At the recent International Conference on Thai Studies, my colleage Nicholas Tapp presented a paper [tapp.pdf] on the work of anthropologist Andrew Turton . The paper discussed Turton’s work on ideology, violence and coercion and its relevance to an understanding of power relations in Thai society. In a long footnote/afterword to the paper, Tapp makes an extended comment on work by both Yoshinori Nishizaki and myself about local political culture. He raises some important an interesting issues and I reproduce his comment here in full:
A footnote – as an afterthought, I have to say that I find quite objectionable some recent views such as a recent article by Yoshinori Nishizaki in Asian Studies Review (’Constructing Moral Authority in Rural Thailand : Banharn Silpa-acha’s Non-Violent War on Drugs’, Sept. 2007) which compares rural views of corrupt politicians in Thailand to the way Marcos or the Burmese leaders may be perceived as ‘rural heroes’ by farmers in villages. Despite the corruption scandals known to surround the figure of Banharn, he stresses that he is seen as a benevolent pho muang by some. In a view which purports to be postmodern but which may actually be more ethnomethodological, the argument is that there is no ‘essentially’ depraved or benevolent Banharn; it is all spin (my gloss) – what matters is how moral authority is constructed at the village and provincial levels, through the kind of village ceremonies and meetings with schoolchildren the article well describes. Villagers are ‘agnostic’ about Banharn’s corruption, the article argues, because they do not see it, but they treat him as a ‘virtuous leader’ because this is what they do see.
Criticising ‘false consciousness’ arguments, and the condescension of arguments that villagers need educating in what democracy really means, and specifically disagreeing with Turton’s 1984 ‘limits of ideological domination’ argument (this seems to imply that he believes there are no limits to ideological domination, ‘ideology’ is in effect all we have), it seems to me this kind of approach begs important questions of truth and levels of analysis which are barely touched by such descriptive accounts. (This follows the context of other works by Aghiros and collections by Ruth McVey and Kevin Hewison).
A forthcoming article by Andrew Walker (’The Rural Constitution and the Everyday Politics of Elections in Northern Thailand’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, February 2008), puts this in a much broader perspective. This is similarly a critique of the ‘negative portrayal of rural electoral culture’, the view (by both political commentators and the recent coup leaders) that support for Thaksin provided ‘clear evidence of voter irrationality’, the view that the ‘Thai populace lacks the basic characteristics essential for a modern democratic society’ – which Walker, as in other articles, also associates partly with the communitarian valorisation of rural culture as against its commercialisation and the injection of large amounts of (as he sees it, necessary) cash – against the view of ‘gormless’ rural voters and a ‘failed democratic electorate’. Here the argument, following Kerkvliet, is for a broader understanding of local politics as involving debate and cooperations between groups and individuals over local resource allocation and the values which underpin it and, following Nidhi on the ‘cultural constitution’ in Thailand, that these local values embody a ‘rural constitution’ which shapes the processes of local elections and political behaviour.
Relations with the state are mediated through culturally embedded actors, argues Walker, and the skilful ethnography in this piece shows us how local voters do appear to particularly value leaders who are local, and will therefore understand local priorities, how they expect various forms of assistance besides monetary assistance from their representatives, and anticipate a certain amount of personal aggrandizement but not too much – and in the case of Thaksin took considerable pride in the economic achievements of the country and in his good English, seen as a sign of the educational status also much valued in the local perspective. Thaksin was also admired, says Walker, for his campaigns such as the war on drugs, which received considerable local support and commendation.
Again, the methodology owes much to Andrew Turton’s longstanding arguments for precisely this sort of analysis of local situations, yet the conclusions seem to me to merely reflect local ideological misapprehensions in a sadly mimetic way, with no attempt, in true postmodern style, to ask where truth may actually lie, or perhaps more pertinently, to probe alternatives to the dominant perspective, alternatives which may be barely discernible and certainly not overt. Besides local institutions of the state, the call in 1984 (Turton & Tanabe) was to look particularly at ‘non-institutional, informal, extrajudicial, sometimes illegal and subterranean, social forces, processes, and milieux’. There is no attempt here, for example, to deal with the power of fear and intimidation, to come to terms with the surveillance capacities of the modern state, or its powers to terrorize and the capacities of violence which the war on drugs unleashed at the local level throughout rural Thailand. That was an instructive case, for it was not just a matter of concerned village elders and a feckless minority of youth, criminals, ethnic minorities or other scapegoats, but a matter of very real conflicts and disputes, hatreds and enmities, between different individuals and indeed different categories of individual at the local level who resorted happily to the violence which had suddenly been legitimated, and therefore unleashed, in order to settle long-standing scores which run beneath the surface of village life. The appalling excesses of this time have been well documented, with cases of planting of drugs on victims after their deaths, the killing of children, and how local police fulfilled their quotas. In many areas there was open licence to shoot and kill those who stood in the way of particular alliances between local officials, police and drug dealers. In Khek Noi, a large Hmong settlement, extra-judicial killings had become almost the norm and an atmosphere of utter terror reigned.
In such literature there seems to be a worrying unconcern with ’selective traditions’ (Williams 1977, 1980, in 1984), exclusions from discourse, ‘restrictive’ practices such as scapegoating and ‘excommunication’ (Therborn 1980, in 1984), the complexities of actual consciousness at any one time as a ‘multiply determined configuration of elements’ (1984), the relations between domination, persuasion, and consent, and the more structural aspects of power, indeed with what Reynolds in a literary context importantly called ’state poetics’ in TCK (the rules about what can be said), which has become too diffuse to be grasped at all. Perhaps what is missing is class analysis. Perhaps that has just become too difficult, and too complex, for a largely interpretive anthropology.
There are many useful points here and now is not the time to respond to all of them. But I would like to make three brief comments.
First, in relation to truth. (By the way, having long been regarded as a crude materialist I am delighted to be associated with post-modernism!) The truth I was seeking to explore in the paper related to what motivated people to vote in one way or another. Here, surely, a focus on peoples own political views is legitimate. To explore the truth about the Thaksin government (was it corrupt?, what was its socio-economic impact?, how did the war on drugs unfold? etc.) would be an interesting exercise but it is not what I was attempting when I wrote about the rural constitution.
Second, I certainly was interested in providing insight into “alternatives to the dominant perspective.” The basic motivation for the paper was to challenge the dominant perspective in Thailand (and among many academics) that rural electors are incapable of rational political judgement. And in my discussion of local political values I went to considerable lengths to argue that support for Thaksin was by no means total, unchallenged or “rock solid” – indeed that was one of the main themes of the paper.
Third, in relation to violence. My view is that issues of ”fear and intimidation,” “surveillance,” “terror” and “violence” need to be ethnographically explored rather than assumed as a necessary aspect of people’s relation with the state. An atmosphere of “utter terror” may well have reigned in the village of Khek Noi but based on my ethnographic observations it did not in Baan Tiam, the village I wrote about. Indeed, far from creating an atmosphere of terror, the war on drugs was often spoken of in terms of enhancing personal and family security by greatly reducing the local distribution and consumption of amphetamines.
29 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Jan 31, 2008 at 6:59 pm
On Suphanburi and beyond: From a different perspective, people there (and beyond) make non-rational decisions about their political preferences, because they lack information, and part of this lack stems from the combination of systematic propaganda, including ceremonies and other public activities, with the equally systematic withholding of information (or have Banharn’s dark sides been publicized as much as have been his good sides?).
This situation has long been seen as a major problem confronting any democracy. Here is a quote from a source that is neither related to postmodernism nor to Thailand: “As political scientist John Ferejohn has written, ‘Nothing strikes the student of public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of information most people possess about politics.’ Few people dispute the well-established conclusion that most individual voters are abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information. Ever since the seminal research of the 1950s and early 1960s, evidence has accumulated to reinforce this finding.”
From Ilya Somin. 2004. “When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy.” Policy Analysis (CATO Institute), No. 525, September 22, 2004, p. 3.
2 jonfernquest // Jan 31, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Srithanonchai: “…people there (and beyond) make non-rational decisions about their political preferences, because **they lack information**, and part of this lack stems from the combination of systematic propaganda, including ceremonies and other public activities, with the equally **systematic withholding of information**…”
Yes. yes, I can understand you. (I’m still working on the paper above) If there was such a thing as local news that probed a little bit into what was happening locally, things might be a lot different.
When I think of all the questions that were not asked by the people around me, that they would have a right to ask in a truly democratic situation, in my one rural Thailand work and life situation a couple years ago, I shudder.
Like why are Burmese migrant workers in squatter camps building that university when the poor Thai farmers who live next door need that job, why did they blow 60 million baht on a spa in back of the uni when the Thai ajaans only get paid 16,000 a month? Whatever happened to the law professor and and university vice president arrested for running a teenage prostitution ring? Why is that accounting professor being pressured into giving the substandard accounting students he just flunked a passing grade by the dean? (we’re not going to fire you, but you simply won’t teach anymore) Why did I receive a memo on my desk ordering to tell the university accreditation committee a bunch of things that might or might not be true, but which it is up to me to decide upon because I am asked for my honest opinion, How did the dean suddenly end up with a new SUV at the end of the semester after irregularities in teacher pay? Why did that Swiss NGO volunteer hang himself in the local prison one day after the police where trying to extort 1.5 million baht from him? What did he say in the journals that were apparently destroyed by the police? why exactly did he get arrested anyway after that argument with another NGO? Why was the Akha father-in-law of that Polish guy shot in head and dumped in the road, apparently by the police? Why were those kids with black masks over their head shot and dumped from the back of a pickup truck in back of the hospital morgue? Why does the head of that Christian hilltribe NGO spend most of his time at the golf course, which I guess is a moot point now, because I hear he’s been canned for sexual indiscretions….
IMHO more time with the details, the information, less time with the fancy French words.
Also Thailand does not exist in a vaccuum. You don’t think countries like South Korea have similar experiences in their post-WWII history? Why the myopic focus on one country all the time?
3 jonfernquest // Jan 31, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Srithanonchai: “…people there (and beyond) make non-rational decisions about their political preferences, because **they lack information**, and part of this lack stems from the combination of systematic propaganda, including ceremonies and other public activities, with the equally **systematic withholding of information**…”
Yes. yes, I can understand you. (I’m still working on the paper above) If there was such a thing as local news that probed a little bit into what was happening locally, things might be a lot different.
When I think of all the questions that were not asked by the people around me, that they would have a right to ask in a truly “democratic” or better “participatory” situation, in my one rural Thailand work and life situation a couple years ago, I shudder.
Like why are Burmese migrant workers in squatter camps building that university when the poor Thai farmers who live next door need that job, why did they blow 60 million baht on a spa in back of the uni when the Thai ajaans only get paid 16,000 a month? Whatever happened to the law professor and and university vice president arrested for running a teenage prostitution ring? Why is that accounting professor being pressured into giving the substandard accounting students he just flunked a passing grade by the dean? (we’re not going to fire you, but you simply won’t teach anymore) Why did I receive a memo on my desk ordering to tell the university accreditation committee a bunch of things that might or might not be true, but which it is up to me to decide upon because I am asked for my honest opinion, How did the dean suddenly end up with a new SUV at the end of the semester after irregularities in teacher pay? Why did that Swiss NGO volunteer hang himself in the local prison one day after the police where trying to extort 1.5 million baht from him? What did he say in the journals that were apparently destroyed by the police? why exactly did he get arrested anyway after that argument with another NGO? Why was the Akha father-in-law of that Polish guy shot in head and dumped in the road, apparently by the police? Why were those kids with black masks over their head shot and dumped from the back of a pickup truck in back of the hospital morgue? Why does the head of that Christian hilltribe NGO spend most of his time at the golf course, which I guess is a moot point now, because I hear he’s been canned for sexual indiscretions….
IMHO more time with the details, the information, less time with the fancy French words.
Also Thailand does not exist in a vaccuum. You don’t think countries like South Korea have had similar experiences in their post-WWII history? Why the myopic focus on one country all the time?
4 cf // Feb 1, 2008 at 6:09 am
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0402/188/
5 Taxi Driver // Feb 1, 2008 at 10:49 am
There is a body of evidence that shows that the outcome of decisions made by a diverse group of independently-deciding actors (a “crowd”) — most of whom do not have ‘expertise’, and many can even be considered ‘ignorant’ — is consistently better than the decision of individual or a small group of experts, no matter how ‘expert’ they are.
A famous anecdote (attributed to Sir Francis Galton) is the story of a contest at country fair in England to guess the weight of a cow on display. Close to a thousand guesses were entered, some by knowledgable farmers but most by those who had no expertise whatsover. Not only was the average of all the guesses of 1,197 lbs almost exactly correct (the cow’s weight was actually 1,198 lbs), but it was far superior to the estimates of so-called livestock experts.
In Finance, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is based on the same argument. Back in the 50’s, F.A. Hayek’s essays against central planning (vs the market) were also founded on the same logic. There are other more modern publications that consistently demonstrate the phenomenon that groups are often more right in their decision making than brilliant experts – i.e. ‘the many are smarter than the few’. A good read on this topic is James Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds”. Surowiecki conducted a number of experiments, one of which was when he asked a group of 56 students to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. The average of the guesses (871) was closer to the correct number of 850 than that of all but one of the students’ estimates.
I believe the same ‘wisdom of crowds’ applies to democracy. Even though individual voters may be ‘uninformed’ (either voluntarily because they couldn’t be bothered, or involuntarily because of barriers) the outcome of decision by the ‘crowd’ is still the best one to rely on.
6 Srithanonchai // Feb 1, 2008 at 3:45 pm
TD: All right — from now on, when I have some pain in my stomach or intestine, I won’t go to see the expert doctor again but rather gather an uninformed crowd of independent decision-makers and let them decide how I should treat this problem. Hopefully, this “wisdom of the crowds” won’t lead to my premature demise.
This perspective also opens up new hope regarding the qualifications of ministers in the Samak 1 cabinet…
7 Taxi Driver // Feb 1, 2008 at 5:48 pm
On the contratry Srithanonchai the theory suggests that you might indeed be well served by doing what you sarcastically suggest. You’d need a diverse enough crowd though (probably >40) and made up of indepedent decision-makers who are motivated to give you the correct dianosis to cure your ailment (these are conditions specified by the theory). Of course it is somewhat impractical for a sick person to seek and consult such a crowd, and this is perhaps why some seek second opinions?
Nevertheless Srithanonchai I agree you’ve identified a valid critism of the theory – that it might not apply in certain specialist areas such as science and technology. But we’re talking about the social sciences here, dealing with human decison making where ‘tacit knowledge’ seems to be important.
As Surowiecki writes: “ The idea of the wisdom of crowds is not that a group will always give you the right answer but that on average it will consistently come up with a better answer than any individual could provide. ” In a way, isn’t the recognition of this truth the basic tenet of democracy with its popular elections?
8 Srithanonchai // Feb 1, 2008 at 7:37 pm
To Taxi Driver: Well, since modern society is characterized by a very high degree of division of labor and professionalization, there does not seem to be any much room left for crowd decisions. And, yes, I sometimes look for second opinions, but only from other specialists in that field (after all, experts have different levels of expertise, experience, etc.). If my bronchitis is not cured by one doctor, I would not convene a group of 40 people without any medical knowledge to give me a second opinion. (From your description, I understood that the decision-making crowd is supposed to be composed of non-experts in the problems to be decided upon. Is this correct?)
As for the social sciences, I doubt that one should leave the decision about whether a research result is correct or not, or whether a theory is useful or not, to non-social scientists to decide. I won’t even dare being part of crowd that would suggest to a well-known chef how to prepare his dishes. I’d rather trust his judgement and enjoy the meal. I also doubt that Leonardo would have painted a better Mona Lisa with the help of a group of dilettants.
As for the role of the individual vs. groups, I would rather dissolve the crowd aspect into (1) decentralization (having more than just one research group, university, company, etc., i.e. similar to Hayek and the “invisible hand” of the market), (2) temporalization (the development of good solutions is a learning process that takes time, since decisions are always imperfect and open to new discoveries), and (3) communication (decisions are openly discussed, again, over time, amongst the experts in their respective fields, enabling them to learn from mistakes). This latter aspect also includes teamwork approaches.
As for democracy, there are probably some more tenets and conditions.
9 Ladyboy // Feb 1, 2008 at 9:23 pm
The Efficient Market Principle is based on the market BEING INFORMED of all financial information and hence correct share pricing decisions being made.
Anyway we don’t need the wisdom of crowds or experts these days to make decisions. We have so much data to go on that can be used as the basis for decision making. I don’t go to a quack anymore when a computer diagnosis is available. Forget the next election – no more votebuying and thaksin problems. A bit of number crunching and the best candidate selected by computer.
10 Grasshopper // Feb 1, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Taxi Driver, as you implied, your example is hinged on everyone in the crowd thinking for themselves and not listening to the good doctor that Srithanonchai prefers. What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else? It begins to rely on a group having an antagonistic actor to counterbalance arguments. Antagonists are only favoured by other antagonists. When there are too many antagonists and protagonists you get a war, not necessarily a friendly summation on New Mandala or after drinks at ye olde pubbe.
It is always the same, there is order and chaos – democracy is better able to keep hold of order through populism because democracy can adapt to whatever is popular. Do you think that whatever is popular is good? At the moment, where I am, rampant hedonism is most popular. Sometimes (actually all of the time) it reflects poorly on my morals. I’d be interested to know how Taxi Driver can morally justify populism to this level. Would you hope that Thailand gets to experience the same hedonistic orientated development we have here in Australia? If not, seeing as you have righteously argued for the wisdom of crowds, what would the argument be to reconcile democracy without populism?
11 Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2008 at 12:05 am
Jon: Indeed, Thailand’s provincial politics are in urgent need of both public spheres and local mass media. As things stand now, you have these politics dominated by informal and secretive groups, with no media reporting on the visible part of their actions, e.g. as office holders in local government authorities.
You might have a municipal mayor who signed a huge public works project and received a luxurious western-style house of several dozens of millions of baht in return. No local print media, community radio station, or local cable TV will dare touching this issue. After all, staff there is not suicidal.
Even if this piece of information is available to a number of people via informal talks, this does not mean that the conclusions are the same, and neither are the consequences regarding electoral decisions. A person close to the political group the mayor belongs to might accept that this house was not acquired from the mayor’s own honestly earned money (because he has only his income as mayor, no other businesses). However, he might see this as “commission” and say that paying such commissions is normal in every quarter. Of course, he would continue voting in elections for members of this group.
Another person, on the other hand, might have long been against that same group, based on his principles and observed behavior. To him, the mayor’s house is yet another example of blatant corruption committed by members of this group. Therefore, his position will be reinforced, and he will never vote for any member of this group in any election.
Thus, it is not only information that is important. Rather, we have to pay attention to the processing of such information, as based on individual and group-related perceptional frames of reference.
[P.S.: As far as I am concerned, posting comments is still a 4-5 step procedure.]
12 Politics » Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by Grasshopper // Feb 2, 2008 at 12:19 am
[...] Grasshopper wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by GrasshopperHere’s a quick excerptTaxi Driver, as you implied, your example is hinged on everyone in the crowd thinking for themselves and not listening to the good doctor that Srithanonchai prefers. What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone … [...]
13 Taxi Driver // Feb 2, 2008 at 2:15 am
Srithanonchai: It can be quite counterintuitive, but I trust in the law of large numbers. I believe that if you convene the group of 40 (the group just has to be diverse and genuinely interested in solving your problem, not necessarily composed of any particular combination of experts or non experts) and do it enough times, then on average you WILL get a better result (less instance of misdiagnosis) than if you consulted single experts the same number of times. I was once misdiagnosed by a doctor and it nearly cost me my life (doctor thought I had something else when I actually had a burst appendix, and sent me back to school. I probably would have been better off consulting 40 people – because I probably would have been made aware after consulting with the 40 concerned people that what I had was most likely a burst appendix, and went to hospital!). 40 is a pretty big number of people to consult when you think about it. You get the benefit of a large pool of tacit knowledge embedded in these people. Anyway, I think many of the experiments I cited earlier (cow weight guessing, jelly beans) speak for themselves. They weren’t flukes. They are very consistent. If you conducted the same experiment you will likely get the same results as well. Its just one of those freaky things.
As to your suggestions re chefs and da Vinci, I think we have to distinguish between ‘judgement’ and ’skill’. The theory deals with ‘judgement’ rather than ’skill’. Judgement, or as the title of Surowiecki’s book suggests, ‘wisdom’ is very different from the ability to cook a dish, paint a painting, kick a freekick, sing a song or play the guitar. Judgement or wisdom is about making the right decision under uncertainty. Skill is more a motor function, a physical talent. When we talk about elections, we are talking about judgement – not motor skill – of individuals?
I do not disagree with your 3rd paragraph, nor do I disagree with your 4th, although having other tenets and conditions does not dilute the importance of the one I described.
14 Taxi Driver // Feb 2, 2008 at 2:29 am
Ladyboy the ‘Strong Form’ of EMH requires that information is instantaneously known by market participants (no ‘insider’ info). Everybody is equally informed of ‘known’ information and at the same time they are equally ‘ignorant’ of ‘unknown’ information. You probably know that most research confirms that no one consistently beats the market (its the old passive versus active investor debate, with the evidence overwhelmingly supporting passive investment…but, its like golf: we all know we can’t hit the perfect round (18 hole-in-ones) but that does not stop many of us from going out there trying.
15 Taxi Driver // Feb 2, 2008 at 2:55 am
Grasshopper: “What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else?” — I think its part & parcel of the package (i.e. normal) that some may be able to hog the airwaves more than others (sort of like what I’m doing right now on NM
), but I think the crowd is able to discern it. Otherwise we’d all use the same brand of shampoo!
I don’t think that whatever is popular is necessarily good, but I make that judgement from an individual perspective, based on my own moral compass which may or may not be the same as others’. I have the right to tell others that I believe whatever is popular is grotesque (Paris Hilton, Britney Spiers etc) but that does not necessarily mean I’m the right one and everyone else is wrong. There are universal truths (1+1 =2, perhaps even E=MC2) and there are opinions (Paris is grotesque).
16 nganadeeleg // Feb 2, 2008 at 9:30 am
Everybody is equally informed of ‘known’ information and at the same time they are equally ‘ignorant’ of ‘unknown’ information
What about those ‘ignorant’ of ‘known’ information – could the result be skewed if they were in large numbers?
17 Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Taxi Driver – Just a few snippets:
“40 is a pretty big number of people to consult when you think about it.” Maybe, this is the reason why modern society doesn’t work according to this theory? We do have to make decisions under uncertainty all the time, but we also act under time constraints. Anyway, we do have consultative meetings in organizations to diversify the decision-making process (in Thailand: to make responsibility disappear), though Thai Airways would not invite 40 people picked up from the street to decide about its business plan (not that this would make the airline’s work that much worse). Who would be held accountable if something went wrong?
I am not so sure whether a chef will buy into the motor skill thing; rather he will insist that his work is all about judgement (about the selection of ingredients, their composition in a dish, the appropriate cooking approach, etc.).
Burst appendix: When she was a young girl, my mom (now 79) was saved at the last minute because a doctor diagnosed her problem correctly (and probably her lay parents had an idea what pain in that area of the body meant), and immediately operated on her, even without the usual preparation of the patient. On the other hand, parents and relatives (not numbering 40, though) of a girl in Ayuttyaha province misdiagnosed this sort of pain. They thought that a spirit had possesed that girl and brought it to a spirit healer. It was my farang colleague who saved her life by pushing the parents to send the girl to the hospital and have the doctor remove her appendix.
Finally, even voters do not normally decide about decisions, but about decision makers. They indirectly elect a group (the Thai cabinet has, I think, 36 members, just short of the ideal number of 40) of experts (politicians, well, political experts anyway) to make the decisions for them. Selecting a single doctor and electing a single politician might not be that different. If they don’t perform, one can select another doctor and elect another politician (at least in theory).
BTW, Habermas and others thought that modern society should and could be governed by a domination-free discourse. They thought that if such a discourse could be established, the decisions coming out of it would invariably be better than those emanating from structures dominated by power relationships. However, this suggestion has not been selected by society either, probably because it is unrealistic and impractical.
18 Politics » Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2008 at 8:55 pm
[...] compassioninpolitics wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
19 » Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2008 at 9:07 pm
[...] compassioninpolitics wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
20 Politics » Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2008 at 9:12 pm
[...] Srithanonchai wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by SrithanonchaiHere’s a quick excerptThey indirectly elect a group (the Thai cabinet has, I think, 36 members, just short of the ideal number of 40) of experts (politicians, well, political experts anyway) to make the decisions for them. Selecting a single doctor and … [...]
21 Teth // Feb 3, 2008 at 7:16 am
Taxi driver, I also find statistics a very convincing field but I find your application of the efficient market hypothesis a bit faulty.
As Srithanonchai illustrates with anecdotal evidence, your suggestion that a group of 40 randomly selected people from a population will be better informed than any single expert can be incorrect. But as someone who deals with statistics, I’m sure you will brush that off as a possible but not significant nor likely case.
However, besides all the practical arguments against what you’ve brought up, I think there can also be a theoretical limitation to your idea, as Ladyboy and nganadeeleg have bought up with regards to the dissemination of information. Surely, there must also be population parameters that can affect what the consensus of the group? For instance, the amalgamation of 40 randomly selected experts in a particular field should produce a more accurate result than 40 randomly selected non-experts? Furthermore, the examples you gave (jellybeans, weight) were cases where members of the group could have given any number. Specific to medicine, how would a group of 40 non experts diagnose a condition that would never have heard of before?
Ladyboy, your suggestion reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s short story, The Final Question. It is all about the numbers these days and I think it is absolutely rational for humanity to move into a statistics-oriented world. Already, the think tanks and governments are geared more and more towards number crunching but there is a staggering lack of comprehension with what to do with the numbers. It would be interesting to see what would happen if statisticians and computer scientists led the world.
22 Grasshopper // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:27 am
Taxi Driver,
[i]Grasshopper: “What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else?” — I think its part & parcel of the package (i.e. normal) that some may be able to hog the airwaves more than others (sort of like what I’m doing right now on NM
), but I think the crowd is able to discern it. Otherwise we’d all use the same brand of shampoo!
I don’t think that whatever is popular is necessarily good, but I make that judgement from an individual perspective, based on my own moral compass which may or may not be the same as others’. I have the right to tell others that I believe whatever is popular is grotesque (Paris Hilton, Britney Spiers etc) but that does not necessarily mean I’m the right one and everyone else is wrong. There are universal truths (1+1 =2, perhaps even E=MC2) and there are opinions (Paris is grotesque).[/i]
But how individual are individuals? We’re all influenced by a culture of popularity. Perhaps morality will be popular one year? That wouldn’t be good either. The grotesque could just be ’sharing guilt with blood spilled in accordance with the dow jones’, does your moral compass find itself in that guilt? Perhaps it should, but then it doesnt because it is really too difficult, so one justifies another angle ‘well I didn’t want it to be this way, I never voted for them in our democracy’, and so the crowd of people adopt an armchair democracy attitude. The armchair conscientious objectors. I would find it tremendously sad if Thailand adopted our style of democracy (the archetype of ‘developed’ with statistical correctness) to lose it’s own developed sense of right and wrong.
I wanted to know your opinion on what an alternative ingredient to populism in democracy would be, but I didn’t articulate it very well. Is there one?
23 Taxi Driver // Feb 3, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Ngarn#15: “What about those ‘ignorant’ of ‘known’ information”
In the context of EMH these people would be considered irrational, and EMH assumes all stock market participants are rational (i.e. they take into account all known information).
But I think I know what you’re getting at: I think you meant ‘ignorant of information they should have known’, right? For example smokers who keep on smoking despite the warning labels on the pack; or, as I’m sure you’re implying, dumb rural folk who vote for Thaksin?
You know I don’t subscribe to that view. Smokers might be chemically addicted to Nicotine, but voters aren’t ‘addicted’ to populist policies.
24 Taxi Driver // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Teth: statistics is about expected outcomes. Srithanonchai’s (and mine) examples of appendicitis victims are just single examples, and as you correctly suspected, are within the range of possible outcomes allowed. It is very common for people to reject statistical prediction because they encounter a few outcomes that was not close to what was predicted. The weather may not always turn out to be as predicted, but I think even Srithanonchai pays attention to weather forecasts.
I’m sure there are population parameters that can affect the concensus of the group. If you asked a group of cavemen to move a rock, they would not come up with a wheel(barrow), let alone a bulldozer.I don’t think anyone has claimed that crowds can come up with new inventions. With crowds, however, you benefit from tacit information (info that’s already there, including ‘experience’). Ask one caveman and he might suggest to lift the rock with his bare hands; ask enough cavemen and you’ll probably find the best solution that caveman technology can provide (cantilevers?). Information dissemination is not a problem when you have a diverse enough crowd. The info will ‘rise to the top’.
But to relate all this back to 2008 Thailand: I would rather have a leader selected by a crowd, than a leader selected by a bunch of white haired privy councillors. Some individuals may think they ‘know better’ than others, but their decision(s) do not provide a systematically superior outcome.
Grasshopper: I’d like to be able to answer your question, but I think we need to agree on a definition of ‘populism’. If you mean populism in a negative sense (e.g. Pauline Hanson’s populism appealing to a group/class of people to target another) then education might be an answer. If you mean populism as nothing more than ‘popular’ then I don’t see there needs to be any alternative.
25 Politics » Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by Taxi Driver // Feb 4, 2008 at 3:54 am
[...] Taxi Driver wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by Taxi DriverHere’s a quick excerptTeth: statistics is about expected outcomes. Srithanonchai’s (and mine) examples of appendicitis victims are just single examples, and as you correctly suspected, are within the range of possible outcomes allowed. … [...]
26 Grasshopper // Feb 4, 2008 at 11:26 am
Of course I mean popular in a negative sense. But I mean it to be nothing more than popular too. If you see there is no need for an alternative, how can you be sure populism is correct? Isn’t it a blind stab in the dark? It has reason only because you have faith in it and for a system that governs huge amounts of people this sort of faith amounts to political tyranny because there is no deliberation over whether or not the faith in what is popular is misguided. In 1932, there was a democratic system in Germany, then some ideas became very popular through a certain triumphant will and then the Germans fervently decided democracy wasn’t for them. The system of democracy must be placed ahead popular approval so that populism cannot dislodge the system and incidents like WW2 do not happen again. But with your rhetoric – you seem to be suggesting that it should! Futhermore you keep saying “if you ask” Who exactly is asking the cavemen, the group of 40 etc these questions? A mystical western academic? The quiet guy sitting in the corner of the group? Lunacy.
I feel that Nishizaki is correct mostly because morality does not largely develop with what you can be taught from a book .. (Although books can serve as actors to point you in a direction) Teach them about democracy? I don’t see how this can be viewed without a condescending tone. Taxi Driver, do you feel that teaching people about democracy is a precursor to allowing popular approval? Nishizaki provides a much more forgiving analysis and it doesn’t seem to be argued from a base that has shaped our mistakes with populism here in the West.
27 Srithanonchai // Feb 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I actually don’t normally pay attention to wheather forecasts. Moreover, metereologists are also experts, and should we not rather have a crowd of non-experts looking up into the sky and then use their judgement as a wheather forecast for the next few days? That would fit the other examples, such as jelly bean counting, or guessing the weight of a cow, no?
28 Ladyboy // Feb 4, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Teth,
Yes there is “a staggering lack of comprehension with what to do with the numbers” I have read recently a few books such as Supercrunchers by Ian Ayres and Freakanomics that show the great potential. It will be interesting what can be achieved.
Most of the number crunching and ideas seems to be going into beating the financial markets with hedge funds, derivatives etc. This is now turning into financial dysfunctionality with fund managers chasing their tail by everyone ending up in a zerosum game. The total value of the market is not changing but the players are getting billions for their efforts. Perhaps the latest subprime crisis couls s
29 Taxi Driver // Feb 5, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Grasshopper, I can’t be sure populism is correct and not just a stab in the dark. But what other alternative do you suggest? Rule by popes and ayatollahs or some such ‘moral’ guardians? A problem arises as well when one asks “whose set of morals?”. A Wahhabi muslim or a Shinto monk’s? A Norwegian whale meat eater or a Greenpeace activist’s?
As for me, I would not condone populist outcomes that harm the integrity, freedom, safety & other ‘basic’ rights etc. of others (you know, the sort of stuff that’s in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I happen agree with the ‘morality’ in that document. (interestingly, a few islamic scholars don’t, I am led to believe).
As to your question about who is the asking the cavemen. Answer: their wives, of course!
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.