Dispute between the informed and the misinformed: how to find the optimal solution? Column for Computerra #95

←
Dmytro Shabanov
→

Work for an activist Debate between the informed and the misinformed: how to find an optimal solution? On (in)effective management, conflict of interests at different hierarchical levels, and the Invisible Hand

Колонка в Комп’ютерреOnline #94
Колонка для Комп’ютерри #95
Колонка для Комп’ютерри #96

Я продовжую дивуватись, наскільки неправильно можна було зрозуміти попередню колонку. Мені виявилось можливим звинуватити не лише в рекламі видобутку сланцевого газу, а й у заклику «розстріляти всіх екологів, які є недобитою контра і агенти Газпрому». А в цій колонці я планую наступити ще на кілька хворих мозолів моїх співгромадян… Була‑не була, ризикну.
Ні, у попередній колонці я не підтримував ні видобуток сланцевого газу, ні розстріли. Повністю допускаю, що негативні наслідки видобутку сланцевого газу переважають його користь. Я писав про те, що суспільно значущі рішення треба приймати з тверезою головою, оперуючи перевіреними даними, а не страхами. А зараз взагалі пропоную задуматися, як саме слід приймати рішення щодо спірних питань.
Шановна мною Юлія Латинина бачить (тут і в інших публікаціях) причину кризи демократії в тому, що в наших країнах сформовано широкий шар виборців, орієнтованих на бюрократію і зацікавлених у підкушках від влади. Це частина істини, але, як мені здається, ще не вся істина. Досить розумні, потенційно самостійні громадяни приймають рішення на основі спотвореної інформації.
Попередня колонка обговорювала українську ситуацію, тому в цій, для рівноваги, я наведу в якості прикладу одну з російських новин недавнього часу. Заборона на усиновлення сиріт американцями.
Я не буду обговорювати весь комплекс пов’язаних з цією забороною проблем. Непонятна логіка зв’язку закону з справою Магницького, непонятно, на кого спрямовано остріє удару. Я хочу обговорити, чи є прийняття цього закону демократичним, чи відображає воно думку більшості росіян. Якщо вірити опитуванням, заборону підтримує більшість громадян Росії. Його критики чують: «вам не подобається такий закон, вам не подобається російський народ – от і відходьте від нього подалі»…
На жаль, у публікаціях про опитування, які я бачив, ставлення до закону досліджувалося поза зв’язком з уявленнями про специфіку американського усиновлення. Придеться обійтись якісним аналізом. Я спростую ставлення до закону до підтримки/заперечення, і так само спростую оцінку передісторії. У такому випадку ми можемо розділити всіх виборців на чотири групи, показані в таблиці.

How they assess the situation How they relate to the law

Americans take children needed by Russia, torture and kill them, and may even use adopted children for organ donation. Americans adopt only those children who have been abandoned by domestic adoptive parents, and often open up opportunities for an active life for orphans.

Support for the ban on adoption of orphans by Americans Group A Group C

Are against the ban on adoption of orphans by Americans Group B Group D

Of course, the four groups are not equal in size. I assume that the relationship between them is as follows: A>D>>C>B. The democratic decision is to seek by comparing the total number of groups A and C with the number of groups B and D. As far as surveys can be trusted, (A+C)>(B+D). Thanks to the authorities who reflect the interests of the voters! Wait a minute. Is the choice of columns in the table I provided equivalent to the choice of rows? No! Although the results of the choice by columns and rows correlate strongly, they are made on different principles. The choice of columns is the choice of one of two assessments of reality, which can be established as adequate or not. The choice of rows is the choice of preferences. It is possible to collect fairly reliable statistical estimates of how many children become victims of violence or die in Russian orphanages, with Russian adoptive parents, and with American adoptive parents. It is possible to establish whether cases are typical when children who expected family happiness in Russia were taken abroad. It is possible to estimate here and there the number of cases suspicious in terms of dismemberment for organs and conduct a thorough investigation. I do not have such statistics. The data that have been published (for example, here) are incomplete and can be disputed. Probably, before making a decision, the leadership of Russia should have received such information. It is a pity that it was not published. However, based on the data available to me, I am convinced that the last column describes the situation much more adequately than the first. Does the fairness of the last column mean that everything was fine with adoption? Of course not. Since I have already started quoting "Novaya Gazeta", I will add a link to another article from this source. There are many problems, but they should not be solved by banning adoption, but by other measures (which ones are a separate discussion). And what about the alternative, the first version? The fact that its supporters do not provide any reasonable statistics is quite eloquent. I assume that such an assessment of the situation is either deliberate lies or rumors supported by frightened and uninformed people. What do you call what short-sighted frightened fellow citizens pass on to each other? Fears, viral disinformation. Some of these fears are deliberately put into circulation by cynical liars-manipulators. Some of these fears arise on their own in an environment optimized for their transmission. Have you ever heard a sound amplification system consisting of a microphone, amplifier, and speakers squeal? The reason is feedback. The sound emitted by the speakers is picked up by the microphone, amplified, and fed to the speaker input. Whatever the initial signal that triggered this reaction, the system begins to broadcast sound at the frequency for which the amplification factor is greatest. We hear what is reproduced best! What should be done if the speakers squeal? Turn off the system or reduce its input sensitivity, and perhaps even turn on a filter that cuts off the frequency that is amplified. I've digressed a bit here... I'll say one thing: I am sure that those information transmission systems that best reproduce fears cause harm; their operation needs to be corrected (how – again, a separate big conversation). Let's return to the adoption issue. I am convinced that if it can be established that the first assessment of the situation corresponds to reality and the second does not, the opinions of people from groups A and B should not be taken into account, as they are formed on false premises. What will happen? Since D>C, with this approach, the ban on adoption is anti-democratic. Can we exclude group C from consideration? No. The difference between C and D reflects the difference in opinions. Perhaps not only that. Perhaps people from category C have some distorted ideas about another aspect of reality, and their choice is determined by this. In fact, the arguments of people from group C require particularly careful analysis. But there may not be any arguments there: a person may support it because it was prescribed to them, or because they will benefit from its implementation. In fact, I consider it correct not to take into account opinions based on a distorted picture of reality. Is it offensive to their carriers? It is offensive. They are fully-fledged people, just deceived (or self-deceived!). However, taking into account an opinion based on deception will not correct the situation. The only way out is to convey to citizens an understanding of the situation that corresponds to reality. What to call such an analysis, which I have just conducted? This is not universal democracy. Let's call it, conditionally, taking into account reasoned opinions. I have had to write that the meaning of a democratic procedure is to take into account independent opinions. In the era of the formation of democracy, independent opinions could be expected from free and secure people, and now – from adequately informed ones. But systems of brainwashing and disinformation ensure the "democratic" restriction of freedom. Technologically, taking into account reasoned opinions, based on the approach proposed here, is very difficult to implement. And it's not about the possibility of reducing this approach to absurdity: "What views on architecture can a man without a residence permit express?" (© M. M. Zhvanetsky). It is unclear how taking into account reasoned opinions could be regulated. For example, experts who determine whose opinion is worth considering and whose is not, will gain colossal power. Another difficulty is that it is not always possible to unambiguously establish which of the versions corresponds to reality. Take, for example, the assessment of the legacy of I. V. Stalin, important for making a decision on the problem of Volgograd/Stalingrad. Some recall millions of innocent victims, others will insist that there were far fewer victims, and they were enemies. The former recall miscalculations that led to the catastrophe of 1941, the latter will call Stalin the architect of victory. Stalin's statistics and the statistics of Western countries will differ. I will not continue, the principle is clear. However, in such cases, it could be considered that those who have listened to the arguments of both sides possess the information necessary for decision-making – as they do in court, for example. On the other hand, there are many situations close to the procedure of taking into account reasoned opinions. For example, how is a decision made on the affairs of a particular faculty at a university academic council? In simple cases, only those council members who know the situation express their opinion, and everyone else simply supports the decision of the faculty council or their colleagues. If the situation is controversial, proponents of alternative solutions justify their positions, and voters form their opinion based on an analysis of the arguments. Wait, wait, but representative bodies of power are created precisely for the purpose of taking into account reasoned opinions! Such a system does not require discarding the votes of people from incorrectly informed groups, it simply aims to ensure that all decision-makers relate to adequately informed groups. The system of supporting deputies' activities is designed so that they make decisions based on the most reliable picture of reality. But when parliament ceases to be a place for discussion, decisions are made offhand, without consideration in specialized committees or without taking into account the results of such consideration, the meaning of representative power is lost. All the more so when deputies are busy carrying out orders from superiors or pursuing their own interests. By the way, it is precisely in such cases that the argument is often used that the decisions made correspond to the aspirations of the broad masses of the people (whose brains have been filled with fears and disinformation). One can imagine an ideal parliament where deputies get the right to vote only after careful analysis of expert assessment of the situation, and are removed (self-removed!) from voting in case of a conflict of interest? What a pity that these fantasies have little to do with our realities! And now let's return to the problems of "nationwide" discussion. On some controversial issue, citizens are divided into three groups: uninformed, misinformed, and informed. The uninformed do not know what to do, the misinformed almost always "know" exactly, and the informed doubt (if the issue under discussion is indeed complex to solve). Which point of view wins (completely democratically!) in this case? Correct. The misinformed. And if we recall that the information transmission system within society most effectively amplifies precisely the disinformationary fears, it becomes quite sad. So. When I learn that new laws will allow anyone to shoot dogs on the street, that the Shell company will bring mercenaries who will shoot local residents in the area of shale gas extraction, or that hepatitis B vaccines destroy children's health because they use a protein produced by genetically modified yeast, I understand that this information is something like the squeal of a sound amplification system. Perhaps the rational decision in the given examples would be to repeal amendments to the law, abandon shale gas extraction, or even repeal hepatitis B vaccines. But even in these cases, the correct decision will be made not thanks to disinformation, but in spite of it. For a randomly made correct choice, made under the influence of frightening propaganda, one will have to pay with a multitude of wrong decisions...

Materials on a related topic: "Ecology" and liars — On the inadmissibility of deception in environmental propaganda. Substitutes for environmental protection — On the mythology of "organic" farming. "I made it up myself!" — On the use of deceptive pretexts in organizing animal rights campaigns. The indulgence effect — On how a charitable goal provides an excuse to forget moral norms. Work for an activist — On disinformation in the fight against shale gas extraction.

←
Dmytro Shabanov
→

Work for an activist Debate between the informed and the misinformed: how to find an optimal solution? On (in)effective management, conflict of interests at different hierarchical levels, and the Invisible Hand

Колонка в Комп’ютерреOnline #94
Колонка для Комп’ютерри #95
Колонка для Комп’ютерри #96