A funny thing is, I've seen Congressman Thomas Massie
(EE undergrad, MechE masters) casually use this notation on his Twitter account.
Another thing I figured out too late is that after someone (not me) explains a complex topic to a group, everyone seems to agree by silence and ready to get to work on it. But my habit of asking if they understand the terms A and B and how it all works made me discover that essentially nobody gets it. People just don’t ask questions and delay their research for some reason. A thought that maybe they do that all the time in every situation or conversation is pretty discomforting.
There's social value in appearing to "get it", and social cost in being the one to ask (especially if others in the group, hearing the explanation, pretend they knew all along).
A surprising amount of human activity takes place with no clear understanding of the goal.
I think part of the problem is my whole team is honest and direct. They really engage with ideas. Sometimes they'll engage with an idea different than the one I intended to communicate. Because they're really taking the idea on, the misunderstanding will stand out.
Maybe most people don't do that as often. They just nod along and passively agree. Only when it comes to the final decision/action will they fully engage. And if they disagree with that, they'll let you know (maybe) even if they've been uh-huh-ing every supporting argument on the way.
I don't think we are facing much complex issues beyond anyone's grasp. Of course it takes some level of study to understand the issues, but as the french citizen convention on climate [0] (started by the government itself) has shown, given appropriate information ordinary citizens are very capable to grasp complex issues (and ordinary leaders are very capable to ignore those citizens and wipe their asses with their proposals).
What you advocate for, whether consciously or not, is not a democracy but a form of technocracy [1]. It sounds like a good idea at first, but:
- centralizing power (eg. in a parliament/government) is always always the recipe for abuse [2], even if you take the 500 best people you can think of
- political issues are not just technical issues, and we science/tech people from our somewhat-comfortable ivory towers are in a very bad position to make diagnostics on what goes right and wrong in society (except on a micro level where our science applies)
- solving complex problems requires a level of coordination/participation which can only be consented; trying to force the people against its will "for its own good", often results in exactly the opposite of what you wanted to achieve in the first place
All in all, i would personally argue as long as "leaders" is a thing there's a very little hope for humanity.
[0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_citoyenne_pour_le_c... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy [2] One could argue if you have elected representatives deciding for the people, then it is not a democracy because the power is not operated by the people directly.
So that means things like when there's obviously very broad support for a measure, insist on a roll call vote, wasting the time of every other member so as to underscore your opposition to say, clean water, or food for the poor. But, as with so many of these "principled" Republicans, when it's very narrow and every vote counts suddenly he's straight party line Republican...
In the UK we have people like Peter Bone, Bone opposes same-sex marriage, abortion, wants to see the Death Penalty brought back, as well as mandatory conscription. He sees the NHS as dangerous example of socialism, "like Stalin's Russia".
But Westminster has more experience than Washington, and so it's a little harder to be disruptive. Bone can introduce "Private Members Bills" which could become law but, lacking support from either government or the opposition, they aren't likely to go anywhere. By convention the readings of these bills are scheduled for Friday afternoon. So, almost everybody goes home, people like Bone are left in the chamber to ramble on about how it'd be a great idea if Britain's threadbare Army was made to try to turn unwilling 18 and 19 year olds into soldiers, as if a vast unskilled infantry is something you need in the 21st century; or why a foetus is a "human person" or whatever - and then eventually it comes to the point where there's supposed to be a vote. The Deputy Speaker who drew the short straw and is obliged to be there pretends to hear a controversy in the mostly empty room, "Division!" and this causes a count, which of course finds that the chamber is inquorate and thus incapable of anything, Bone wasted his time and that of a handful of the other representatives (who won't forget it) and civil servants, but most people went home early.
"In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve." - Alexis De Tocqueville