificial intelligence has outperformed humans in complex games like Chess and Go. Even Watson, IBM's AI, beat humans at Jeopardy. If the inputs into these algorithms are transparent, and the weighting of costs, benefits, and risks are logically defined, we can transition from simulations to directly informing policy. We could cast votes on our top priorities, and then use data-driven algorithms to pursue the most effective solutions.

Unfortunately, our current political climate often lacks this level of transparency and logical consistency. We see influential figures making claims about policy impacts without providing clear causal links or evidence. As citizens, we often lack the time or expertise to fully evaluate the potential outcomes of millions of different policy options.

In our data-rich society, we need to harness this wealth of information rather than trying to keep track of everything in our "meat-brains". We should not be misled by 30-second lobbying pitches, but rather guided by clear, evidence-based reasoning.

Our current approach is not working as well as it could. It's time to explore new ways to promote better politicians, encourage informed debates, and foster effective policy-making. By leveraging simulations and collective intelligence, we could make significant strides towards these goals. This future is not only possible; it is within our reach.

a) Assumptions one must reject to disagree with this belief:

1. Simulations and collective intelligence cannot provide beneficial input to human decision-making processes.
2. Collective intelligence cannot enhance our political decision-making capabilities.
3. Algorithms and simulations cannot reflect and predict real-world outcomes accurately.
4. Transparency in decision-making algorithms is not beneficial or feasible.

b) Alternate expressions of this belief:

Hashtags: #AIforPresidency, #SimulateToLead, #AlgorithmicGovernance

Mottos/Expressions:

1. "Democracy 2.0: Powered by Collective Wisdom"
2. "Simulations for Better Leadership: Let Data Drive Us Forward"
3. "Collective Intelligence: Because Together, We Know Better"
4. "In Algorithms We Trust: Revolutionizing Leadership with AI"
5. "From Backroom Deals to Transparent Algorithms: A New Era of Leadership"

c) Criteria to demonstrate the strength of this belief:

1. Evidence of successful use of simulations and collective intelligence in non-political domains (e.g., economics, logistics, AI beating humans in complex games).
2. Availability of robust, transparent algorithms that can incorporate vast amounts of data and accurately predict outcomes.
3. Demonstration of the system’s resilience against potential manipulations or biases.
4. Examples where human leadership has failed due to limitations that this system could overcome.

d) Shared interests or values with potential dissenters that could promote dialogue and evidence-based understanding:

1. Belief in democracy and the value of informed decision-making.
2. Desire for transparency in political processes.
3. Interest in leveraging technology for societal improvement.

e) Key differences or obstacles between agreeing and disagreeing parties that need addressing for mutual understanding:

1. Skepticism about the ability of AI and simulations to account for the complexity and unpredictability of human behavior.
2. Concerns about the loss of human touch and emotional intelligence in leadership.
3. Fear of misuse of technology, leading to potential dystopian outcomes.
4. The technical literacy required to understand and trust the system.

f) Strategies for encouraging dialogue, respect, and use of preliminary tools to gauge the evidence in this debate:

1. Engage in open forums, debates, and panel discussions featuring experts from both sides.
2. Use simulations as tools for education and demonstration, rather than as definitive decision-makers.
3. Ensure transparency and robustness in the development and operation of the AI system.
4. Promote media literacy and understanding of AI and its implications.
5. Encourage exploration and understanding of this concept through various media (books, videos, websites, podcasts).

1. Logical arguments:

   1. The complexity of modern governance requires tools that can manage vast amounts of data and make predictions, something at which simulations excel.
   2. Collective intelligence leverages the knowledge and expertise of many, reducing the risk of decisions being influenced by individual biases.
   3. Simulations allow for risk-free experimentation, enabling us to anticipate potential problems.

2. Supporting evidence (data, studies):

   • The Good Judgment Project, a study that showed that forecasts by large groups can be surprisingly accurate.
   • Studies such as “An Experimental Study of Collective Intelligence: Large Groups Outperform Small Groups in an Art Contest” which demonstrate the power of collective intelligence.

3. Supporting books:

   • "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki.
   • "Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction" by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner.

4. Supporting videos (movies, YouTube, TikTok):

   • TED Talk: James Surowiecki: The power and the danger of online crowds
   • Documentary: AlphaGo - The Movie

5. Supporting organizations and their Websites:

   • OpenAI
   • Good Judgment Project
   • MIT Center for Collective Intelligence

6. Supporting podcasts:

   • Superforecasting on The Knowledge Project
   • Collective Intelligence Podcast

7. Unbiased experts:

   • James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds"
   • Philip E. Tetlock, co-author of "Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction"

8. Benefits of belief acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):

   • Self-actualization: Enhances democratic participation and encourages critical thinking.
   • Esteem: Promotes a society where decisions are made based on evidence and collective wisdom, fostering trust.
   • Love/Belonging: Encourages collaboration and collective problem-solving.
   • Safety: Predictable, data-driven leadership provides societal stability.
   • Physiological: Better policies can lead to improved public health and welfare.

9. Assumptions required to accept this belief and its likely validity:

   • The belief that collective intelligence can yield better results than individual decision-making, supported by various studies including the Good Judgment Project.
   • The belief that simulations can accurately model complex systems, supported by their successful use in fields like meteorology and economics.
   • The belief that AI can play a useful role in governance, supported by its successful application in various complex decision-making domains.