Richard Dawkins: No, Not All Opinions Are Equal-Elitism, Lies, and the Limits of Democracy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2017
- No, Not All Opinions Are Equal-Elitism, Lies, and the Limits of Democracy
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You want expert pilots to fly your planes, top doctors to perform your surgeries, the finest musicians in your orchestra, and for the same reason, you should want experts leading the nation, says Richard Dawkins. There has been a backlash against expert knowledge amid the rising wave of populist politics, but Dawkins doesn't think elitism is the dirty word that people are implying. He contends that not all opinions are equal, and that the leaders of the UK were profoundly misguided in allowing a referendum on Brexit to occur. No average citizen-not even Dawkins himself-was fit to decide on whether to leave a federation of states with so much economic and political importance, and decades of complex history attached to it. And much like the 2016 US presidential election, it was a political movement fueled by misinformation. A representative democracy is one thing, where citizens entrust experts to make national and local decisions, but a referendum democracy seems to Dawkins extremely ill-advised, particularly given that the top Google search in the UK the day after the Brexit vote was 'What is the European Union?'. Dawkins isn't shy: he's an elitist, but a rational one. He affirms he would never want a world where your IQ determines how many votes you get, but he sees the clear benefit of making political decisions based on knowledge rather than emotion or misinformation, deliberate or otherwise. Richard Dawkins' newest book is Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DAWKINS:
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the former Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of several of modern science's essential texts, including The Selfish Gene (1976) and The God Delusion (2006). Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Dawkins eventually graduated with a degree in zoology from Balliol College, Oxford, and then earned a masters degree and the doctorate from Oxford University. He has recently left his teaching duties to write and manage his foundation, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, full-time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Richard Dawkins: Among the reasons that I heard for people wanting to vote for Brexit were, 'Well, it’s nice to have a change,' and, 'Well, I preferred the old blue passport to the European purple passport.' These are the kinds of reasons people were giving for voting for Brexit. The day after the referendum, the most Goggled question in Britain was: What is the European Union?
During the Brexit campaign one of the leading politicians favoring Brexit, Michael Gove, said to the British people, “You are the experts. Don’t trust experts, you are the expert now.” So ordinary people who have absolutely no knowledge of economics or politics or history decided on a 50 percent majority to vote to Britain out of the European market, out of the European community, which was a very, very complicated, detailed, ramified structure that has been built up over decades. And so in one stroke the British people, who had no knowledge, no expertise, were given the opportunity by a reckless David Cameron to vote us out and they did, by a very narrow margin. This cult of everybody being an expert, all opinions being equally valid is, I think, dangerous and most unfortunate. Of course I have been accused of being an elitist because of this. And yes, when you’re about to have an operation you want an elite surgeon to cut you open, you want an elite anesthetist to put you under. When you’re about to fly you want an elite pilot to fly you. When you’re about to leave a federation of states, which has been built up over decades, you want an elite economist or politician or historian to advise you on it. You don’t want to take the view of just any old man in the street or woman in the street.
I pronounce myself profoundly ill-equipped to vote on the referendum about Brexit. I was ill-equipped and so was the vast majority of the British people ill-equipped. In that sense I think that elitist should stop being a dirty word and we should start to respect elites in whatever field we’re talking about. We want elite musicians to play in our...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/richard-d...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.:)
This video is 3 years old for starters. This could be misleading.
A lot of those are well very silly options you are right but we also can't cage up all the foolish people
Smarter, faster? Typical elitist thinking...
Respect elitist except for political ones... Most of them are morons or just greedy
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
~Bertrand Russell
Ah Bertie who wanted to invite an invading Nazi army to tea.
@@TBOTSS Ah Republicans, who STILL want Nazi Germany 2.0 instead of America.
Bertrand Russell describing Dunning Krueger before Dunning Krueger.
So you'd fly on a plane flown by a pilot who was in doubt whether he or she could fly the plane?
@@harry-kt1qb The fact that you think this is what he's saying proves his point, ironically.
The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club is that you DO NOT KNOW you are in Dunning-Kruger club.
And knowing that in itself makes you less likely to be in the Dunning-Kruger club.
@@adrianaslund8605
The smartest thing you'll ever do is face up to your own stupidity.
😔
@@PercivalBlakeney Yeah. But then you might just be apathetic and not speak up when you have something worthwhile to say.
That's called Impostor syndrome.
@@adrianaslund8605
True, but a mouth like mine has done little but get me into trouble, over and over and over and over again.
If ADHD is what I think it is AND if it's what I've got, it's taken me decades to understand that, "A closed mouth, gathers no feet".
Slowly learning that the words have to come out of my mouth (as opposed to the other end 😋).
😊
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Richard Feynman
"The greatest argument against democracy is a two-minute conversation with the average voter" Winston Churchill
„Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all others.“ -the same Churchill
If people get well educated through civil action of various sorts, than, over time, the average voter wont be fooled by the systemic foolishness of our current society.
@@amyadmirer Yes certainly, although having tackled education you would still need to overcome the media, that's a huge part of the problem. For many people these days the education system is corporate media
@@DarrenFaulkner365 Yes, thats a huge part of the challenge, but if you look at history, very small numbers of people were able to create effective organizations. Part of the effective strategy in my view would be nonviolent civil disobidience. To focus people's attention on the single most important issue that matters at the moment, climate change, aka our own extinction in a matter of years, due to the urgency of our current situation, thats why I brought this up, and its a good starting point for education too.
@Kat Thomas Well I think what he was saying is correct, that most people don't have a clue what they are voting for and know nothing about the issues or how to fix them, but that's not because people are inherently dumb, it' because the education system and media industries are designed to keep us in the dark, keep us effectively silent in important matters, to keep the "bewildered herd" bewildered. And it's proved to be incredibly effective in keeping the average voter irrelevant
The most Googled question in the UK the day after Brexit being, "what is the EU?" was soul-crushing
When dumb Donald came out for Brexit, I knew it was a bad idea.
Assuming that this is true, where is the evidence that it was Brexiteers googling and not Remoaners?
And what makes you think that the people who searched for it didn't have any clue what was EU or that they were actually Brexit voters?
@@MrPro897 Oh my god playing right into the what the video says are we, one day kid, you're gonna grow up and look back at the thing you say on youtube, and you're gonna cringe.
That question is just so Childish I don't even wanna break it to ya.
@@jiangciyang3860 again what makes you think that a Google search even proves anything?
The most Googled question in the UK the day after Brexit was "what is the EU?" Thanks for that Facebook.
Facebook?
They should have googled that BEFORE the Brexit vote.
So a bunch of people just wound up randomly voting in a particular way not having the slightest clue as to what they were voting for, and just by some chance it wound up that what they voted for is now going to change the way their country works? Give me a fucking break.
Considering the enormous variety of Google searches, this doesn't mean anything. A Nobel winning economists should know this.
@@seancullen99 For the first three months of 2020, the most popular search term in Great Britain was "airpods" at 3.72 million searches. That works out to be, on average, 41k searches a day, out of 66 million people, or .06% of the population. What .06% of the population thinks is irrelevant in a national referendum.
As George Carlin said: “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize, that half of em’ are even stupider than that.”
Right. And half of all marriages end in divorce, while the other half end in death.
Although I like the saying, that is bad math
Shadow X And where do you stand on that stupidity spectrum
I think it's perfectly ridiculous that in 2018, after centuries of constantly-improving education systems, we're still turning out any kids that are below average.
Light blue touch paper, stand well clear.
@@shi_mo_neta Agreed. I love Carlin and as much as I like what he was trying to say with this quote, it is inaccurate. The correct version should have the word 'average' replaced with 'median'.
I wouldn't say representative democracy solves this issue. The representatives are by definition people who are good at being elected, which guarantees in no way their expertise or wisdom. Consulting experts doesn't work in practice - the representatives often do not prioritize or understand expert opinion or simply ignore it. There is nothing guaranteeing that representatives will defend the interests of the general population. Add to this the lack of accountability of those representatives.
Yes get rid of democracy, rule of the idiots.
Democracy sucks but it is the best system so far!
You are mistaking "representative democracy", as whole, and "representative democracy" as it is actually in your country.
Let's say you make a government, with a handful of rulers instead of one "big boss/grandmaster whatever you see/call it", that should be elected by the population, but each one of these have a limited field of action depending on its specialty, economy, sociology, psychology, energy, diplomacy, culture, urbanism... [etc etc], they can pretend to the place only if they are experts in the field and are recommended by XXX peers also experts in the fields.
That's still a representative democracy, but instead of voting for unskilled careerist demagogues chosen by friends with money as the best lever to reach the place, you'd vote for experts to represent you.
That example is just for illustration purpose of course, i'm not saying one thing is better than another, i'm just trying to demonstrate that "representative democracy" is larger than you seems to see it.
@@ZebrAsperger "my country" doesn't have representative democracy and you don't know which "my country" is. I think this is turning into an argument what the word "democracy" should mean.
How do you determine who are the experts in the field? I can see many ways this can go wrong.
Also, the voters wouldn't know how to choose the best expert unless it's their domain of expertise. I can imagine ending up with Deepak Chopra as your health minister :)
I have been thinking along similar lines and the details are messy. I think each person should vote only for the positions within their domain of expertise. There should be some mechanism to incentivize whoever is elected to not do just whatever they feel like.
@@martinkunev9911 And you totally miss the point, congratulation !
I have never spoke about what democracy should mean.
"you don't know which "my country" is"
=> your expression, your opinions, the video you comment on... it's called "reasoning by inference". The way you answer missing the point, through cognitive psychology as developed by Fabrice Bak, demonstrate you have one or two underdeveloped cognitive mother structure, which is a common trait of the digital generation, so i even have an idea of your age.
"How do you determine who are the experts in the field? I can see many ways this can go wrong."
=> "That example is just for illustration purpose of course". There is no need to discuss an example that is just here to demonstrate other systems, no matter which one, can also be called representative democracy, and that "The representatives are by definition people who are good at being elected" is wrong and it's not due to representative democracy but to the design of the system (the constitution) in which it takes place.
In short : don't mix constitution and general concepts like representative democracy, it's like saying "cars are noisy by definition" because the samples you have comes from your neighborhood and you don't understand that the noise comes from the design and there can be totally silent cars, even if you can't imagine it. A car it's just a vehicle with wheels to transports goods and passengers. A representative democracy just say "people will choose other people to represent them" how, why and the mission of the people choosen aren't linked to the representative democracy itself, it's one of the infinite possibilities of designs.
Here in the US educated people are treated with suspicion. Experts are jeered at, we are headed downhill at a sprint.
Here in the US we have experts that lie to us, we have big tech censorship, and we have a puppet for president, all of which are “educated” and all of which have earned our distrust.
@@tcrenovations1970 I agree we have an honesty problem, but an education isn't to blame for their personal choices in the same way that a gun isn't to blame for how it's used. Integrity is the problem, not education.
@@FirstLast-dd5bx I dont think he blames education. He is pointing to the fact that people with no integrity is using "education" as a means to gain power and control. Who knows what a person's intentions are or the skeletons in their closet. The best way to avoid that pitfall is to allow people the freedom to choice instead of depending on "educated" elitists to decide. If they are wrong, then who and how will we hold them accountable? They will most likely get off the hook due to the revolving door of science and education.
@@mostlysunny582 An uneducated person and an educated person are given a problem to solve. What do you think the odds are that the person with no education has the better answer? Not impossible, but not probable. Education is not the problem, and if you think it is, then you are helping to drive us towards an Idiocracy. Education is the only way forward for any country. Ignorance cannot rule the day.
Our education system is a sham. And too many of the so called experts were taught in the sham of an education system. They don't know how to find truth and facts, and don't recognize it when they stumble across it.
This is the essence of Socrates' beef with democracy
Solenya Pickleman Yeah, exactly the same.
Not the kind of democracy we have today.
The educated makes the law. The people decide trough a democratic process if it is a good law... Or at least that is what they are suppose to be doing.
Ah a fellow philosopher
Socrates came to a very different conclusion, however. Remember that the root of Socratic knowledge was in accepting that the wisest person in the room knows how little they know. As such there is a danger in any expert who claims that they have it all figured out. Giving a voice to the masses was one way of undermining such false experts, demanding that their conclusions account for the lived experience of the people that cog their systems. Socrates died by democratic order, yes, but he submitted to that order - refused to fight or run - because he valued democracy more than his own life. It is only after S's death that Plato resurrects his image to be the voice of the 'Philosopher King' who is infinitely wise through knowledge of formal truths. This latter tyrannical 'Socrates' is an exact opposite of the Socrates described in earlier texts. That Socrates was a watchdog, testing the knowledge of the sophistic experts who later spearheaded the claims against him. If anything, Socrates beef with democracy did not suggest experts should rule, but that we should be infinitely cautious about what we deem an 'expert'.
It deserves mentioning that Plato`s model of society is indeed "Elitist", but in a very special, "idealist" sense. The philosopher king, as thought figure, is the person who left all and any self-interest behind, and instead serves only "the truth"; - this is strictly the legitimation for his power. Would this person feel the urge to self-proclaim that he were an "expert" ? Or could he even justify it before himself, or anybody? - The answer is up to you. ;) In this sense, he is also clearly opposed to "meritocracy", where elites allegedly "deserve" any of their wealth and power. - Indeed, people who strive for material success in life (as should be rather obvious) form the very bottom end/ "caste" in his intended society. -Not to mention that, as a "Maoist hardcore commie", Plato wanted to severely punish everybody who owns significantly more than twice than "Average Joe". ;)
There was a time in my life that when I heard this kind of talk it would make my blood boil. Now after 57 years I have come to the conclusion that it is without a doubt the gods honest truth. Not just because some people are just outright stupid, but because a large number of them have never taken the time to think these matters out and are prone to making decisions based on emotion.
...couldn’t that observation be due to poor education, economics and the pressing of fake and fantastical news as well as an uneducated Christian Right that sees the Word in conflict with science? The USA should still be considered a new nation...we have so much to work out...particularly because we a variety of religions, races and cultures. We need to find a New Path...uniquely American.
I'd say "Prone to making decisions based on (easily disproven) propaganda targeted exactly at them for exactly that purpose"
So well said Richard Dawkins and I say this again David Cameron should be hold accountable for his disastrous leadership on this and also a bunch of the politicians who lied for their own gain !
No one easier to manipulate than an emotional human!
Yet that’s not even a factor in ones ability to purchase a firearm 😬
You' re right, and people are getting even less educated, more emotional and, substantially, more stupid
Brexit vote was like getting a room of 100 random people, showing them a chess board in the middle of being played by two experienced chess players, and asking the random people to vote on the next move. “Don’t listen to the chess experts who have dedicated 100s of hours learning and playing chess. YOU people are the experts.”
Audience member: “Which way does the knight go?”
Good analogy. I'm a decent tournament Chess players, and a million beginners working together would definitely have less of a chance of beating me than one experienced player.
@@pickleballer1729 if youve watched any of the "twitch chat plays..." type of clips youd know that, in fact, a million inexperienced players will play a LOT worse than just one inexperienced player
@@iCarus_A That was exactly my point. Well, not quite exactly, I was saying that a million inexperienced players helping one experienced player would only drag him down, except for one thing- blunder avoidance. Sometimes, even experienced players overlook something dead simple and lose. Extra eyes might help with that, but otherwise, too many cooks...
except is not about a chess game, it's about their lives, so they have a say?
@@daifunka7062 Certainly they should. But there will always be far more ignorant people than educated ones about any complex issue, so I think what he is saying is that we have our say by electing the experts and then let them make the decisions about the issues. Of course, that system can backfire too. For example. here in the U.S. there are several issues about which a significant majority of the citizens agree but which have gone the other way because of the manipulation of our system, especially with the Supreme Court. Legalization of marijuana, a significant raise of the federal minimum wage, and the erosion of women's rights are some examples.
I love this channel because it’s made me feel like the slow madness that crept over America during the Trump years wasn’t me just walking around wondering why everyone had lost their minds. America’s dismissal of rationality was hard to watch but at least I know it’s not just me 🤪
Be careful- if the insanity keeps up, with that type of comment you'll be the type of person that the pitchfork mob comes for. Believe me, I've pondered where we're headed if stupidity wins long term. Smart people are a threat to those who have mastered control of the stupid. It's the same thing that has happened in other major purges in countries like the Soviet Union, etc. We need a backlash against absurdity, but smart people don't work that way usually.
So how you liking your man Biden???
@@dallasmiller4324 He's not our man, in any way. Nearly everyone hates him-- democrats think he's not doing enough, republicans think he's insane, and moderates think he's not really that fit to lead.
But that's the difference. Right now-- people *agree* that Biden sucks, because Biden didn't start a personality cult the way Trump did. Everyone's a little blind to the truth, for sure, but it was *really bad* with Trump. The division, the blatant separation of realities, everything is still bad, but it's better, without him.
@@starRushi the division and separateation all came from the elites from day one of Trump's presidency.
MSM outlets are the reason for the perception of Trump. He has his faults just like all men however Americans came first. No way is Biden better for America....if anyone cant see that I just dont know what to say.
@@dallasmiller4324 Forget if biden is better or not. I am not looking at the people that hated trump, but the ones who loved him. Who would die protecting his name.
Such extreme loyalty is indicative of either someone that's genuinely worth it, or someone who cons you into the sunk cost akin to cult leaders. What I'm saying is that Trump was so charismatic that he tricked people into abandoning logic and embracing conspiracy without healthy skepticism. That is what hurt America; that is what Biden (though he sucks in many other categories) is not doing.
Totally agree. Can’t stand this bullshit concept that everyone’s opinion on every subject should be treated equally.
Yes. I totally agree with that, too. Except this does NOT apply to POLITICS. There exists NO such concept of "expertise" in laws, government. Laws are whatever one wants them to be. Laws are about what one thinks SHOULD be or SHOULD NOT be. NOT about "what is".
Really amazed how utterly STUPID Dawkins is not to see this ENORMOUS difference.
+The Ultimate Reductionist "There is no such thing as expertise in laws and politics"
Really!? I'm pretty sure lawyers and judges are experts in the law. And I'm pretty sure there are people with expertise in economics, foreign policy, education, health care etc (e.g. aspects of politics).
"Laws are whatever one wants them to be".
No they're not. Laws are (or should be) set based upon consideration of social and economic factors and how they will benefit the society as a whole. The Brexit vote for example will have great ramifications for this country and should have been decided by people with an expertise in economics and foreign trade. The average person, and Dawkins included himself in this, simply isn't qualified to make a well informed decision on the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU.
Yeah that @UltReductionist, reply was deeply ignorant to Dawkins position. Hes very clearly talking about having topically educated people finding the best way to handle said topics. Like having someone who understands, as best one can, how brain surgery works before letting them hack at someones grey matter.
Like fuck... thats a really hard point to miss.
The common man doesnt know shit about 99.9% of complex yet very real and series issues. They should be electing people to represent there ideals as best as is possible while effectively making informed decisions.
Idk where @UltRed is pulling the slander from but its shallow as fuck.
"They should be electing people to represent there ideals as best"
So the "common man" is too stupid to vote directly on certain matters in a referendum, but smart enough to elect people who will then have to decide on "complex yet very real issues"? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
What if the UK had decided to leave the EU, not by referendum, but following the decision of a newly elected Parliament? What would have been your excuse to reject that decision in that case? I see you're like all the other pro-Democracy hypocrites. You looooooove democracy on the condition that it fits your own political views.
The issue with allowing the ordinary people to have referendums has been clearly explained in this video. In this example, it was explained how ordinary people were giving utterly horrifying answers to why they voted for brexit. An example being: I liked the pre-EU passport color more. What Dawkins is trying to say is that your ordinary everyday person doesn't know how big things such as international treaties and economic unions work well enough to be deciding on such an important issue. Essentially he's trying to say that people who spent a good chunk of their life educating themselves on these exact topics are the people who we trust as experts in these fields. The specific issue with bexit is that the UK has allowed itself to have it's decades upon decades of smart economic decisions and important international treaties made by experts totally nullified by a referendum which was voted on by the very uneducated general populace who have no idea how nation building works. Doing a sudden reset of the entire economy like this is going to completely mess it up. You've completely missed the point of this video, and you are throwing ad hominems at the ones who understand how important education is.
Another big problem is people are just too lazy to educate themselves about important issues before voting.
Is impossible to be smart for most people.
goldenhotdogs I am talking about understanding important issues like global warming, economy, money... just ask and average persona whats its money, what is inflation... very few know.
The reason people are lazy when it comes to educating themselves about consequences before voting, is that they've lived in a privileged time. If they lived in a country torn apart by war, injustice or corruption they'd have to pay more attention to the issues. The risk with lazy voting is that it's easy for dishonest people to fool the politically uneducated and cause enormous damage by doing so.
Duncan Wallace That's the economic cycle, hard times, good prepare people create good times, good times create lazy people and the cycle repeats but this time its different because we have the technology to a point where it cannot exist hard times. Just look at smartphones, they are really smart and make us better and make everything more easy.
The problem is most people are simple souls, who are not the least interested to get any knowledge of social economy or world affairs . The Sun is best seller in Britain!!!
Yes we live in a representative democracy, but the Brexit referendum exposed the fact that the political elites were representing their own interests above those of the people. EU skepticism is also about a lot more than economics. If concerns about immigration, sovereignty, and bureaucratic excesses were addressed by politicians, perhaps there never would have been a Brexit vote.
You sound like a Republican. And the Brexit referendum exposed nothing but the same degree of heightened self importance and regard for one’s opinions as we have in America. Look at the shape we’re in. We’re twice as arrogant, and pushing towards authoritarian rule. At the very least one party rule.
@@23kyd49 This is exactly the sort of ignorant attitude that we've come to expect from people who support the elite. Firstly it's not arrogance to believe the elites might have got it wrong. They have done so fairly consistently for a while now. I mean the elites wanted Britain to be part of the Euro. It's not arrogant to think you're smarter than someone who thought that was a good idea.
As for "pushing towards authoritarian rule" Trump was effectively less authoritarian than any President in decades. Under Trump you have far more disobedience of authority than under Obama. You have far less secrecy than under Obama. You did not for instance have the intelligence agencies spying on Trump's political opponents. You had that under Obama. Hillary Clinton was not the less authoritarian option. Because unless Trump is literally Hitler she can't be.
Well said. I disliked the EU for some of the same reasons I dislike democracy, however all of the alternatives are far worse.
Used to be respected for applying oneself, learning and studying on a subject, gaining experience, you know, becoming an Expert
Now a days people pride themselves on their anti intellectualism stance
His beautiful tie must be really dear to him.
Lmao Floydguy
Wow.
🙄😏👏👏👏
Two dear...😁
Must have set him back a buck or two
... But it looks like he can afford that kind of doe
Thank you... I'm tired of having to show respect for everybody's opinion no matter how stupid it is.
That was ALWAYS your choice.
Do you have respect for Dawkins' opinion that the warmonger John McCain was a "good man" and Julian Assange deserved "no sympathy"?
Not too tired to be a couch elitist?
@@briansmith3791 No, because he's not an expert on politics. Did you even understand his point? He literally said it's already bad that they ask him about Brexit over some actual expert.
@@92brunod : i replied to @byron2521's comment about respecting stupid opinions. Why are you answering for him?
We need more people like him around. Many more years sir! I wish you health!
Democracy: my ignorance is the equal of your knowledge as Isaac Asimov observed.
Which book??
Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
Too many debates are too easy to characterize that way. There is incontrovertible ignorance, and then there is the dismissive wave of the bourgeois hand masquerading as erudition.
Oh, let's be a bit more accurate about that quote -
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)
Support the death of humanity
Do the right thing
It will never happen, but I would love to see a test developed covering the issues at hand. If you can answer 5 or 10 questions correctly showing that you have at least a basic understanding of the issue, then you can vote on it. If you fail, then you have no right deciding the fate of others.
LOVE this idea!
This ought to be promulgated in my country!
good idea, but not executable, the same people who are spreading lies would tell them the right answers so the uninformed could still vote - without better knowing…
That’s a great idea actually
maybe instead a free, 4+ week class on just covering the information about all the potential candidates. cause what you said could go south very quickly.
If being elitist means educating and informing oneself in order to have an educated and informed opinion. Then hey, call me Elitist. The art of philosophy is about looking at all sides of an argument or an opinion and then making an informed decision for oneself.
“Democracy is a very bad form of government but all the others that have been tried are so much worse."
Barry Robinson Exactly. I think his point is not to do away with democracy, but to make sure that people respect experts, not despise them. An uninformed democracy is doomed.
But this is the information age, anyone can research a topic, like the EU, self appointed anti democratic clandestine group of people, absolute power corrupts & that is what the EU is trying to achieve, or rather the people in charge of the funding, so democracy has stepped in just in time imho, otherwise we would all be dragged down with it.I have no personal doubt that this time democracy was correct.
Barry Robinson I agree with you, but with more hesitation. There is more freedom to research and also more opportunity to spread disinformation and to seek shelter in an ill-informed information bubble. People's research skills need to adapt with the technology.
Gil Carroll, How do you know your not the one living in an ill informed bubble?
The Antidote I listen to many voices, I am skeptical. I believe things in proportion to the amount of evidence that i have. I value good reasons over simple name-calling or tradition. Do you know of a better way?
While I fundamentally agree with Dawkins, it only works if you assume the elites have the layman's interest at heart, which sadly is not always the case.
This fool has his head so far up his ass he doesn't even notice the utter ridiculousness of his logic. By his reasoning the person on the bed doesn't want an "elite" surgeon to operate on him, he wants an elite "decision maker" who will decide for him who the elite surgeon is, before then he will also need an "elite decision-maker-finder" on and on.... He's never an elite at anything since there'll always be someone who knows more than him, and he surely cannot posses all knowledge.
Richard Dawkins is an idiot, the foundational principle of a democracy is that the people (who ever the fuck they may be) are the sovereigns, not some King or monarch and definitely not some self claimed elite. The exercise of this supreme sovereignty is to choose who their goveners shall be. If they decide a camel to be their governor so be it. The power is theirs and theirs only.
The fun part about all the idiots in the comments agreeing with such idiotic statements is; very very few of them if any at all will qualify as elite to make any decisions at all in the governance of their affairs if this fool Richard Dawkins will have his way.
The question of who governs the people should always rest with the people because "all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable right...."
Fuck Richard Dawkins.
@@Omega.Everywhere Here here!
Your comment is seriously underrated and cuts to the central issue, which is the sovereignty of citizens. Having the "right" answer, or more likely thinking you know whats best for people, does not grant you the power to dictate their lives without their endorsement.
Even with Dawkins own example, wanting an elite surgeon, fails because it is still YOUR decision which surgeon you think is best.
The best and most fundamental argument for Brexit was the rejection of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats making decisions for sovereign citizens.
@@sp4de69 Whether one is an elite surgeon has nothing to do with YOUR decision. The surgeon is either elite or not. No one is stopping you from picking a poor surgeon. Indeed, if you do, it may well qualify you for a Darwin Award, posthumously of course.
@@fredfish4316 Is there a point to your comment apart from a weak dawrin award joke?
sp4de69 He’s simply saying that experts in their fields are the best people to make decisions in that particular field. Are you trying to argue that unqualified Joes can make better decisions about health than doctors, or about the economy than an economist? He’s not telling you to give up your rights or opinions, simply to find information from the best source. As for unelected bureaucrats, every law our elected UK gov makes has to be passed in the house of lords, none of whom are elected. Without solving it, this argument for Brexit has no legs to stand on. Why are more people not talking about that? Because most people only have half the information, because we are not experts.
"This shit is gonna get cray-cray" - John Quincy Adams
It is already crazy my friend!
"Well, it's nice to have a change" is the most British thing I've ever heard.
Dawkins as usual is correct, and now four years later we predictably stumble closer to the inevitability of a failed trade agreement and its catastrophic implications because its too damned complicated to agree.
It’s not because it’s ‘too complicated to agree’ a trade agreement, it’s because such an agreement, that is, one that doesn’t result in massive loss of trade for the UK and as associated economical marginalization, is a unicorn: it cannot exist outside the Single Market and the Customs Union and membership of those two essential pillars depends on acceptance of common standards and rights including freedom of movement. Hence, it is impossible and was always known to be so by thinking beings who were not utter charlatans and scoundrels serving their oligarch overlords.
@L' Ours errr ... I think we agree!
Promoting people to make informed decisions and listen to experts backed by evidence is not elitism
Correct, it's sensible!
I have been accused of being "elitist". Because I am an elderly, somewhat well educated social activist, it stung and made me question my motives for everything I do or have done. I do firmly believe that all sides of an argument may not be equal but I do (sometimes) question my own arguments. I still know "right from wrong" and trust my own sense of ethics to the exclusion of any religious or political debate. It's just the best I can do and I work at it as skeptically and objectively as I know how
Pity talks like this are not shown regularly on TV between so called ‘reality’ shows.
Mr Dawkins is a national treasure who speaks the truth.
🌲🌝☘️
Prof. Dawkins is not just national but a world treasure....and a courageous truth seeker
Nice to hear some wisdom for a change! Too many fools around these days who think they're "experts" because they read something on Facebook. They have no idea that becoming an expert required decades of hard work.
Too many fools think the "experts" have their best interests in mind.
@@Drew15000 they do
@@Drew15000 They may, they may not. However, we should be making decisions with expert advice. Take Brexit, every expert was admitting that it would not be as neat and clean as the Tories were making it sound. But because expertise is frowned upon, they weren't listened to.
Except that as defined by Dawkins it required nothing of the kind. You don't have to work hard at being an expert in anything to become a politician, other than being elected. Saying that these people worked hard and therefore know something about Brexit is like saying you worked hard on painting your 40K minatures therefore you know how to run a nuclear reactor.
@@StephanFitzgeraldTay " every expert was admitting that it would not be as neat and clean as the Tories were making it sound. "
And was staying in the EU any neater or cleaner? No, so their advice was irrelevant.
That tie though.
That tie doe*
Dawkins is free to take the opinion of an expert. One expert said to vote Yes, so did he take the opinion of that expert?
I don't think Dawkins understand the way democracy works. This vote affects all people in Britain, and all people should get a say. People are free to vote in accordance with the way an expert tells them if they wish.
Even when I disagree with this man on an issue, his intelligence and logical deduction makes me do it with extreme humility.
He was advocating "representative democracy" and not "referendum democracy". His point was that the decision to leave or remain within the EU would be better undertaken by people dedicated to understanding the ramification of such a decision.
Colin, Nigel Farage was part of the European Parliament. He was discussing this issue regularly. He was in the position of being the foremost professional on this matter for the UK. His opinion was that the UK should leave the EU. The referendum was to let the people decide. My point is that Dawkins would not have taken the word of Nigel Farage despite that he is the expert, and that is hypocritical.
This man has nailed it!
He is one of the most underrated thinkers of our time. 👏👏
No, he only "nailed" it if you assume public policy like " experts" politicians and historians are like scientists or engineers. But he hasn't shown that. In fact 30% of university faculty are Marxists, which is about as wrong as you can get. Public policy experts don't have timely or unambiguous feedback, so they have no way to actually get good at making predictions in their fields.
The stupidest one. He just makes up stuff out of context and then smashes the straw man. You have to do better if you wanna be a greater thinker.
@@MrPro897 Are you kidding????
He is clear, concise and articulates well when destroying entrenched opinions
@@anirprasadd He's talking about the most common google searches in UK after the referendum. How does this prove anything? What percentage of Brexit voters did search "what is EU". Like 5%? 10%? We don't really know. What makes you think these people didn't know what is EU and just searched to verify or just for the sake of it? He claims to have known people who want to vote Brexit for another passport color or make a change. He deliberately misses the forest for the tree.
Most common reasons for Brexit were sovereignty, immigration, net loss for UK, flexibility of trade deals. He fails to answer in any of that, yet he talks about the passport color, like there were million of voters to reason passport color for Brexit. As a comedian he might be good, but he's no politics thinker, therefore he cannot claim any expertise on the Brexit issue.
Plus he fails to provide a realistic alternative to referendum and democracy. Who are the experts actually? And what makes an expert? And who will decice who's to be excluded from the expert group? And whose interests' experts have in heart? There's no real answer to this, so democratic procedure is still the best, whether you like it or not.
And his operation example is completely off and proves quite the opposite actually. No one can be forced into a surgery, he'll be asked whether he wants to be operated or not. The same with Brexit. British people hardly had a say on EU policy and Brexit deal. Only thing they were asked to vote on was the very fundamental question whether they stay on EU or not, just like you are asked whether you have a surgery or not.
I have, later in life, changed my mind on this. I used to think, when I was a younger man, that people were mostly clever enough vote, and had good intentions, generally speaking. I've found that isn't the case at all.
Selfishness and ignorance are the default states of the beast. As Dickens did warn us:
'They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon
them. 'And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers.
This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both,
and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy,
for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out
its hand towards the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye.
Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse.
And abide the end.'
So well said Richard Dawkins and I say this again David Cameron should be hold accountable for his disastrous leadership on this and also a bunch of the politicians who lied for their own gain !
That is a great tie.
neil deGrass Tyson is also a wearer of interestng ties. I think they are part of some esoteric club. Order of the Exotic Tie.
His wife hand-paints all those evolution themed ties for her husband.
It's not nearly tight enough .
cobse not funny
It's the tie of elitism.
They should at least have made it 65/35% to win thing. This was just criminal.
The issue is not just the knowledge people have, but the character and intentions of these people.
Someone can have knowledge in an area, but lacking in common sense (effective sense)..
Also, I find that elitism (who has the right to speak, act or heard in meaningful platforms) is often applied discriminately in various forms such as class, social group, race, colour, alma mater, money, job level, etc.
Many experts don't seem to be able to weigh the pros and cons of an idea based on the idea's own intrinsic merits and instead defer to the consensus view of other experts.
Democracy doesn't work when the standard integrity of elected officials is so low that we can't distinguish facts from falsehood - at a national level.
Human values have not yet evolved to the point where Democracy can function ideally.
For now, at least the live streams from the House of Parliament are entertaining.
See: Best of David Cameron
"Democracy doesn't work when the standard integrity of elected officials is so low..."
Agreed. But we must be careful about causes and effects here. The integrity of officials depends on who is elected and that's a result of democracy as much as it is a circumstance. For democracy to work, voters must pick officials of integrity.
What, then, if there are none on the ballot? Crucially, that's the moment when people of integrity must stand themselves. The right and wilingness to vote are essential but so are the right and willingness to stand for office. Without people switching gear from choosing to generating choices, democracy isn't stable.
It's like a marketplace. When all sandwiches on offer are bad or overpriced or both, choosing among them will not prompt the businesses to improve them. They will form a cartel instead. What makes the market efficient is everyone's option to switch from buying sandwiches to selling them, which will be easy and profitable precisely when the current offerings are bad.
@@michelebaffo5741 Fair point and based.
@@michelebaffo5741 Yours is the best comment in the thread. At the very least, people must be willing to put in the effort to hold politicians accountable between elections. They must make phone calls and write letters to their representatives. Far to many people want to sit back and complain without making any effort. Some are hard pressed to get out and vote once every few years.
People like to feel important. Being told their opinion is wrong hurts personally. Seeing an elitist in their field tell them one thing that contradicts their world view will only strengthen their position. It's hard to convince the opposite side of an opinion as it'll only make them cover their ears more. Telling people they are NOT intelligent or knowledgeable enough outrages the public.
None of us have any idea of the full implications of brexit and only know what news channels tell us, and that information is watered down and speaks very vaguely to engage every one. None of us know the processes that go on to maintain such a complex federation. People think it's as simple as one man wanting in or out and "negotiations" to get the best deal when it's so much more complicated than we can conceive. These EU officials are highly intelligent, like most politicians regardless of their policital orientation. The public like to undermine their abilities almost to appease theirs shortcomings and lack of elitism.
Emelator did I suggest that?
+Quentin Hayes This elitism is a pathetic argument by authority.
This amounts to nothing.
An argument does not get any better by proxy. It is unscientific to suggest otherwise.
Won't you weakwilled shits do anything to feel smug even without any substance.
Talking about pilots is a stupid false equivalency: There is a clear standard a pilot has to fulfill, as in be able to fly a plane safely, but this cannot be said for such a thing as ideology, arguments and opinions due to their subjective nature.
But surely this shows us that you are not the elite when it comes these kinds of intellectual things.
M.D. Geist you okay buddy?
+Quentin Hayes That isn't an argument. Not that I would have expected one.
Quentin Hayes I'm sorry to tell you, but only a minority of politicians are very intelligent, even less are really knowledgable in "their" fields. That's because people don't like to vote for someone that is far more intelligent than them (and you need another kind of intelligence for campaigns than for dealing with crises). Sure, your definition of "intelligent" is also important if you make such a statement, but for me, only a very small percentage of people are really capable of dealing with Trumps and Kim Jon Uns and finding the right way to deal with poverty, reforming the educational system etc... If you look at those things in almost any country in the world, you'll find doctors as ministers of defences and lawyers as health ministers and many more that can't do a great Job in that position, just because your president/prime minister/whatever had to swap a few people because you can't have the same cabinet for two periods, god no that'd be horrible...
Just like I think politicians aren't always that smart, people aren't always that dumb. I think most people know that the experts are right if they genuinely thought about it, but some people are just arrogant assholes. Believing you're the one good guy fighting against the rest of the world always sounds more appealing than having to work together and being dependent on others. And getting to ban foreigners from coming is also a plus for most people that know they aren't special.
"Put your faith in those who are willing to give away their power".
The problem with many experts is that they mistake their expertise in their specific field for a general expertise in all fields.
That's largely going to depend in which field of expertise they're in. e.g. Experts in science don't often comment on politics.
Sounds a lot like Jordan Peterson lol
never understood why everybody gets to vote about everything. we have a local saying: "wer keine ahnung hat, hat keine meinung" loosely translates to: if you dont have the knowledge, your opinion is worthless.
its not widely used, but i instantly liked it, because it is just so logical.
Because a vote affects everyone? Would you be happy if someone else decided that you werent allowed to drive your car because you didn't fully understand the intricate mechanical workings of it?
bad example for me, since i have decent mechanical knowledge. how about a 1000 page international treaty? i sure as hell have no clue about it and you want me to decide about the fate of millions of people? are you insane? im not doing that! there are people that invest thousands of hours to try and understand that mountain of paragraphs and then there are politicans that pick a snippet that works for their agenda and run with it. neither the politician nor i have anything usefull to contribute in the matter. let the experts sort it out.
So you are happy for your life to be taken out of your hands?
i want a trained surgeon to operate on me, i want a certified electrician to do the wirering in my house and i want a economics savy finance guy to make my international trade agreements. i cant help with any of these, or any multitude of other things. you can tell me all your opinions about international trade, but as long as you dont have the training and experience to put weight behind them, you are just wasting everybodys time....
im sure you have met people just full of opinions that talk and talk about stuff they often quite obviously have no knowledge about. im not one of those people and i make it a point to stay away from people like that.
I bet to some people that sounds like an arrogant saying but it sure makes a lot of sense.
Perhaps the word " informed " would be preferable to " elite ".
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.:)
and formed
Informed people make them feel/look stupid. Awww. Poor babies.
@@joeygibbs4775 💥👋🏼
Informed doesn't really cut it. I know many informed people, but that doesn't mean that they would be competent at the job. It is a mix of being highly skilled and experienced and having the right kind of education and temperament--and that doesn't mean from an Ivy League school either.
Ive often subscribed to adage that 'you are not, in fact, entitled to your own opinion. You're only entitled to an opinion you CAN DEFEND". Too many people think their ignorance weighs as much as someone's expertise.
I asked my cousin who has a PhD in Economics for his advice on the Brexit referendum and he said it was time to leave.
Did he say why he thinks it is time to leave? He needs a change? Maybe be he is a nationalist who believes in English exceptionalism. Sometimes emotion could overcome reason. Economically, he should know that leaving the single market would make the UK worse off, unless for selfish reason, he wants to accept that the UK would be worse off but not him personally like many well off Brexiters.
There are people who are educated and have informed views on subjects and then there are........people who consume Rupert Murdoch products!
Products or programs?
He has a smashing tie.
mike mikael
I don't even want to know what you mean by that
The Legend34 Well he meant his tie is smashing. ie. "He has very nice tie". It's not very difficult mate.
mike mikael it looks Elkqouent.
You are NOT allowed to say such a thing unless you are an EXPERT on ties.
William: No, it was painted by his dear wife. :)
Why are there so many people that think assuming bad taste/opinions of most people is indicative of elitism?
I'm 55 & they never taught anything concerning the EU at school. Lessons concerning a despicable & defunct empire but not our involvement in an organisation that accomplished peace I Europe.
But if only the educated get to vote, who gets to decide who is educated enough to vote? How do we decide? Will that method, whichever is used, only perpetuate the wealth of the gentry at the expense of everyone else? Is there a method that doesn't perpetuate the usual system of a tiny wealthy elite and the poor masses? I don't have answers, but these are important questions.
I think the answer is the representative democracy. The people decide who they believe are the experts and the experts get to decide what's best for the country. The average citizen just doesn't understand the complexity of global economy. The problem is the following:
Let's imagine that the king of a country in the middle ages is sick and about to die. Now there is a discussion about letting educated doctors with medical knowledge from the Arabians decide what to do with him or let the people decide. The doctors have different opinions about how to save the king though and so it comes that the people get to say what should happen to the king. Then the church comes in and claims, medicine was wrong and would poisen the king due to its heathen origin. They believe, the only way to save the king was by bloodletting. This might actually kill the king but the people believe in the church, instead of heathens medicine, because they were not educated enough to decide what would have really been the best. It would have been much better if the people had decided in which doctors they trust most and given them the opportunity to act through an election.
Geralt Of TriviaThe problem with your comment is you didn't take in consideration the church would always remain an option. Or any false science. Even today people still trust alternative meds that almost certainly either don't do enough, or have no effect at all. It's a huge market worth billions, even though the effects are entirely placebo in almost every case.
People even die because they do not seek real medication. People can still vote for those people advocating for alternative medicines, portraying themselves as experts.
In today's politics, the candidates most certainly aren't experts on everything they have power over. If even on any topic. The political system would need a great big overhaul in order to make this work as it's supposed to.
Patricia Handa, it is a very important question but a difficult one as well 👍
The self-appointed smart folks can give IQ tests just as the Americans gave black voters tests to keep them out of polling places.
Geralt Of Trivia Very good analogy 👍
The problem with this (at least in the United States) is that the ones with all the information aren't always taking the common person's best interest and going in that direction. In fact, of ANYONE comes along and offers them money, they'll pretty much easily sell their influence to the highest bidder. If it's not that, then they're basically saying 'how can I make this work for me'.
I don't have a solution beyond the fact that I wish that there was a way to somehow put a stop to these lies being spread, bc there are people who are seriously under educated who will believe almost anything.
I'm not saying I'm more educated either, hell, I only graduated high school, but I'm at least attempting to navigate the waters of fact checking and looking at sources for articles, and especially not just believing the first news source I see.
The point where this argument breaks down is how can we be sure the elitists are beholden to the greater good as opposed to the good of those who granted them their status. This is most important when dealing with social and political issues since they cannot, by nature, fall under the same rigorous scrutiny as "hard science"
Yeah. I agree.
Thank you for your wise words.
Love listening to your insights.
It is wonderful to hear your positive comments.
Instead of tyrants that are looking for a neck to keep their boot on.
I do like Dawkins. I don't always agree with him but he's right. It was an idiotic thing the Tories did.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.:)
I agree! Although it should be said the leader of the tories and prime minister, David Cameron campaigned on the side of remaining part of the EU. (Although since then the brexiteers have been running the show.)
I don't mind elites in professional fields but when politicians start believing that they are ' elites' then I have a huge problem.
@Ard Tru philosophers
@Ard Tru Read Plato
He is so right. In their respective fields, elites should 1000% be respected and heard
Massive respect for Richard Dawkins.
This is a man who clearly thinks about the subject in depth.
Yes, he also thinks he is better than all of you 'put-together'!
You also need an elite plumber to repair your septic tank.
Yeah, those "ordinary people" come in handy when you need them to save you from your luxury societal issues.
I suspect you are joking, but you don't want a shittty plumber (pun intended) who isn't going to repair it properly, you want an elite plumber.
@@joshuavd5194 Yeah, it was a pretty shit metaphor, if that's what he was going for.
It’s like the Y2K Family Guy episode:
Newcomer - “I was a doctor in the old world”
Peter - “All right! Hope you get it when you draw your job from the hat.......Nope, you’re now the village idiot.”
Brexit was about sovereignty about independence it was about the vote for the UK government for the UK's laws, rights and individualism.🇬🇧🌏🎯
Go raise your own crops like an individual.
Good to see you've recovered. I'm so glad you're still around.
So many people were tripping over that pesky bar, (because it was lowered too many times) so they decided to just bury it altogether.
It makes a lot of sense. I understand that the term "elite" doesn't specifically means economic or social elite, but experts. I don't think all the population should vote on complex topics, but in an ideal scenario you need representatives to actually represent the population as well.
" I understand that the term "elite" doesn't specifically means economic or social elite, but experts."
No they mean economic or social elite. If we listened to actual experts they would have predicted actual results. In fact of course they have a dismal record in predicting the consequences of their actions.
I remember one evening being invited to spend the evening with several of my friend’s acquaintances. When the subject of democracy popped up, I then expressed my doubts about the whole set-up. Suddenly, I was attacked as if I had said something offensive. I still firmly believe that there should be some sort of mental test one should go through before being given the right to vote.
Yes, I am with you there, I shudder to think how many crazy votes there must be.
"I still firmly believe that there should be some sort of mental test one should go through before being given the right to vote."
100% agree. You need to pass a fitness test to drive a car or serve in the military, so why do we allow just any old Tom, Dick or Harry to vote or be President of the United States? (No offense, Jefferson, Nixon and Truman.)
Another HUGE question that comes up when watching this video; where did Dawkins get that tie? I swear that's the coolest goddamn tie I've ever seen and I want one.
Merovech his wife hand paints them.
@@gilcarroll7398 Yes, I've heard him praise Lalla for the ties. I believe they're separated now though, perhaps divorced.
Can we all take a moment to appreciate his tie?
totally
Munawwar
that's about the only thing to appreciate about this cancerous video
Please please never die Richard. We ALL need you now more than ever.
Most politicians are ill equipped to make some of the decisions they do yet they are very powerful and make some horrendous mistakes on our behalf.
The bizarre thing is that it is remainers who have to sort out the whole mess of leaving.
The Brexiteers are still complaining, and offering nothing. It's 2018 now, and no plan. No plan at all.
I like how everybody in the comments think they are the smart ones and everybody else is dumb lol
I'm not saying that there are not any dumb people in the comments but the audience watching a video of dawkins is a pretty strong selection bias for people who tend to be more educated than your average person.
that was a pretty dumb comment right there.
Not to mention that a lot of people who watch these videos will simply regurgitate the video's opinion and take it on as their own, without ever having critically reviewed it (especially when identity politics come into play). But will go around believing they're smarter than the average person.
@@Jamjar-iu3ji It's not that people have to regurgitate whatever the video says, it's more about the fact that they are willing to use their free time to even attempt to expose themselves to new ideas.
@@averyiorio4337 I'm not sure you understood my comment. I'll explain further.
What I was alluding to was that simply watching video alone does not exhibt superior intellect. Even 7 year olds expose themselves to new ideas. University students do that all the time. Perhaps this is rare where you're from?
The thumbnail and title are provocative and will no doubt attract Trump haters, Trump lovers, UK citizens etc. who'll watch for the sake that BREXIT and Trump affect them. A lot them with already preconcieved notions about the situation and are not watching to learn, but rather to see if the video supports their POV or not.
Now if it does, they'll then go and regurgitate the opinion that agrees with theirs further and delude themselves that they're smarter than the average person.
This of course counts for some, not all people.
Would Dawkins be appearing in this video if the UK had voted to remain?
It seems to me that people always cry about the population being uneducated and incompetent only when their side loses.
I personally would have voted remain but I am also honest enough to admit that the UK population is more educated now than at any point in our history and if they made a decision then I will respect it.
Great point.they all have their biases.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
I don't get how a representative democracy rather than a more direct democracy avoids the issue of an uninformed public: either an uninformed public will vote for bad policies or an uninformed public will vote for a bad politician/party who will in turn enact bad policies? Can someone explain to me how it is that a representative democracy can solve this issue but a direct democracy can't?
You've nailed it, it doesn't solve anything. In fact, representative democracy is worse, because a few parliament members are a lot easier to corrupt than a whole country.
That's my thinking too. Direct democracy intuitively seems like the more ideal system to me. Which is why I've always found it hard to square with the fact that not a single country to my knowledge has a genuine direct democracy. And why I find it odd that smart people offer what seems to me a lacklustre defence of representative democracy. :/
I know Dawkins mentioned how many UK voters voted for Brexit on the basis of frivolous things, but I've had people say to me that they didn't like a particular politician because of the way they spoke, that they had an annoying voice - how is that any better? I want to focus on issues not whether or not a politician has a pleasant voice!
How does that even work? The National Health Service has a thousands of rules. So everybody just votes on each of those thousands of rules? Sounds like a guarantee for an incoherent mess.
Best comment so far! Dawkins ducks all the hard questions. Politicians are usually not trained. The minister of economy is usually not a renowned economist, the minister of defense not a highly decorated general, the minister of health not a great doctor etc. They are all just politicians without any special training. So, not only does the public decide either way, but in addition, the decision is never made by an "elite" in Dawkin's sense. But you are mistaken about something else: Switzerland really has a direct democracy and Switzerland is quite well governed :). That is something Dawkins should also have adressed, if he were serious in his thinking about such issues.
I absolutely love how logical and well spoken Dawkins is
Everyone’s got an opinion. The problem is half of them think it’s a onion.
“However sugarcoated and ambiguous, every form of authoritarianism must start with a belief in some group’s greater power.” ~Gloria Steinem.
While I sympathize with Dawkin’s notion that we should trust the experts, let’s not extrapolate meaning beyond what he advocates, lest we forget the consequences.
Agreed absolutely. I didn’t know much about the advantages and disadvantages of the EU before the vote but I made an effort to find out about it, reading and listening to experts. Expert is not a dirty word: neither, in many definitions, is elite.
As a person of half Hungarian descent I witnessed firsthand how corrupt some EU members are and how they spend EU money on things other than what it was given for, so I fully support Britain's decision to distance themselves from this kind of shit.
@Hellblazer311: Yes, the EU is an arm of the Transnational Capitalist Elite, who rule the West. They control it all, Governments, Military, Police, Lawmakers, MSM, etc. See Prof Peter Philips' book 'Giants' or RUclips. British socialists have always been against the EU.
Those first seconds on reason for Brexit has me in stiches as I wait to get my haircut 😂
David Cameron, was right to call for a referendum. However, the referendum process was poorly thought out. No one in government, Parliament, Civil Service, thought to ask what would happen if the country voted to leave? That was the problem.
Richard Dawkins is so true in this.
C Klan He didn't say majority Brits were *stupids* . He said that the majority were uneducated(don't know properly) about the(any) subject/s. Being stupid is different from *not knowing something* . We all don't know *everything* , but that doesn't make us stupid.
Isaac Asimov Richard dawkins is a fckin idiot. The ones lying here is mainstream media. The ones disconnected from normal people are elitist leftist atheist people who think they can impose policies that negatively influence the common man. The ones propagating cultural marxism and the downfall of christianity are idiots who sit behind their desk making tens of thousands of pounds every month. The ones keeping up with open border policies are the ones who are surrounded by riches, walls and gardens not the poor people who walk down the ghettos and no go zones full of migrants. This guy is an idiot. If it were up to him he would be in power and make all the decision because he thinks he "knows" better...
Wheat and Tares, Sounds like you're upset about the influence of Richard Dawkins in the downfall of Christianity. It's the religious who think they ''know'' better. Dawkins is an educated man who clearly puts a lot of thought into what he says and writes. So what if he's rich? So's the Catholic church.
When is he wrong!
elamplough1 Ultimately the problem isn't that he is rich or an atheist, even though I see a connection between atheism and marxism and the left, but that he is disconnected from the common people, ignorant and blind to the problems facing them and he wants disconnected "elitists" like himself making decisions that will change the course of the country that a majority opposes. How undemocratic these elitists are, just becomes even more apparent now that they want to overturn the vote by the people.
There is one problem Mr Dawkins. Most of the representatives are dumb as most of people are.
Brunon Kowalski I don't think he'd disagree. His point is to stay informed, have good reasons for your vote, and respect people that know more about a topic than you do. You don't like that?
They can be but at least tbeybhave a full time employment which is about knowing whatbtheyre talking about. And people on full time employment to advise them.
which is de facto taking money from rich or influential people so they know how to vote.
Brunon Kowalski that's why the civil services of every country runs the country.
Well actually that's mostly because we keep promoting politicians who haven't got the faintest idea about the things we set them to make decisions about, if we started getting people in charge who had either experience of an education in the field they were set to govern then they could balance the power of the civil service much more effectively.
Lying or spreading the lies of others while in public office should just be treated as a serious crime and sanctioned as such. This would improve society and politics tremendously.
Claims he’s not an expert, claims he’s ill-equipped to decide on Brexit, then declares Brexit to be a terrible idea. Yet by his own admission he says he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!
I really like this guy
Everyone has the right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean every opinion is right.
Spot on and that is something more of us would do well to recognise.
The importance of the Wyoming/California voting scenario cannot be overstated. Such voting inequality is simply absurd. Individual votes should be counted EQUALLY - one person; one vote. Senate ratio(s) should reflect population. This false equivalence is how Republicans win Presidential Elections while losing the popular vote by millions of votes. Democracy is not about "minority rule", but this phenomenon has too often become reality. When Conservatives talk of rigged elections - yeah, well, the inequity of the WY-CA voting loophole (defect/flaw) is case & point.
This is a great explanation of our current sociopolitical climate.
It's also a great explanation of elitism.
But that tie is completely inexplicable. 😱
Q: What is worse than elitism?
A: Anti-Anything-ism.
Openmindedness? That's how you let the communism in. That's how they getcha.
I couldn't agree more with Dr. Dawkins. People in general are stupid, they shouldn't make crucial decision.
Mohammed Nice pov future dictator.
It´s true, people are, to put it simply, fucking idiots when it comes to macro concepts. And that´s perfectly fine, until they think they're smarter than the experts.
Mohammed its the exact reason why Socrates hated democracy
Mohammed | On average, people are of average intelligence.
As Adam Jensen would say ""Do I trust Mankind to save itself? [...] The truth is, I don't know. After everything I've seen, all the fighting, and the chaos around me. I only know what I want to believe: somehow, human decency will triumph. [...] The kind of people who, time and time again, have picked and chosen the future in highly practical ways - slowing change when it's negative, speeding it up when it's good. Can they do it again? I don't know. But I do know I'm not about to let anyone in this station, including myself, stand in their way."
We can't deny democracy when it's inconvenient , but I guess I'm uneducated because i believe that ordinary people have a right to choose .
And when someone is making bad comparisons I want an elite RUclips comment to tell him to think again!
It is important to know that we don't know or what we don't know. Otherwise, a little learning is very dangerous. To admit ignorance or mistakes takes courage.
I think we should have a vote about what to do with the large hadron collider next.
Huh? Why that?
i have been arguing for a voters license for many years. like a drivers license, it would allow you to participate in all elections and referendums etc. while without, only elections for popular votes would be open and they would not be as important, but would be mandatory. The license can be acquired by everyone after a test that shows that you understand the political system, the party programs and basic common knowledge questions. so everyone could get it if they made an effort, but it would also show that you are qualified to vote.
It's a great idea.
Well, it's not that simple. Who decides what questions go into this license test? My prediction is that it will become a bit like gerrymandering in America, where the party in power will set the questions so that the constituents who are most likely to vote for them have an easier time. In the present day US, this could be as simple as a republican government only administering the test in English, so as to keep hispanics (who overwhelmingly vote democrat) out.
The common response I've heard is "Well, let's get professors in political science at Harvard or Princeton to set the questions". Problem is, they tend to lean liberal, so it'll be supremely hard to convince any conservative politician -- or citizen -- that the test is fair. Basically, even if you had a perfectly unbiased test, it'll be nearly impossible to convince people that natural fluctuations in pass percentages by party affiliation is not a result of bias.
EDIT: On a more ethical note, what this will do is keep people on the lowest rung of society permanently out of the system. There are still sections among the lower class in America for whom basic literacy is not certain. And since they are not represented in politics, no one will really care about making things better for them -- the politicians who do get elected don't care about their problems, since their voice is irrelevant in terms of political success. Essentially, you have a systemic flaw that naturally wants to create segregated classes of aristocrats and serfs -- which is exactly what western democracy was in opposition to.
did i say it was simple? nope. but it's not that complicated either.
Who decides what questions go into a drivers license test? a commission that is manned by a wide range of different people that are - if possible - bound by various legal manners to be as objective as possible. A neutral commission, that is then blindly cross-checked. The insertion that it would immediately be used to manipulate people is dangerously cynical.
I am not suggesting some biased test. All the questions can be extrapolated by the data that exists. All that information exists. Go google "political compass" and you will find - among other very interesting data - a questionnaire that is objective and yet uses all available data. Political parties usually do not make a secret about their party lines. The political structure, branches of government and their purpose are all subjects of basic education.
The intention here is only to measure basic knowledge of the political system, the parties, their political stance and other general knowledge items you'd expect a voter to be aware off. If you are too lazy and too dumb to even comprehend that, you should not vote and that is what the license says. It is not meant to create an elite, but to ensure that those that engage in the shaping of our future have the most basic knowledge of what they are voting on - which right now i can tell you, most do not.
your paranoid outlook at life is something you should deal with; it does not sound very healthy.
""Well, let's get professors in political science at Harvard or Princeton to set the questions". Problem is, they tend to lean liberal"
pure conjecture and absolutely wrong - as Jordan Peterson clearly shows, you got plenty of neoliberal fascists there - actually quite a lot, since they have bought their way into the education system since the 70ies...
"Who decides what questions go into a drivers license test? a commission that is manned by a wide range of different people that are - if possible - bound by various legal manners to be as objective as possible. A neutral commission, that is then blindly cross-checked."
There is an innate difference in the two tests. People don't immediately assume that you're trying to keep them from driving. I.e, you have an easier time convincing them that the test is fair. Politics, specifically in the US, is a very divisive subject in that you have a system where politicians regularly get to choose their constituents and thus you'll have a steep uphill battle when it comes to convincing people that any natural fluctuations in the test results are actually fair. This same debate is happening around gerrymandering. Despite the existence of triangulation algorithms that can create districts, congress is extremely unwilling to pass such a method into law, mainly because it runs counter to the interest of the elected representatives.
" The insertion that it would immediately be used to manipulate people is dangerously cynical."
It isn't cynical at all. Merely an observation of the current political system in the US, where politicians have in fact, unfairly curtailed voters to win elections. Until the US fixes the basic problem of politicians having a ability to choose their constituents (instead of the other way round), your test can and will used be as a means to make life harder for certain groups of people (who are invariable poor, undereducated and come from a minority that tends to vote a certain way).
""""Well, let's get professors in political science at Harvard or Princeton to set the questions". Problem is, they tend to lean liberal"
pure conjecture and absolutely wrong - as Jordan Peterson clearly shows, you got plenty of neoliberal fascists there - actually quite a lot, since they have bought their way into the education system since the 70ies...""
We seem to be in agreement here. I was pointing out how ridiculous it would be to get professors at Ivy league schools to set the test, since that is the most common response I tend to receive. I don't really see what part of my statement you deem untrue. I did say that professors tend to lean liberal -- although, it is possible that you mean something entirely different by 'neoliberal fascist' -- (There is some variation by state, but academics in New England tend to have ~6 times as many liberal academics as conservative). In any case, this certainly isn't blind conjecture on my part. Read the work done by Samuel J Abrams (readable NYT article with original citation here: www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/there-are-conservative-professors-just-not-in-these-states.html).
" If you are too lazy and too dumb to even comprehend that, you should not vote and that is what the license says. It is not meant to create an elite, but to ensure that those that engage in the shaping of our future have the most basic knowledge of what they are voting on - which right now i can tell you, most do not. "
Your intent in this case is irrelevant. When you design a system, you have to account for it's most nefarious users.
Even assuming that every politician is morally upright, you have problems:
There are still sections of the US population who don't have access to functional literacy. The most high profile example of this is in Detroit, where public schooling is so underfunded that the people in poorer neighborhoods (mainly african americans) tend to be disproportionately impacted. In essence, if they don't vote, then politicians who represent their interests -- assuming said politicians are morally upright -- will not be elected. This is already happening to some extent in the US, where most politicians ultimately represent the interests of a tiny group of the wealthy donors (good vox video here: ruclips.net/video/T6a87L_f7js/видео.html I will edit in a link to the original paper shortly, I don't have it on hand).
Far from your assertion that I'm cynical, I'm *assuming* that the political system is perfectly accountable when I point out class segregation -- if it isn't, then the outcomes are much worse.
"your paranoid outlook at life is something you should deal with; it does not sound very healthy."
As a computational physicist, I'm trained to notice systemic flaws in algorithms and workflows.
"People don't immediately assume that you're trying to keep them from driving" If you do not have a license you are not allowed to drive. the same goes for a voters license. Even the reasoning is the same: for safety reasons. Just like an unschooled driver is a danger to himself and others, and a licence shows that a driver has the minimum knowledge and skill, to which, we as a collective (lead by professionals who have studies traffic, streets and accidents etc.) agreed to, are needed and necessary for you to participate in road traffic, a voters license would assure that your vote is informed on the most basic knowledge of the political system and the various party goals and ideologies, so that your vote is not a danger to you and others. Considering that a vote can change the history of mankind, i would say that is not an unreasonable approach.
The idea that 'people would immediately assume that someone is trying them from driving' is a very negative presumption. Acquiring "the most basic knowledge of the political system and the various party goals and ideologies" is not that hard. But if you are not even willing to do that much, you should not be allowed to vote. You can still vote anyway you want. It does not care about your own ideology, only that you know what you are voting for.
There have been studies in traditional GOP states, where people were asked a range of questions that are liberal agendas - without being told the origin - and the majority agreed with them, because they were not aware that their own party does not agree with them. They just vote for a party, because they think that is the right thing to do, unaware how it actually impacts them.
Yes, chances are that this will favor more liberal, progressive and libertarian ideas, but that is because most people lean in that direction, but do not vote that way. And it is the conservative right that usually obfuscated and manipulates their voter base more. But that is not the question or the point. The idea here is to ensure that people know what they are doing. You want to vote for a person that will destroy old established alliances and go into bed with your oldest enemy, sure, go ahead, but at least be aware that you do - which most are not. When it comes to deciding all out collective future, the least we can ask for is to understand the choices we make. That is all this is.
liberalism and Neoliberalism are not the same thing. You might wanna look these up. and I did not assert that you are cynical, but your fear that it would be used to abuse is. one cynical view or argument does not make you a cynist.
"I'm trained to notice systemic flaws in algorithms and workflows"
Yeah... sorry i am not writing a whole abstract on the topic that can withstand the most miniscule deconstruction. Really not my intention. If that is yours, than you are just trolling. If not, use your training to figure out why my idea might work first, then take it apart. You biased approach will produce biased results. If all you look for are mistakes, you will miss all the possibilities of success. That is the dangerous part. You become negatively dogmatic in your reasoning. LSD or Psilocybin might help you there...
While Dawkins is correct about the US Senate's two-votes-per-state, the difference between the US Legislative Branch and the UK Parliament is that our Legislative branch is bicameral; we also have the US House of Representatives and the allotment of representatives-per-state is population-based
One thing I noticed around the internet is that "elites" is used to describe the rich upper crust, rather than those who are particularly good at something. It is the former, incorrectly defined "elites" that should not have any more to say than any average Joe.
All men are created equal does not mean that all men are equal in ability. Democracy as one person one vote reduces the risks that come with tyranny but not the foolishness that comes from the masses. It is better than a dictatorship but weak as the imperfect expression of the collective. Democracy is only as good as the collective will intelligently expressed..
Katherine Kelly It seems it would be far better to have a Republic of some kind, where laws govern men and everyone is as educated as possible.We are entering a millineum where human labor will be replaced by AI and robots/Androids. The most precious resource will be educated citizens
Democracy is losing its allure in many countries. I was waiting for Richard to tell Brits to give the British Monarchy absolute rule again. What could be more elite than this?