“silhouette photography standing on peak front of high-rise buildings” by photo-nic.co.uk nic on Unsplash

Who should Decide?

Anthony Repetto
Sep 1, 2018 · 5 min read

Economic systems and governments are meant to internalize externalities, share information securely, and allocate the right to use or have access to, and the right to decide over goods, services, and utilities. Each political and economic system has its own arguments explaining why that method will lead to the best allocation, the greatest value. Democracy, for example, is supposed to average out extremes, the majority settling on truly valuable decisions. To the question “Who should decide?” democracy says “Most everyone!” It seems fair. Yet, democracies have never achieved the ideal allocation that they proffer. We wouldn’t democratically decide what work each person must do, and what economic benefits they receive. Democracy doesn’t work for every kind of decision.

More adapted to complex society, where few have the time or training to make specific decisions, are republics and bureaucracies. A Republic selects representatives, usually democratically, who themselves make decisions democratically, yet it is a step removed from direct elections. Bureaucracy relies upon appointed chiefs who oversee adjacent hierarchies, hiring-in the people who then make day-to-day decisions, all within the bounds of bureaucratic policy. Each branch of a bureaucracy is effectively its own feudal fiefdom, with a ‘lord’ appointed by a king or president, council of nobles or representatives. The U.S. is a bureaucratic, federal republic. That’s better than absolute monarchy, yet we might improve upon our system. This way of doing things has myriad obvious flaws, and few obvious solutions.

Who Else Might Decide?

On a wooden ship, lost at sea, which way do you sail, to go home? A ship’s navigator is trained and knowledgeable, and their determination of which direction to sail is based upon measurement of the sun and stars, then orientation on various maps. The navigator knows how to let data make the decision. You wouldn’t put the power of decision in the hands of all the sailors. As Socrates noted, a ship should not be a democracy. The task of decision-making is only granted to those trained, specialist navigators, who use verifiable metrics. Even the captain defers to their expertise!

This is a wild concept, in sharp contrast to democracy: the ones who decide must prove that they perform the task of decision-making well. Not just a meritocracy, where the best shoe-makers make shoes; technocracy, where decisions are made by experts specializing in each sort of decision, according to their track record.

(Technocracy was originally paired with industrial democracy — the public voting on issues of labor and production, as mentioned earlier! Yet I would leave that process out of the definition of technocracy itself. Democracy is merely a survey of opinions, which can determine what is valued, relatively, while it is technocracy which should decide allocations to maximize those values.)

Compared to Now

CEOs’ paychecks are now regularly in the tens of millions of dollars — and their decisions make or break entire companies worth billions. Yet, can we really say that the quality of CEO decision making is worth tens of millions? Might people with expertise within the company have a better grasp of their product, their market, their strategy? Selection of better decision-makers, at a lower cost to the organization, could be achieved by following the advice of the experts within each branch, with some prize for good decisions. This is similar to the way the company Gore gets by without managers. Technocratic principles have already proven their worth in numerous organizations.

Policies were once rolled-out across the franchise or organization, without knowing how those changes might affect outcomes. Then came user alpha and beta-testing. Now, various products or service models are tried — “By laying-out the website this way, can we increase the ease of use, and thereby the level of traffic, for mobile?” Companies now don’t leave those decisions to any expert. The outcome of testing is the decider. It’s the scientific method making the decision.

Beta-testing is actually a good model for a technocratic, scientific government. The public makes the decision about relative values — “Is readability or stylization more important, and roughly how much more important?” The experimental beta-test data decides which model or variety to use, based upon which experiment yields valued outcomes. Finally, specialized experts, (including strategy experts, who would lack the supreme powers of a CEO — they are among other specialists) who imagine and decide upon those new varieties, seek options which win prizes for measured efficacy and insight. (A referral-based system might measure the importance of insight reasonably well… and a scientific technocracy can compare methods, to discover better systems of referral!)

If I Could…

I would live happily in a scientific technocracy. Surveys would assess what I value, and decisions would be made by publicly available experimental data, not a vote. I wouldn’t have any decision to make! Many fear the loss of control from losing a vote. As I see it, your vote fails to give you any real control, and it instead leaves the door open to corruption. Data is more difficult to manipulate. I’ll trust data over elections.

I hope for something even stranger: a bureaucracy led by artificial intelligence, deep neural networks which we cannot understand. If we cannot understand how the network comes to its decisions, we are less able to manipulate those decisions. A con artist would not know how to game the system, so that there is no benefit in even trying to manipulate. If corruption is difficult enough, it is unprofitable. Politicians and CEOs would have income related to their real value, not a scam.

A machine decider, who listens to our grievances, and uses experimental data for decision making, would be a sort of philosopher-king — beyond our own understanding, beyond sway. (Isn’t this ‘monarchy of algorithm’ the role of the ‘invisible hand’ in markets?)

Overlord Island

I do not expect any democracy to institute scientific technocracy — few are willing to relinquish the feeling of power granted by a vote. Yet, as new cities are founded, floating on the oceans, there will be new pilgrims, new constitutions. A self-selecting group of intellectuals with a similar love for scientific technocracy is most likely to form such a government. I believe, because of the vastness of international waters and the number of immigrants and refugees who will live there, that some technocratic island is highly probable, barring repeated sabotage.

My hypothetical island, with an incomprehensible philosopher-king machine, answers the question “Who should decide?” — “Experiment & Expertise”. I believe that, among our 8 billion, there is at least one island’s worth of people who agree that they themselves should not make decisions. I’ll go there when I can, my feet my only vote.

Data Driven Investor

from confusion to clarity, not insanity

Anthony Repetto

Written by

Easily distracted mathematician

Data Driven Investor

from confusion to clarity, not insanity

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade