In any of the senses you’ve listed or haven’t listed. My point was that the outcome of the situation doesn’t change regardless of the cause of the ignorance. What it does affect is how you address the problem.
Ok, and what should be done about it?
A start would be acknowledging the existence of a problem so that we can start looking for a solution. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and what I think would be nice is if we had something akin to a direct democracy where people could vote on the areas where they are experts. For most people, that would be their own lives and the problems they face, so they essentially vote on what problems to fix rather than how to fix them. Let the experts take care of figuring out how to do the fixing. There’s still the problem of how to find good subject experts in domains where you’re not an expert yourself and keeping them accountable. I don’t have a good answer for those right now.
It is true that it is problematic for the whole population to intervene even in aspects they do not fully or partially master. It makes more sense for the experts to decide in a democratic way than for the expert to make all the decisions, the former is democratic, maybe limited, but democratic after all; the latter is pure and simple Authoritarianism.
Still, I advocate that the commons have at least a notion, however basic, that the experts are voting. Ignorance and lack of transparency are the points that make the population easily manipulated, because they think “Why pay attention to this supposed expert who tells me nothing or at best gives me a half-baked complicated explanation? I prefer to listen to the flatearther who does not take me for a fool and gives me easy to understand explanations”.
In any of the senses you’ve listed or haven’t listed. My point was that the outcome of the situation doesn’t change regardless of the cause of the ignorance. What it does affect is how you address the problem.
A start would be acknowledging the existence of a problem so that we can start looking for a solution. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and what I think would be nice is if we had something akin to a direct democracy where people could vote on the areas where they are experts. For most people, that would be their own lives and the problems they face, so they essentially vote on what problems to fix rather than how to fix them. Let the experts take care of figuring out how to do the fixing. There’s still the problem of how to find good subject experts in domains where you’re not an expert yourself and keeping them accountable. I don’t have a good answer for those right now.
OK, now we’re into something…
It is true that it is problematic for the whole population to intervene even in aspects they do not fully or partially master. It makes more sense for the experts to decide in a democratic way than for the expert to make all the decisions, the former is democratic, maybe limited, but democratic after all; the latter is pure and simple Authoritarianism.
Still, I advocate that the commons have at least a notion, however basic, that the experts are voting. Ignorance and lack of transparency are the points that make the population easily manipulated, because they think “Why pay attention to this supposed expert who tells me nothing or at best gives me a half-baked complicated explanation? I prefer to listen to the flatearther who does not take me for a fool and gives me easy to understand explanations”.