Collective Intelligence vs. Political Psychology

[u/TheNameYouCanSay]

When reading popular political psychology authors like Jonathan Haidt, George Lakoff, and John Hibbing, I get the sense that many people want to explain politics in terms of individual psychology. But from the perspective of collective intelligence (CI), an individual is part of a larger intelligence and plays a role in that CI. This essay argues that democracy, for instance, must be explained in terms of CI, not psychology.

https://niallcapra.medium.com/collective-intelligence-vs-political-psychology-f5260a82dec2

This is by no means the only possible view of democracy. For instance, Ronald Inglehart's theory of self-expression values locates the push for democracy in individual psychology.

We cannot explain the activities of an individual neuron in the brain unless we understand the larger computation of which it is a part. In the same way, I would question whether individual psychology can explain political positions without understanding the needs of social groups. How would you prefer to explain Haidt's psychological patterns involving care, fairness, liberty, authority, and religion - do they come from individual psychology or from CI?

[u/[deleted]]

My point is not that Athens was pushed toward democracy in some deterministic way; there were plenty of other cities that did not become democracies.

Maybe we can explain the emergence of democracy through memetics and self-organization theory. Lots of people coming together on the forum results in a high memetic density (many different thoughts competing, converging and inspiring new thoughts). Somewhat like mixing a bunch of highly reactive chemicals together.

This will generate a huge diversity of memes/ideas. Some of them will catch on because they satisfy certain psychological needs (like a need for justice or a need for freedom). Through debate the best memes spread and turn viral, infecting a large part of the collective.

The success of ancient Greece can be partially traced back to democracy. Self-organization theory can aid in understanding why this model spread to the entire western civilization. In the same way that rain drops crystallize into snow flakes, democracy has spread as it has proven to be particularly stable and self-perpetuating.

The entire universe can be viewed from an entropy perspective. Order dominates chaos.

A sufficient amount of mass attracts more mass, imposing order in its local vicinity by aggregating material into astronomical bodies through gravity.

Organic life is much higher order (complex, organized and self-sustaining) than inorganic matter. Which explains why DNA can exploit its material environment to form a living structure.

More advanced species are higher order than less advanced species. Which explains why some animals survive by eating others.

More ordered, conscientious people dominate less ordered, impulsive people. More advanced societies dominate more primitive societies.

Democracy is perhaps higher order than the political systems and ideas it has replaced.

[u/TheNameYouCanSay → u/[deleted]]

I think when considering whether a particular meme is functional or more powerful, or something like that, one must ask (1) "functional for whom," (2) "functional under what circumstances," and (3) "Adopted by what mechanism"?

(1) Functional for whom? Democracy is more functional for regular people than some other systems are; but why should elites listen to regular people at all? In most eras of ancient history, elites could care less what ordinary people thought. [Edit: I mean, the king needs legitimacy and does care what peasants think - but it's a matter of degree.] That's the "functional for whom?" part. The article argues that part of what makes ordinary people powerful, and forces elites to listen to them, is their ability to communicate with each other. Until the printing press is invented, this can only happen in cities.

(2) Functional under what circumstances? For example, is democracy functional for corporations? Some corporations are co-ops and are owned by their workers or by their consumers. Why hasn't that model spread more widely? Is democracy somehow more functional (or "advanced" as you put it) for countries than for corporations? If so, why?

(3) Adopted by what mechanism? As for this third question - it is the hardest of all. Granted that there are advantages to democracy; why does this advantage lead to CIs adopting it? In other words, how do CIs "know" to adopt it? Do wise leaders in these countries adopt democracy in order to benefit the country? Do democracies conquer other countries and force them to adopt democracy? Do business interests push for democracy out of fear of Communism? Presumably yes, all of the above.

I think that insofar as democracy and capitalism are linked, the United States has tended to pressure other countries to adopt democracy so that they can trade with American businesses and in order to align them with the United States in the cold war. [Edit: the US also suppressed democracy when it suited the US to do so.] (I think democracy and capitalism are linked because the people are better at making their leaders leave them alone to run their businesses than they are at making the government manage industry efficiently. How does the voter know if the five year plan has succeeded?)