> This presumes that options are of equal value, or at the least that there are more than N actual viable solutions, where N is sufficient to ensure whatever sample size you’re using includes one of the viable ones.
That that presumes we're looking through ideas sequentially and thus are actually limited with the number of choices we're generally presented with, when really it's more akin to mapreduce when assessed at the level of leadership and domain experts. Between billions of people and thousands of domain experts, I don' think we're actually reaching any real limits, given the logarithmic nature of filtering good ideas in this way. What that means is that in effect there's a pool of solutions already filtered for viability and usefulness to choose from.
All we're doing by entertaining the idea that we should stop looking for and presenting solutions is giving people an excuse to prevent ideas they don't agree with from being spread to others. The whole idea of one person thinking that because they think an idea doesn't have merit that others shouldn't see it is itself harmful.
> while indeed it is the job of government to structure these decisions, recent history suggests that the opinions of the broader public still play a role in those decisions, that decisions are rarely made based purely off their technical merits, and that snake-oil salesmen can still do measurable harm to decision-making in representative governments.
There are many possible reasons why we don't see progress from our leaders on certain issues. I'm not convinced that there being 1000 possible solutions is any worse than there being 10. I suspect that the same forces that prevent progress work the same in both cases, and if we're talking about less than 10 possible solutions, then I think we haven't examined the problem well enough. In any case, I don't think the problem of there being too many solutions and too much information is as obviously the problem as others are presenting it, and would want to see a real argument presented and defended before I would accept it at face value. That's not because I'm trying to be overly argumentative, just that as I noted, I just don't think it's as obvious a conclusion as others seem to.
That that presumes we're looking through ideas sequentially and thus are actually limited with the number of choices we're generally presented with, when really it's more akin to mapreduce when assessed at the level of leadership and domain experts. Between billions of people and thousands of domain experts, I don' think we're actually reaching any real limits, given the logarithmic nature of filtering good ideas in this way. What that means is that in effect there's a pool of solutions already filtered for viability and usefulness to choose from.
All we're doing by entertaining the idea that we should stop looking for and presenting solutions is giving people an excuse to prevent ideas they don't agree with from being spread to others. The whole idea of one person thinking that because they think an idea doesn't have merit that others shouldn't see it is itself harmful.
> while indeed it is the job of government to structure these decisions, recent history suggests that the opinions of the broader public still play a role in those decisions, that decisions are rarely made based purely off their technical merits, and that snake-oil salesmen can still do measurable harm to decision-making in representative governments.
There are many possible reasons why we don't see progress from our leaders on certain issues. I'm not convinced that there being 1000 possible solutions is any worse than there being 10. I suspect that the same forces that prevent progress work the same in both cases, and if we're talking about less than 10 possible solutions, then I think we haven't examined the problem well enough. In any case, I don't think the problem of there being too many solutions and too much information is as obviously the problem as others are presenting it, and would want to see a real argument presented and defended before I would accept it at face value. That's not because I'm trying to be overly argumentative, just that as I noted, I just don't think it's as obvious a conclusion as others seem to.