<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (cshalizi)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from cshalizi</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20241056"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/epistemic-grounds-for-lay-interference-in-the-conduct-of-science/F6386B08BA06ABE8E2F4DD7E668A0E4D?WT.mc_id=New%2520Cambridge%2520Alert%2520-%2520Articles"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.noemamag.com/tomorrows-democracy-is-open-source/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13229"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/18111"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/were-getting-the-social-media-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/abs/motivated-numeracy-and-enlightened-selfgovernment/EC9F2410D5562EF10B7A5E2539063806"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95914-7"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/landscapes-and-bandits-a-unified-model-of-functional-and-demographic-diversity/7D6ADD1049AF38C3F34AC2DF64A76FF1?WT.mc_id=New%2520Cambridge%2520Alert%2520-%2520Issues"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/better-than-best-epistemic-landscapes-and-diversity-of-practice-in-science/1125693C6EFCD39D13E3108840B87305"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=35491"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916231180100"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://peterlevine.ws/?p=28885"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13569317.2022.2138293?journalCode=cjpi20"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12644"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02667"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/how-deliberation-happens-enabling-deliberative-reason/6558F69855ADA8B15BF2EC2E5D403E71"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12486"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democracy-more-or-less/F73E9EC9647FFD90CE12BD746F866A74#fndtn-information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.americanpurpose.com/blog/fukuyama/vetocracy-and-climate-adaptation/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://crookedtimber.org/2023/01/03/skepticism-and-human-reason/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://mattbruenig.com/2022/12/30/the-contradictions-of-deliberative-democracy/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7z5jm/thank-you-for-your-feedback"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cailinoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/First-Submission-Versions.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nber.org/papers/w30794"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2021-0019"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://crookedtimber.org/2022/09/07/the-democratic-theory-of-a-half-built-garden/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/spirals-delusion-artificial-intelligence-decision-making"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/culturalhistorical-perspectives-on-collective-intelligence/367B658082C1381F97FF6DD56A60C8C1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197568750.001.0001/oso-9780197568750"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-017-1414-z"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691218939/politics-and-expertise"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qWE9RR4A-6W_Tj6XOdQQ110cLQDUPHAh/view"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18645/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12471"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.02569"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.vox.com/2018/8/9/17540448/walter-lippmann-democracy-trump-brexit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2015.15192abstract"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17088/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy062"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14524"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/searching-for-good-policies/B2A29C8F04C8A9394C77E576D2BFCF6D"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2020.1364"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/representation-in-models-of-epistemic-democracy/DD99118293B04CCE5D0D124B660E7961"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/improving-deliberations-by-reducing-misrepresentation-effects/8F7289E47C9F7D7BE6DF38B9C01D791F"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/cultural-adaptation-is-maximised-when-intelligent-individuals-rarely-think-for-themselves/9C06326BEAB863A1F165C5E592F839BB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.248301"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/9781108498548"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113340"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05937"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cailinoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/scientific-polarization-shareable-draft.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691181998/open-democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0667"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1183"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/342545BA6FCD67BC8A5BE03B321D95C5/9781108826815AR.pdf/social_media_and_international_relations.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-1788-6"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599250?journalCode=ajs&amp;"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-information-henry-farrell/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://psyarxiv.com/ra9qy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12650"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12469"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://psyarxiv.com/82r6q/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2019/11/25/seeing-like-a-finite-state-machine/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11262"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12603"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20241056">
    <title>Similarity of Information and Collective Action - American Economic Association</title>
    <dc:date>2026-04-09T13:03:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20241056</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We study a canonical collective action game with incomplete information. Individuals attempt to coordinate to achieve a shared goal, while also facing a temptation to free-ride. More similar information can help them coordinate, but it can also exacerbate free-riding. Our main result shows that more similar information facilitates (impedes) achieving the common goal when it is sufficiently challenging (easy). We apply this insight to show why less powerful authoritarian governments may face larger protests if they restrict press freedom, when committee diversity is beneficial in costly voting, and when a more diverse community contributes more to public good provision."]]></description>
<dc:subject>collective_action collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ab7e24fb22fd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/epistemic-grounds-for-lay-interference-in-the-conduct-of-science/F6386B08BA06ABE8E2F4DD7E668A0E4D?WT.mc_id=New%2520Cambridge%2520Alert%2520-%2520Articles">
    <title>The Epistemic Grounds for Lay Interference in the Conduct of Science | Philosophy of Science | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2025-09-06T15:15:42+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/epistemic-grounds-for-lay-interference-in-the-conduct-of-science/F6386B08BA06ABE8E2F4DD7E668A0E4D?WT.mc_id=New%2520Cambridge%2520Alert%2520-%2520Articles</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["I present a heretofore untheorised form of lay science, called extitutional science, whereby lay scientists, by virtue of their collective experience, are able to detect errors committed by institutional scientists and attempt to have them corrected. I argue that the epistemic success of institutional science is enhanced to the extent that it takes up this extitutional criticism. Since this uptake does not occur spontaneously, extitutional interference in the conduct of institutional science is required. I make a proposal for how to secure this epistemically beneficial form of lay interference."

--- It's unfair of me to say this without reading more than this abstract, but I think we are all about to get a lesson in the consequences of "extitutional interference in the conduct of institutional science" at the hands of those who "by virtue of their collective experience" believe that they "are able to detect errors committed by institutional scientists"...]]></description>
<dc:subject>philosophy_of_science science_as_a_social_process re:democratic_cognition in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8ef1c85a4176/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy_of_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.noemamag.com/tomorrows-democracy-is-open-source/">
    <title>Tomorrow’s Democracy Is Open Source</title>
    <dc:date>2025-03-10T15:24:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.noemamag.com/tomorrows-democracy-is-open-source/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[--- This is leaning very, very heavily on LLMs being able to accurately summarize complicated positions on all sorts of new and evolving issues.  Which would be _nice_...]]></description>
<dc:subject>democracy re:democratic_cognition large_language_models_(so_called) recommender_systems gilman.nils have_read tab_closure</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:056fc677d01b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:large_language_models_(so_called)"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:recommender_systems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:gilman.nils"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:tab_closure"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13229">
    <title>Cognitive Science of Augmented Intelligence - Dubova - 2022 - Cognitive Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2025-03-10T13:57:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13229</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Cognitive science has been traditionally organized around the individual as the basic unit of cognition. Despite developments in areas such as communication, human–machine interaction, group behavior, and community organization, the individual-centric approach heavily dominates both cognitive research and its application. A promising direction for cognitive science is the study of augmented intelligence, or the way social and technological systems interact with and extend individual cognition. The cognitive science of augmented intelligence holds promise in helping society tackle major real-world challenges that can only be discovered and solved by teams made of individuals and machines with complementary skills who can productively collaborate with each other."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB intelligence_amplification dubova.marina galesic.mirta goldstone.robert_l. cognitive_science re:democratic_cognition to_read tab_closure</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9e72d6a4086a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:intelligence_amplification"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:dubova.marina"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:galesic.mirta"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:goldstone.robert_l."/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cognitive_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:tab_closure"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/18111">
    <title>Introduction to the Symposium on Lisa Herzog’s Citizen Knowledge. Markets, Experts, and the Infrastructure of Democracy</title>
    <dc:date>2025-01-22T15:23:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/18111</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Lisa Herzog’s Citizen Knowledge. Markets, Experts, and the Infrastructure of Democracy is a significant contribution to political epistemology that addresses the causes of contemporary democracies’ epistemic deficiencies and considers how to improve the way they deal with knowledge. The field of political epistemology has been burgeoning over the last decade, in the wake of debates relative to “deliberative democracy” (e.g., Landemore, 2022), the technocratic dimension of democratic regimes (e.g., Friedman, 2019), and the crisis of the “epistemic order” of liberal democracy (e.g., Rauch, 2021). The ambition of Lisa Herzog’s book transpires in the fact that it covers most of the major issues of political epistemology tackled separately by these debates within a new framework of “democratic institutionalism.” Democracies have a problem with knowledge and Herzog’s main claim is that the solution to it lies in rethinking their institutional infrastructure through the articulation of three key mechanisms for creating, transmitting, and processing knowledge: markets, expert communities, and democratic deliberation. The claim that problems with knowledge can be a major impediment to democratic self-governance is not new.1 However, Herzog’s treatment of this claim impresses by its depth and scope, relying on rich and recent social scientific literature to suggest how to redesign the epistemic institutions of contemporary democracies."

--- Hadn't heard of the book but this looks interesting & definitely relevant to our interests.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read democracy re:democratic_cognition book_reviews collective_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7e0c4db85dd9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:book_reviews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/were-getting-the-social-media-crisis">
    <title>We're getting the social media crisis wrong</title>
    <dc:date>2025-01-09T15:05:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/were-getting-the-social-media-crisis</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[--- I think HF is mostly on target here (it'd be surprising if I didn't), but I think could be improved on.
(1) The distribution of output (# of posts) etc. over users is strongly right-skewed.  Even if everyone's content is equally engaging, and equally likely to be encountered, this will lead to a small minority having a really disproportionate impact on what people perceive in their feeds.
(2) Connectivity is _also_ strongly right-skewed.  This is somewhat endogenous to algorithmic choices [https://kieranhealy.org/files/drafts/performativity.pdf] but not entirely.)
(3) Volume of output, and connectivity, are at the very least not _negatively_ associated.  (I'd be astonished if they're not positively associated but I can't immediately lay hands on relevant figures.)
(4) People who write a lot are _weird_.  As a sub-population, they are, let us say, enriched for those who are obsessed with niche interests.  This of course continues HF's analogy to porn; "Proof is left as an exercise for the reader's killfile", as we used to say on Usenet.
(Someone sufficiently flame-proof could make a genuinely valuable study of this point by scraping the various fora for written erotica and doing automated content analysis.  I'd bet good money that the right tail of prolificness is dominated by authors with _very_ niche interests.  But I could not, in good conscience, advise anyone to actually do this study, since it'd be too cancellable from too many directions at once.)
(5) Consequence: even if the owners of the systems didn't put their thumbs on the scales, what people see in their feeds would tend to reflect the pre-occupations of a comparatively small number of weirdos.  HF's points about distorted collective understandings follow.
--- This conclusion could be avoided, maybe, if what those prolific weirdos wrote about tended to be a matter of deep indifference to almost everyone else.  I'd contend that in a world of hate-following, outrage-bait and lolcows, that's not very plausible.

--- Slightly elaborated: [http://bactra.org/weblog/inherent-distortion.html]]]></description>
<dc:subject>have_read kith_and_kin farrell.henry re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator networked_life social_networks social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition our_decrepit_institutions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bffaf67bb2f9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/abs/motivated-numeracy-and-enlightened-selfgovernment/EC9F2410D5562EF10B7A5E2539063806">
    <title>Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government | Behavioural Public Policy | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2024-12-09T21:28:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/abs/motivated-numeracy-and-enlightened-selfgovernment/EC9F2410D5562EF10B7A5E2539063806</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the ‘science comprehension thesis’ (SCT), which identifies defects in the public's knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the ‘identity-protective cognition thesis’ (ICT), which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in numeracy – a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information – did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects’ responses became politically polarized – and even less accurate – when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these findings."

--- The framing, as though science-comprehension and identity-protection were the only two possibilities, is transparently silly.  (Though par for the course in a certain sort of psychology and sociology.)  The result, however, may be interesting, if it's robust.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB experimental_psychology ideology re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1af1763260df/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95914-7">
    <title>Cultural diversity and wisdom of crowds are mutually beneficial and evolutionarily stable | Scientific Reports</title>
    <dc:date>2024-12-06T14:06:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95914-7</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The ability to learn from others (social learning) is often deemed a cause of human species success. But if social learning is indeed more efficient (whether less costly or more accurate) than individual learning, it raises the question of why would anyone engage in individual information seeking, which is a necessary condition for social learning’s efficacy. We propose an evolutionary model solving this paradox, provided agents (i) aim not only at information quality but also vie for audience and prestige, and (ii) do not only value accuracy but also reward originality—allowing them to alleviate herding effects. We find that under some conditions (large enough success rate of informed agents and intermediate taste for popularity), both social learning’s higher accuracy and the taste for original opinions are evolutionarily-stable, within a mutually beneficial division of labour-like equilibrium. When such conditions are not met, the system most often converges towards mutually detrimental equilibria."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB diversity collective_cognition social_learning re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c9e62bf95b5d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/landscapes-and-bandits-a-unified-model-of-functional-and-demographic-diversity/7D6ADD1049AF38C3F34AC2DF64A76FF1?WT.mc_id=New%2520Cambridge%2520Alert%2520-%2520Issues">
    <title>Landscapes and Bandits: A Unified Model of Functional and Demographic Diversity | Philosophy of Science | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2024-10-09T19:45:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/landscapes-and-bandits-a-unified-model-of-functional-and-demographic-diversity/7D6ADD1049AF38C3F34AC2DF64A76FF1?WT.mc_id=New%2520Cambridge%2520Alert%2520-%2520Issues</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Two types of formal models—landscape search tasks and two-armed bandit models—are often used to study the effects that various social factors have on epistemic performance. I argue that they can be understood within a single framework. In this unified framework, I develop a model that may be used to understand the effects of functional and demographic diversity and their interaction. Using the unified model, I find that the benefit of demographic diversity is most pronounced in a functionally homogeneous group, and decreases with increasing functional diversity."]]></description>
<dc:subject>collective_cognition social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition to_read in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f42f1bbd1771/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/better-than-best-epistemic-landscapes-and-diversity-of-practice-in-science/1125693C6EFCD39D13E3108840B87305">
    <title>Better than Best: Epistemic Landscapes and Diversity of Practice in Science | Philosophy of Science | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2024-04-24T18:16:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/better-than-best-epistemic-landscapes-and-diversity-of-practice-in-science/1125693C6EFCD39D13E3108840B87305</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["When solving a complex problem in a group, should group members always choose the best available solution that they are aware of? In this paper, I build simulation models to show that, perhaps surprisingly, a group of agents who individually randomly follow a better available solution than their own can end up outperforming a group of agents who individually always follow the best available solution. This result has implications for the feminist philosophy of science and social epistemology."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition diversity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:91ac824d9689/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=35491">
    <title>Creativity in Large-Scale Contexts: Guiding Creative Engagem...</title>
    <dc:date>2023-10-26T14:15:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=35491</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Innovators and creators work in cultural, economic, and social contexts that shape their work. These contexts are large-scale, filled with overwhelming multitudes of elements and possibilities—but these contexts can be fruitfully "mined" by creative teams. Creativity in Large-Scale Contexts, by the Yale professor Jonathan S. Feinstein, introduces a groundbreaking new "network model" to describe how successful innovation can be focused, generated, and accelerated. The book will help teams and organizations innovate smarter and faster.
"Feinstein argues that in large-scale contexts creativity happens most efficiently when it is actively "guided" by a creative leader or team. Guiding creativity involves understanding, navigating, and actively using the cultural context, identifying puzzles and opportunities, and spanning these tensions to create novel connections. With thoughtful guidance, creators and creative teams can find their way through the thicket of possibilities faster, smarter, and with less waste."

--- Last tag applies because this sounds a bit vacuous, but the topic is interesting.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted innovation re:democratic_cognition color_me_skeptical downloaded</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1aac5794e12d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916231180100">
    <title>Maintaining Transient Diversity Is a General Principle for Improving Collective Problem Solving - Paul E. Smaldino, Cody Moser, Alejandro Pérez Velilla, Mikkel Werling, 2023</title>
    <dc:date>2023-07-09T23:46:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916231180100</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Humans regularly solve complex problems in cooperative teams. A wide range of mechanisms have been identified that improve the quality of solutions achieved by those teams on reaching consensus. We argue that many of these mechanisms work via increasing the transient diversity of solutions while the group attempts to reach a consensus. These mechanisms can operate at the level of individual psychology (e.g., behavioral inertia), interpersonal communication (e.g., transmission noise), or group structure (e.g., sparse social networks). Transient diversity can be increased by widening the search space of possible solutions or by slowing the diffusion of information and delaying consensus. All of these mechanisms increase the quality of the solution at the cost of increased time to reach it. We review specific mechanisms that facilitate transient diversity and synthesize evidence from both empirical studies and diverse formal models—including multiarmed bandits, NK landscapes, cumulative-innovation models, and evolutionary-transmission models. Apparent exceptions to this principle occur primarily when problems are sufficiently simple that they can be solved by mere trial and error or when the incentives of team members are insufficiently aligned. This work has implications for our understanding of collective intelligence, problem solving, innovation, and cumulative cultural evolution."]]></description>
<dc:subject>in_NB collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b01617e0ad01/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://peterlevine.ws/?p=28885">
    <title>against the idea of viewpoint diversity « Peter Levine</title>
    <dc:date>2023-06-08T22:07:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://peterlevine.ws/?p=28885</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>have_read diversity ideology public_opinion social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition via:henry_farrell tracked_down_references</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:0cd6473d41c1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:public_opinion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:tracked_down_references"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13569317.2022.2138293?journalCode=cjpi20">
    <title>Mapping ideologies as networks of ideas: Journal of Political Ideologies: Vol 0, No 0</title>
    <dc:date>2023-06-08T22:05:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13569317.2022.2138293?journalCode=cjpi20</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Individuals in a non-representative sample of 93 US progressives were asked which social outcomes they valued and then asked about the relationships among these opinions. Did each outcome provide a reason for a different one? Would each outcome cause a different one? If each outcome came to pass, would it make them more likely to support another outcome? Network diagrams derived from these responses represent portions of these individuals’ ideologies, understood as structures of political thought. Scrutiny of the network diagrams and analysis of the aggregate data suggest that most respondents carefully and reasonably identified relationships among their own ideas. Features of their networks predicted their assessments of five prominent politicians. This exploratory study paints a strikingly different picture of the sample than what would emerge from more conventional methods, such as factor analysis. Instead of a group that looks ideologically homogeneous on a unidimensional scale or that exhibits a low level of ideological coherence (because very few of their ideas are correlated), this method displays a collection of people who hold diverse and complex structures of thought. The method should be replicated with representative samples to explore the variation and significance of such structures."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB graphical_models ideology cognitive_science to_read re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d643359afe28/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:graphical_models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cognitive_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12644">
    <title>The Emergence of Specialized Roles Within Groups - Goldstone - Topics in Cognitive Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2023-05-02T20:15:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12644</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Humans routinely form groups to achieve goals that no individual can accomplish alone. Group coordination often brings to mind synchrony and alignment, where all individuals do the same thing (e.g., driving on the right side of the road, marching in lockstep, or playing musical instruments on a regular beat). Yet, effective coordination also typically involves differentiation, where specialized roles emerge for different members (e.g., prep stations in a kitchen or positions on an athletic team). Role specialization poses a challenge for computational models of group coordination, which have largely focused on achieving synchrony. Here, we present the CARMI framework, which characterizes role specialization processes in terms of five core features that we hope will help guide future model development: Communication, Adaptation to feedback, Repulsion, Multi-level planning, and Intention modeling. Although there are many paths to role formation, we suggest that roles emerge when each agent in a group dynamically allocates their behavior toward a shared goal to complement what they expect others to do. In other words, coordination concerns beliefs (who will do what) rather than simple actions. We describe three related experimental paradigms—“Group Binary Search,” “Battles of the Exes,” and “Find the Unicorn”—that we have used to study differentiation processes in the lab, each emphasizing different aspects of the CARMI framework."]]></description>
<dc:subject>social_life_of_the_mind collective_cognition to_read via:? re:democratic_cognition goldstone.robert_l. in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c6010a66dc9d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:goldstone.robert_l."/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02667">
    <title>[2206.02667] Multi-learner risk reduction under endogenous participation dynamics</title>
    <dc:date>2023-03-18T14:35:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02667</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Prediction systems face exogenous and endogenous distribution shift -- the world constantly changes, and the predictions the system makes change the environment in which it operates. For example, a music recommender observes exogeneous changes in the user distribution as different communities have increased access to high speed internet. If users under the age of 18 enjoy their recommendations, the proportion of the user base comprised of those under 18 may endogeneously increase. Most of the study of endogenous shifts has focused on the single decision-maker setting, where there is one learner that users either choose to use or not.
"This paper studies participation dynamics between sub-populations and possibly many learners. We study the behavior of systems with \emph{risk-reducing} learners and sub-populations. A risk-reducing learner updates their decision upon observing a mixture distribution of the sub-populations  in such a way that it decreases the risk of the learner on that mixture. A risk reducing sub-population updates its apportionment amongst learners in a way which reduces its overall loss.
"Previous work on the single learner case shows that myopic risk minimization can result in high overall loss~\citep{perdomo2020performative, miller2021outside} and representation disparity~\citep{hashimoto2018fairness, zhang2019group}. Our work analyzes the outcomes of multiple myopic learners and market forces, often leading to better global loss and less representation disparity."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB algorithmic_fairness machine_learning recommender_systems to_read to_teach:data-mining distributed_systems re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition diversity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ae99da06e897/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:algorithmic_fairness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:machine_learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:recommender_systems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:distributed_systems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/how-deliberation-happens-enabling-deliberative-reason/6558F69855ADA8B15BF2EC2E5D403E71">
    <title>How Deliberation Happens: Enabling Deliberative Reason | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2023-03-18T12:28:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/how-deliberation-happens-enabling-deliberative-reason/6558F69855ADA8B15BF2EC2E5D403E71</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We show, against skeptics, that however latent it may be in everyday life, the ability to reason effectively about politics can readily be activated when conditions are right. We justify a definition of deliberative reason, then develop and apply a Deliberative Reason Index (DRI) to analysis of 19 deliberative forums. DRI increases over the course of deliberation in the vast majority of cases, but the extent of this increase depends upon enabling conditions. Group building that activates deliberative norms makes the biggest difference, particularly in enabling participants to cope with complexity. Without group building, complexity becomes more difficult to surmount, and planned direct impact on policy decisions may actually impede reasoning where complexity is high. Our findings have implications beyond forum design for the staging of political discourse in the wider public sphere."]]></description>
<dc:subject>collective_cognition democracy social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition via:henry_farrell in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bcf00cb9d9e9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12486">
    <title>Democracy's Pin Factory: Issue Specialization, the Division of Cognitive Labor, and Epistemic Performance - Elliott - 2020 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2023-03-07T15:44:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12486</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This article describes how issue specialization through deliberative institutions called “issue publics” can improve the quality of democratic decision making. Issue specialization improves decisions by instantiating a cognitive division of labor among the mass public, which creates efficiencies in decision making and grants large groups of average citizens a scalable advantage over small groups of even the smartest and most capable individuals. Issue specialization further improves decisions by capturing issue-specific information, concentrating it within the specialized deliberative enclaves of issue publics, and refining citizens’ issue preferences. These advantages are brought to bear in wider democratic politics and policy through information shortcuts and through the specialized electoral incentives of representatives. The article responds to concerns about political ignorance, polarization/partisanship, rent seeking, and socioeconomic bias and argues that issue specialization can provide a valuable brake to polarization yet needs institutional supplementation to engage marginalized citizens and combat bias."]]></description>
<dc:subject>democracy re:democratic_cognition via:henry_farrell in_NB to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ec878a2fbdf2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democracy-more-or-less/F73E9EC9647FFD90CE12BD746F866A74#fndtn-information">
    <title>Democracy More or Less</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-17T03:44:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democracy-more-or-less/F73E9EC9647FFD90CE12BD746F866A74#fndtn-information</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Why do American political reform efforts so often fail to solve the problems they intend to fix? In this book, Bruce E. Cain argues that the reasons are an unrealistic civic ideal of a fully informed and engaged citizenry and a neglect of basic pluralist principles about political intermediaries. This book traces the tension between populist and pluralist approaches as it plays out in many seemingly distinct reform topics, such as voting administration, campaign finance, excessive partisanship, redistricting, and transparency and voter participation. It explains why political primaries have promoted partisan polarization, why voting rates are declining even as election opportunities increase, and why direct democracy is not really a grassroots tool. Cain offers a reform agenda that attempts to reconcile pluralist ideals with the realities of collective-action problems and resource disparities."]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted democracy us_politics re:democratic_cognition downloaded in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bbaeb081eaa0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.americanpurpose.com/blog/fukuyama/vetocracy-and-climate-adaptation/">
    <title>Vetocracy and Climate Adaptation</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-17T03:26:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.americanpurpose.com/blog/fukuyama/vetocracy-and-climate-adaptation/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["One can argue that active citizen participation is critical to both improving legislation and to getting buy-in for difficult decisions. Dictatorships like China and Russia do not solicit citizen participation. But as my Stanford colleague Bruce Cain has argued in this 2014 book Democracy More or Less, there is a hidden flaw in the assumptions underlying the indefinite expansion of participatory democracy, which is that ordinary people will have the time, willingness, and knowledge to participate meaningfully in a complex decision-making process. The vast majority of people do not, with the result that participatory processes empower activist groups or lobbyists with a direct stake in the decision at hand. These groups do not necessarily represent “the people,” and tend to produce polarized standoffs where, for example, energy industry lobbyists face off against environmental advocates. Thus efforts to increase democratic participation may have the effect of leading to less democratic outcomes."]]></description>
<dc:subject>climate_change our_decrepit_institutions democracy us_politics track_down_references re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:48db3f2bae37/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:climate_change"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:track_down_references"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://crookedtimber.org/2023/01/03/skepticism-and-human-reason/">
    <title>Skepticism and human reason — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-06T02:33:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://crookedtimber.org/2023/01/03/skepticism-and-human-reason/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>social_life_of_the_mind kith_and_kin farrell.henry have_read re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:6fdab2d341d7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://mattbruenig.com/2022/12/30/the-contradictions-of-deliberative-democracy/">
    <title>The Contradictions of Deliberative Democracy – Matt Bruenig Dot Com</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-01T04:30:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://mattbruenig.com/2022/12/30/the-contradictions-of-deliberative-democracy/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>democracy social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition via:absfac have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:080feebb75c7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:absfac"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7z5jm/thank-you-for-your-feedback">
    <title>Thank You For Your Feedback</title>
    <dc:date>2022-12-29T02:50:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7z5jm/thank-you-for-your-feedback</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The community feedback process is an inconvenient annoyance that brings out the worst in people. It is also at the heart of why U.S. cities can't build new housing or transportation."]]></description>
<dc:subject>our_decrepit_institutions have_read re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:eabd9f937845/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://cailinoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/First-Submission-Versions.pdf">
    <title>How should we promote transient diversity in science?</title>
    <dc:date>2022-12-29T02:23:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://cailinoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/First-Submission-Versions.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress.
If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss
important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere
to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in
turn, might be superior. But the mechanisms that lead to this sort of
diversity can also generate epistemic harms when scientific communities
fail to reach swift consensus on successful theories. In this paper, we draw
on extant literature using network models to investigate diversity in science. We evaluate different mechanisms from the modeling literature that
can promote transient diversity of practice, keeping in mind ethical and
practical constraints posed by real epistemic communities. We ask: what
are the best ways to promote the right amount of diversity of practice in
such communities?"]]></description>
<dc:subject>in_NB downloaded philosophy_of_science social_life_of_the_mind sociology_of_science o'connor.cailin re:democratic_cognition diversity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f9e8b34b7131/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:philosophy_of_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology_of_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:o'connor.cailin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nber.org/papers/w30794">
    <title>Liquid Democracy. Two Experiments on Delegation in Voting | NBER</title>
    <dc:date>2022-12-27T14:45:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nber.org/papers/w30794</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Under Liquid Democracy (LD), decisions are taken by referendum, but voters are allowed to delegate their votes to other voters. Theory shows that in common interest problems where experts are correctly identified, the outcome can be superior to simple majority voting. However, even when experts are correctly identified, delegation must be used sparely because it reduces the variety of independent information sources. We report the results of two experiments, each studying two treatments: in one treatment, participants have the option of delegating to better informed individuals; in the second, participants can choose to abstain. The first experiment follows a tightly controlled design planned for the lab; the second is a perceptual task run online where information about signals’ precision is ambiguous. The two designs are very different, but the experiments reach the same result: in both, delegation rates are unexpectedly high and higher than abstention rates, and LD underperforms relative to both universal voting and abstention."]]></description>
<dc:subject>democracy re:democratic_cognition via:henry_farrell in_NB economistic_imperialism</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:6ea1dc352346/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:economistic_imperialism"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2021-0019">
    <title>Post-deliberative Democracy</title>
    <dc:date>2022-11-21T03:16:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2021-0019</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Within any adversarial rule-governed system, it often takes time for strategically motivated agents to discover effective exploits. Once discovered, these strategies will soon be copied by all other participants. Unless it is possible to adjust the rules to preclude them, the result will be a degradation of the performance of the system. This is essentially what has happened to public political discourse in democratic states. Political actors have discovered, not just that the norm of truth can be violated in specific ways, but that many of the norms governing rational deliberation can also be violated, not just without penalty, but often for significant political gain. As a result, the level of noise (false or misleading communications) has come to drown out the signal (earnest attempts at deliberation). The post-truth political condition is the cumulative result of innovations developed by actors who adopt an essentially strategic orientation toward political communications."

--- We don't subscribe and I can't find an ungated copy...

--- ETA 2024: We now subscribe and I look forward to reading.]]></description>
<dc:subject>our_decrepit_institutions democracy re:democratic_cognition heath.joseph in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:196e44c03990/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:our_decrepit_institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:heath.joseph"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://crookedtimber.org/2022/09/07/the-democratic-theory-of-a-half-built-garden/">
    <title>The democratic theory of “A Half-Built Garden” — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2022-09-15T14:25:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://crookedtimber.org/2022/09/07/the-democratic-theory-of-a-half-built-garden/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[--- I hadn't realized Emrys had a new book out.
--- I have always thought bioregionalism a very silly proposal for social organization.  [Ob1990sBook: Martin Lewis, _Green Delusions_.) Having bioregionalism be a response to a _global climate crisis_ is, pardon the expression, galaxy-brained.  But R.E. is smart so I suspect she's thought about that.)]]></description>
<dc:subject>democracy farrell.henry science_fiction have_read track_down_references kith_and_kin re:democratic_cognition political_philosophy emrys.ruthanna</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:803c1361ce67/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_fiction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:track_down_references"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:emrys.ruthanna"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/spirals-delusion-artificial-intelligence-decision-making">
    <title>Spirals of Delusion: How AI Distorts Decision-Making and Makes Dictators More Dangerous</title>
    <dc:date>2022-08-31T21:56:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/spirals-delusion-artificial-intelligence-decision-making</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>have_read in_NB data_mining algorithmic_fairness kith_and_kin farrell.henry to_teach:data-mining re:democratic_cognition seeing_like_a_finite_state_machine</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bf239783c563/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:data_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:algorithmic_fairness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:seeing_like_a_finite_state_machine"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398">
    <title>Analytical Democratic Theory: A Microfoundational Approach | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2022-08-04T14:15:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["A prominent and publicly influential literature challenges the quality of democratic decision making, drawing on political science findings with specific claims about the ubiquity of cognitive bias to lament citizens’ incompetence. A competing literature in democratic theory defends the wisdom of crowds, drawing on a cluster of models in support of the capacity of ordinary citizens to produce correct outcomes. In this Letter, we draw on recent findings in psychology to demonstrate that the former literature is based on outdated and erroneous claims and that the latter is overly sanguine about the circumstances that yield reliable collective decision making. By contrast, “interactionist” scholarship shows how individual-level biases are not devastating for group problem solving, given appropriate conditions. This provides possible microfoundations for a broader research agenda similar to that implemented by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues on common-good provision, investigating how different group structures are associated with both success and failure in democratic decision making. This agenda would have implications for both democratic theory and democratic practice."

--- I am very happy to see this loosed upon the world.]]></description>
<dc:subject>in_NB democracy political_science political_philosophy collective_cognition kith_and_kin farrell.henry schwartzberg.melissa mercier.hugo re:democratic_cognition social_life_of_the_mind have_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:647cadab93a4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:schwartzberg.melissa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/culturalhistorical-perspectives-on-collective-intelligence/367B658082C1381F97FF6DD56A60C8C1">
    <title>Cultural-Historical Perspectives on Collective Intelligence</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-04T01:35:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/culturalhistorical-perspectives-on-collective-intelligence/367B658082C1381F97FF6DD56A60C8C1</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In the era of digital communication, collective problem solving is increasingly important. Large groups can now resolve issues together in completely different ways, which has transformed the arts, sciences, business, education, technology, and medicine. Collective intelligence is something we share with animals and is different from machine learning and artificial intelligence. To design and utilize human collective intelligence, we must understand how its problem-solving mechanisms work. From democracy in ancient Athens, through the invention of the printing press, to COVID-19, this book analyzes how humans developed the ability to find solutions together. This wide-ranging, thought-provoking book is a game-changer for those working strategically with collective problem solving within organizations and using a variety of innovative methods. It sheds light on how humans work effectively alongside machines to confront challenges that are more urgent than what humanity has faced before. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core."]]></description>
<dc:subject>collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition downloaded books:noted in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:001ef63a7221/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197568750.001.0001/oso-9780197568750">
    <title>Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments - Oxford Scholarship</title>
    <dc:date>2022-03-27T04:02:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197568750.001.0001/oso-9780197568750</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Designing for Democracy addresses the question of how to “fix” digital technologies for democracy by examining how the design of the built environment (whether streets, sidewalks, or social media platforms) informs how, and whether, citizens can engage in democratic practices. “Democratic spaces”—built environments that support democratic politics—must have three characteristics: they must be clearly bounded, durable, and flexible. Each corresponds to a necessary democratic practice. Clearly bounded spaces make it easier to recognize what we share and with whom we share; they help us form communities. Durable spaces facilitate our attachments to the communities they house and the other members within them; they help us sustain communities. And flexible spaces facilitate the experimental habits required for democratic politics; they help us improve our communities. These three practices—recognition, attachment, and experimentalism—are the affordances a built environment must provide in order to be a “democratic space”; they are the criteria to which designers and users should be attentive when building and inhabiting the spaces of the built environment, both physical and digital. Using this theoretical framework, Designing for Democracy provides new insights into the democratic potential of digital technologies. Through extended discussions of examples like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, it suggests architectural responses to problems often associated with digital technologies—loose networks, the “personalization of politics,” and “echo chambers.” In connecting the built environment, digital technologies, and democratic theory, Designing Democracy provides blueprints for democracy in a digital age."

--- Brief self-presentation: https://www.andrewchadwick.com/blog/2021/12/07/guest-post-jennifer-forestal-writes-about-her-new-book-designing-for-democracy-how-to-build-community-in-digital-environments]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted downloaded democracy networked_life social_media social_life_of_the_mind political_philosophy dewey.john re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator re:democratic_cognition in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cc8bcb7554f4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:networked_life"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:dewey.john"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-017-1414-z">
    <title>Mandevillian intelligence | SpringerLink</title>
    <dc:date>2022-03-05T14:08:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-017-1414-z</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Mandevillian intelligence is a specific form of collective intelligence in which individual cognitive vices (i.e., shortcomings, limitations, constraints and biases) are seen to play a positive functional role in yielding collective forms of cognitive success. The present paper introduces the concept of mandevillian intelligence and reviews a number of strands of empirical research that help to shed light on the phenomenon. The paper also attempts to highlight the value of the concept of mandevillian intelligence from a philosophical, scientific and engineering perspective. Inasmuch as we accept the notion of mandevillian intelligence, then it seems that the cognitive and epistemic value of a specific social or technological intervention will vary according to whether our attention is focused at the individual or collective level of analysis. This has a number of important implications for how we think about the design and evaluation of collective cognitive systems. For example, the notion of mandevillian intelligence forces us to take seriously the idea that the exploitation (or even the accentuation) of individual cognitive shortcomings could, in some situations, provide a productive route to collective forms of cognitive and epistemic success."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition social_life_of_the_mind cunning_of_reason via:henry_farrell to_read re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:a07a13cbff6c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cunning_of_reason"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691218939/politics-and-expertise">
    <title>Politics and Expertise | Princeton University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2022-02-05T20:50:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691218939/politics-and-expertise</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Our ability to act on some of the most pressing issues of our time, from pandemics and climate change to artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons, depends on knowledge provided by scientists and other experts. Meanwhile, contemporary political life is increasingly characterized by problematic responses to expertise, with denials of science on the one hand and complaints about the ignorance of the citizenry on the other.
"Politics and Expertise offers a new model for the relationship between science and democracy, rooted in the ways in which scientific knowledge and the political context of its use are imperfect. Zeynep Pamuk starts from the fact that science is uncertain, incomplete, and contested, and shows how scientists’ judgments about what is significant and useful shape the agenda and framing of political decisions. The challenge, Pamuk argues, is to ensure that democracies can expose and contest the assumptions and omissions of scientists, instead of choosing between wholesale acceptance or rejection of expertise. To this end, she argues for institutions that support scientific dissent, proposes an adversarial “science court” to facilitate the public scrutiny of science, reimagines structures for funding scientific research, and provocatively suggests restricting research into dangerous new technologies.
"Through rigorous philosophical analysis and fascinating examples, Politics and Expertise moves the conversation beyond the dichotomy between technocracy and populism and develops a better answer for how to govern and use science democratically."

--- I may be doing the author an injustice, but I very much doubt that "support[ing] scientific dissent" through funding, or "restricting research into dangerous new" areas, would, if subject to _actually_ democratic control in the US, go the way she'd hope.  (The are an incredible number of Creationists.)  But I haven't read this, so maybe she considers this carefully, and/or would bite those bullets.]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted science_as_a_social_process science_policy political_philosophy re:democratic_cognition color_me_skeptical books:in_library expertise_and_science_in_democracy expertise downloaded</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7116360d8e1f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:in_library"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:expertise_and_science_in_democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:expertise"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qWE9RR4A-6W_Tj6XOdQQ110cLQDUPHAh/view">
    <title>Mercier et Claidière Does discussion make crowds any wiser?.pdf - Google Drive</title>
    <dc:date>2022-01-11T15:36:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qWE9RR4A-6W_Tj6XOdQQ110cLQDUPHAh/view</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Does discussion in large groups help or hinder the wisdom of crowds? To give rise to the wisdom of crowds, by
which large groups can yield surprisingly accurate answers, aggregation mechanisms such as averaging of
opinions or majority voting rely on diversity of opinions, and independence between the voters. Discussion tends
to reduce diversity and independence. On the other hand, discussion in small groups has been shown to improve
the accuracy of individual answers. To test the effects of discussion in large groups, we gave groups of participants (N = 1958 participants in groups of size ranging from 22 to 212; mean 59) one of three types of problems
(demonstrative, factual, ethical) to solve, first individually, and then through discussion. For demonstrative
(logical or mathematical) problems, discussion improved individual answers, as well as the answers reached
through aggregation. For factual problems, discussion improved individual answers, and either improved or had
no effect on the answers reached through aggregation. Our results suggest that, for problems which have a
correct answer, discussion in large groups does not detract from the effects of the wisdom of crowds, and tends on
the contrary to improve on it."

--- Probably via:henryfarrell but tab has been hanging open so long I can't recall]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition social_life_of_the_mind experimental_psychology experimental_sociology mercier.hugo via:? to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:12fa34564f26/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18645/">
    <title>The diversity-ability trade-off in scientific problem solving - PhilSci-Archive</title>
    <dc:date>2021-06-28T03:31:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18645/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>to:NB to_read diversity re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:4407ea8bf810/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12471">
    <title>[2006.12471] When social influence promotes the wisdom of crowds</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-30T21:10:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12471</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Whether, and under what conditions, groups exhibit "crowd wisdom" has been a major focus of research across the social and computational sciences. Much of this work has focused on the role of social influence in promoting the wisdom of the crowd versus leading the crowd astray, resulting in conflicting conclusions about how the social network structure determines the impact of social influence. Here, we demonstrate that it is not enough to consider the network structure in isolation. Using theoretical analysis, numerical simulation, and reanalysis of four experimental datasets (totaling 2,885 human subjects), we find that the wisdom of crowds critically depends on the interaction between (i) the centralization of the social influence network and (ii) the distribution of the initial, individual estimates. By adopting a framework that integrates both the structure of the social influence and the distribution of the initial estimates, we bring previously conflicting results under one theoretical framework and clarify the effects of social influence on the wisdom of crowds."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_life_of_the_mind collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:91956b436aa9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.02569">
    <title>[2105.02569] Machine Collaboration</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-10T22:48:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.02569</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We propose a new ensemble framework for supervised learning, named machine collaboration (MaC), based on a collection of base machines for prediction tasks. Different from bagging/stacking (a parallel & independent framework) and boosting (a sequential & top-down framework), MaC is a type of circular & interactive learning framework. The circular & interactive feature helps the base machines to transfer information circularly and update their own structures and parameters accordingly. The theoretical result on the risk bound of the estimator based on MaC shows that circular & interactive feature can help MaC reduce the risk via a parsimonious ensemble. We conduct extensive experiments on simulated data and 119 benchmark real data sets. The results of the experiments show that in most cases, MaC performs much better than several state-of-the-art methods, including CART, neural network, stacking, and boosting."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB ensemble_methods prediction re:democratic_cognition to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d3a50065611d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ensemble_methods"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:prediction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.vox.com/2018/8/9/17540448/walter-lippmann-democracy-trump-brexit">
    <title>Walter Lippmann: what we can learn from his famous critique of democracy - Vox</title>
    <dc:date>2021-04-15T02:47:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.vox.com/2018/8/9/17540448/walter-lippmann-democracy-trump-brexit</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>democracy lippmann.walter dewey.john re:democratic_cognition illing.sean political_philosophy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f75f6e663eff/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:lippmann.walter"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:dewey.john"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:illing.sean"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_philosophy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2015.15192abstract">
    <title>Distilling the Wisdom of Crowds: Prediction Markets versus Prediction Polls | Academy of Management Proceedings</title>
    <dc:date>2021-03-01T07:53:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2015.15192abstract</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Crowd prediction methods offer the promised to collect valuable, widely dispersed information in organizations. To the extent that information is a source of power, crowdsourcing democratizes organizational governance. We report the results of the first large-scale, long-term, experimental test of crowd prediction methods. More than 2,400 participants made forecasts on 261 world events over two forecasting seasons, each lasting more than 9 months. Forecasters in prediction markets made trades about future events in a continuous double auction. Those in prediction polls submitted explicit probability judgments, independently or in teams. Probability values were aggregated statistically. In Study 1, which used full random assignment, prediction markets were more accurate than the unweighted mean of forecasts from prediction polls. However, team prediction polls aggregated with algorithms featuring decay, weighting and recalibration outperformed prediction markets by 12% in terms of Brier score. This pattern persisted in Study 2, and was stable across scoring rules. Prediction polls’ advantage was largest at the start of long-duration questions. Prediction polls with proper scoring, algorithmic aggregation and teaming offer an attractive method for distilling crowd wisdom."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition ensemble_methods re:democratic_cognition via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b270f873ed06/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ensemble_methods"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17088/">
    <title>The Dynamics of Retraction in Epistemic Networks - PhilSci-Archive</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-10T03:21:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17088/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Sometimes retracted or thoroughly refuted scientific information is used and propagated long after it is understood to be misleading. Likewise, sometimes retracted news items spread and persist, even after it has been publicly established that they are false. In this paper, we use agent-based models of epistemic networks to explore the dynamics of retraction.In particular, we focus on why false beliefs might persist, even in the face of retraction.Surprisingly, we find that in some cases delaying retraction may increase its impact. We also find that retractions are most successful when issued by the original source of misinformation rather than a separate source."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read re:democratic_cognition social_life_of_the_mind epidemiology_of_representations</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:22a1036b758d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:epidemiology_of_representations"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy062">
    <title>How to Beat Science and Influence People: Policymakers and Propaganda in Epistemic Networks | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | Oxford Academic</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-10T03:17:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy062</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In their recent book, Oreskes and Conway ([2010]) describe the ‘tobacco strategy’, which was used by the tobacco industry to influence policymakers regarding the health risks of tobacco products. The strategy involved two parts, consisting of (i) promoting and sharing independent research supporting the industry’s preferred position and (ii) funding additional research, but selectively publishing the results. We introduce a model of the tobacco strategy, and use it to argue that both prongs of the strategy can be extremely effective—even when policymakers rationally update on all evidence available to them. As we elaborate, this model helps illustrate the conditions under which the tobacco strategy is particularly successful. In addition, we show how journalists engaged in ‘fair’ reporting can inadvertently mimic the effects of industry on public belief."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read deceiving_us_has_become_an_industrial_process epidemiology_of_representations social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:3d83a944fbf6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:deceiving_us_has_become_an_industrial_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:epidemiology_of_representations"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14524">
    <title>[2012.14524] Why does individual learning endure when crowds are wiser?</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-03T20:01:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14524</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The ability to learn from others (social learning) is often deemed a cause of human species success. But if social learning is indeed more efficient (whether less costly or more accurate) than individual learning, it raises the question of why would anyone engage in individual information seeking, which is a necessary condition for social learning's efficacy. We propose an evolutionary model solving this paradox, provided agents (i) aim not only at information quality but also vie for audience and prestige, and (ii) do not only value accuracy but also reward originality -- allowing them to alleviate herding effects. We find that under some conditions (large enough success rate of informed agents and intermediate taste for popularity), both social learning's higher accuracy and the taste for original opinions are evolutionary-stable, within a mutually beneficial division of labour-like equilibrium. When such conditions are not met, the system most often converges towards mutually detrimental equilibria."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB evolutionary_game_theory evolution_of_cognition social_life_of_the_mind collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ab63dca78864/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evolutionary_game_theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evolution_of_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/searching-for-good-policies/B2A29C8F04C8A9394C77E576D2BFCF6D">
    <title>Searching for Good Policies | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-03T19:56:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/searching-for-good-policies/B2A29C8F04C8A9394C77E576D2BFCF6D</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Policymaking is hard. Policymakers typically have imperfect information about which policies produce which outcomes, and they are left with little choice but to fumble their way through the policy space via a trial-and-error process. This raises a question at the heart of democracy: Do democratic systems identify good policies? To answer this question I introduce a novel model of policymaking in complex environments. I show that good policies are often but not always found and I identify the possibility of policymaking getting stuck at outcomes that are arbitrarily bad. Notably, policy stickiness occurs in the model even in the absence of institutional constraints. This raises the question of how institutions and the political environment impact experimentation and learning. I show how a simple political friction—uncertainty over voter preferences—interacts with political competition and policy uncertainty in a subtle way that, surprisingly, improves the quality of policymaking over time."

]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition via:rvenkat</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f95f89aded51/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:rvenkat"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6">
    <title>The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity | SpringerLink</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-23T00:12:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["There is growing interest in understanding and eliciting division of labor within groups of scientists. This paper illustrates the need for this division of labor through a historical example, and a formal model is presented to better analyze situations of this type. Analysis of this model reveals that a division of labor can be maintained in two different ways: by limiting information or by endowing the scientists with extreme beliefs. If both features are present however, cognitive diversity is maintained indefinitely, and as a result agents fail to converge to the truth. Beyond the mechanisms for creating diversity suggested here, this shows that the real epistemic goal is not diversity but transient diversity."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB diversity collective_cognition science_as_a_social_process kith_and_kin zollman.kevin_j._s. re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ce7c165dc49f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:zollman.kevin_j._s."/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2020.1364">
    <title>Who Contributes Knowledge? Core-Periphery Tension in Online Innovation Communities | Organization Science</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-22T05:38:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2020.1364</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Where do valuable contributions originate from in online innovation communities? Prior research provides conflicting answers. One view, consistent with a community of practice perspective, is that valued knowledge contributions are primarily provided by central participants at the core of a community. In contrast, other research—including work adopting an open innovation perspective—predicts that valuable ideas primarily emerge from peripheral participants, those at the margins of a field of knowledge who provide novel ideas and viewpoints. We integrate these contrasting perspectives by considering two distinct forms of position: social embeddedness (a core social position within the social network of participants interacting within a community) and epistemic marginality (a peripheral epistemic position based on the network of topics discussed by a community). Analyzing contributions by 697,412 participants of 52 Stack Exchange online innovation communities, we find that both participants who are socially embedded and participants who are epistemically marginal provide knowledge contributions that are highly valued by fellow community participants. Importantly, among epistemically marginal participants, those with high social embeddedness are more likely to provide contributions valued by the community; by virtue of their epistemic marginality, these participants may offer novel ideas while by virtue of their social embeddedness they may be able to more effectively communicate their ideas to the community. Thus, the production of knowledge in an online innovation community involves a complex interaction between the novelty emanating from the epistemic periphery and the social embeddedness required to make ideas congruent with existing social and epistemic norms."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_life_of_the_mind collective_cognition social_networks to_teach:baby-nets re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:32c8b57c2681/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:baby-nets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/representation-in-models-of-epistemic-democracy/DD99118293B04CCE5D0D124B660E7961">
    <title>REPRESENTATION IN MODELS OF EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY | Episteme | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-21T14:13:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/representation-in-models-of-epistemic-democracy/DD99118293B04CCE5D0D124B660E7961</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Epistemic justifications for democracy have been offered in terms of two different forms of information aggregation and decision-making. The Condorcet Jury Theorem is appealed to as a justification in terms of votes, and the Hong–Page ‘diversity trumps ability’ result is appealed to as a justification in terms of deliberation in the form of collaborative search. Both results, however, are models of full and direct participation across a population. In this paper, we contrast how these results hold up within the familiar structure of a representative hierarchy. We first consider extant analytic work that shows that representation inevitably weakens the voting results of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. We then go on to show that collaborative search, as modeled by Hong and Page, holds its own within hierarchical representation. In a variation on the dynamics of group search, representation even shows a slight edge over direct participation. This contrast illustrates how models of information aggregation vary when put into a representative structure. While some of the epistemic merits of democracy are lost when voting is done hierarchically, modeling results show that representation can preserve and even slightly amplify the epistemic virtues of collaborative search."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition social_life_of_the_mind diversity re:democratic_cognition page.scott_e. kith_and_kin</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:777ee971996c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:page.scott_e."/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/improving-deliberations-by-reducing-misrepresentation-effects/8F7289E47C9F7D7BE6DF38B9C01D791F">
    <title>IMPROVING DELIBERATIONS BY REDUCING MISREPRESENTATION EFFECTS | Episteme | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-21T14:12:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/improving-deliberations-by-reducing-misrepresentation-effects/8F7289E47C9F7D7BE6DF38B9C01D791F</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Deliberative and decisional groups play crucial roles in most aspects of social life. But it is not obvious how to organize these groups and various socio-cognitive mechanisms can spoil debates and decisions. In this paper we focus on one such important mechanism: the misrepresentation of views, i.e. when agents express views that are aligned with those already expressed, and which differ from their private opinions. We introduce a model to analyze the extent to which this behavioral pattern can warp deliberations and distort the decisions that are finally taken. We identify types of situations in which misrepresentation can have major effects and investigate how to reduce these effects by adopting appropriate deliberative procedures. We discuss the beneficial effects of (i) holding a sufficient number of rounds of expression of views; (ii) choosing an appropriate order of speech, typically a random one; (iii) rendering the deliberation dissenter-friendly; (iv) having agents express fined-grained views. These applicable procedures help improve deliberations because they dampen conformist behavior, give epistemic minorities more opportunities to be heard, and reduce the number of cases in which an inadequate consensus or majority develops."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_life_of_the_mind collective_cognition institutions re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ab8ba91a3467/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/cultural-adaptation-is-maximised-when-intelligent-individuals-rarely-think-for-themselves/9C06326BEAB863A1F165C5E592F839BB">
    <title>Cultural adaptation is maximised when intelligent individuals rarely think for themselves | Evolutionary Human Sciences | Cambridge Core</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-16T19:51:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/cultural-adaptation-is-maximised-when-intelligent-individuals-rarely-think-for-themselves/9C06326BEAB863A1F165C5E592F839BB</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Humans are remarkable in their reliance on cultural inheritance, and the ecological success this has produced. Nonetheless, we lack a thorough understanding of how the cognitive underpinnings of cultural transmission affect cultural adaptation across diverse tasks. Here, we use an agent-based simulation to investigate how different learning mechanisms (both social and asocial) interact with task structure to affect cultural adaptation. Specifically, we compared learning through refinement, recombination or both, in tasks of different difficulty, with learners of different asocial intelligence. We find that for simple tasks all learning mechanisms are roughly equivalent. However, for hard tasks, performance was maximised when populations consisted of highly intelligent individuals who nonetheless rarely innovated and instead recombined existing information. Our results thus show that cumulative cultural adaptation relies on the combination of individual intelligence and ‘blind’ population-level processes, although the former may be rarely used. The counterintuitive requirement that individuals be highly intelligent, but rarely use this intelligence, may help resolve the debate over the role of individual intelligence in cultural adaptation."

]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition social_life_of_the_mind cultural_transmission re:democratic_cognition color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:f73b60c11b72/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cultural_transmission"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.248301">
    <title>Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 248301 (2020) - Interacting Discovery Processes on Complex Networks</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-11T06:25:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.248301</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Innovation is the driving force of human progress. Recent urn models reproduce well the dynamics through which the discovery of a novelty may trigger further ones, in an expanding space of opportunities, but neglect the effects of social interactions. Here we focus on the mechanisms of collective exploration, and we propose a model in which many urns, representing different explorers, are coupled through the links of a social network and exploit opportunities coming from their contacts. We study different network structures showing, both analytically and numerically, that the pace of discovery of an explorer depends on its centrality in the social network. Our model sheds light on the role that social structures play in discovery processes."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_networks innovation social_life_of_the_mind collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition vicious_caricatures color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ade5c02a12ca/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:vicious_caricatures"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/9781108498548">
    <title>Computational approaches to the network science of teams | Knowledge management, databases and data mining | Cambridge University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2020-12-01T01:53:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/9781108498548</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Business operations in large organizations today involve massive, interactive, and layered networks of teams and personnel collaborating across hierarchies and countries on complex tasks. To optimize productivity, businesses need to know: what communication patterns do high-performing teams have in common? Is it possible to predict a team's performance before it starts work on a project? How can productive team behavior be fostered? This comprehensive review for researchers and practitioners in data mining and social networks surveys recent progress in the emerging field of network science of teams. Focusing on the underlying social network structure, the authors present models and algorithms characterizing, predicting, optimizing, and explaining team performance, along with key applications, open challenges, and future trends."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_networks sociology network_data_analysis books:noted organizations social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition color_me_skeptical books:suggest_to_library</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b5be5677dc66/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:network_data_analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:organizations"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113340">
    <title>Law, Innovation, and Collaboration in Networked Economy and Society | Annual Review of Law and Social Science</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-26T16:04:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113340</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Over the past 25 years, social science research in diverse fields has shifted its best explanations of innovation from (a) atomistic invention and development by individuals, corporate or natural, to networked learning; (b) market-based innovation focused on material self-interest to interaction between market and nonmarket practices under diverse motivations; and (c) property rights exclusively to interaction between property and commons. These shifts have profound implications for how we must think about law and innovation. Patents, copyrights, noncompete agreements, and trade secret laws are all optimized for an increasingly obsolete worldview. Strong intellectual property impedes, rather than facilitates, innovation when we understand that knowledge flows in learning networks, mixing of market and nonmarket models and motivations, and weaving of commons with property are central to the innovation process."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB innovation law intellectual_property benkler.yochai social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:d4bc61d9d6da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:intellectual_property"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:benkler.yochai"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05937">
    <title>[2007.05937] Cues to gender and racial identity reduce creativity in diverse social networks</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-25T15:42:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05937</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The characteristics of social partners have long been hypothesized as influential in guiding group interactions. Understanding how demographic cues impact networks of creative collaborators is critical for elevating creative performances therein. We conducted a randomized experiment to investigate how the knowledge of peers' gender and racial identities distorts people's connection patterns and the resulting creative outcomes in a dynamic social network. Consistent with prior work, we found that creative inspiration links are primarily formed with top idea-generators. However, when gender and racial identities are known, not only is there (1) an increase of 82.03% in the odds of same-gender connections (but not for same-race connections), but (2) the semantic similarity of idea-sets stimulated by these connections also increase significantly compared to demography-agnostic networks, negatively impacting the outcomes of divergent creativity. We found that ideas tend to be more homogeneous within demographic groups than between, taking away diversity-bonuses from similarity-based links and partly explaining the results. These insights can inform intelligent interventions to enhance network-wide creative performances."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB diversity collective_cognition social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:06b8b0e6e5e5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833">
    <title>The Sociology of Creativity: Elements, Structures, and Audiences | Annual Review of Sociology</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-19T22:13:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This review integrates diverse characterizations of creativity from a sociological perspective with the goal of reinvigorating discussion of the sociology of creativity. We start by exploring relevant works of classical social theory to uncover key assumptions and principles, which are used as a theoretical basis for our proposed definition of creativity: an intentional configuration of cultural and material elements that is unexpected for a given audience. Our argument is enriched by locating creativity vis-à-vis related concepts—such as originality, knowledge, innovation, atypicality, and consecration—and across neighboring disciplines. Underlying the discussion are antecedents (structure, institutions, and context) and consequences (audiences, perception, and evaluation), which are treated separately. We end our review by speculating on ways in which sociologists can take the discussion of creativity forward."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB sociology social_life_of_the_mind innovation re:democratic_cognition creativity where_ideas_come_from</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7de58036c57b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:creativity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:where_ideas_come_from"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211">
    <title>Collective Choice, Collaboration, and Communication | Annual Review of Psychology</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-19T04:57:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This article reviews recent empirical research on collective choice and collaborative problem solving. Much of the collective choice research focuses on hidden profiles. A hidden profile exists when group members individually have information favoring suboptimal choices but the group collectively has information favoring an optimal choice. Groups are notoriously bad at discovering optimal choices when information is distributed to create a hidden profile. Reviewed work identifies informational structures, individual processing biases, and social motivations that inhibit and facilitate the discovery of hidden profiles. The review of collaborative problem-solving research is framed by Larson's concept of synergy. Synergy refers to performance gains that are attributable to collaboration. Recent research has addressed factors that result in groups performing as well as their best member (weak synergy) and better than their best member (strong synergy). Communication dynamics underlying both collective choice and collaborative problem solving are discussed."

]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition re:do-institutions-evolve re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:a8dba09c1c51/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:do-institutions-evolve"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://cailinoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/scientific-polarization-shareable-draft.pdf">
    <title>Scientific Polarization</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-31T14:50:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://cailinoconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/scientific-polarization-shareable-draft.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Contemporary societies are often “polarized”, in the sense that sub-groups within these
societies hold stably opposing beliefs, even when there is a fact of the matter. Extant
models of polarization do not capture the idea that some beliefs are true and others false.
Here we present a model, based on the network epistemology framework of Bala and Goyal
[”Learning from neighbors”, Rev. Econ. Stud. 65(3), 784-811 (1998)], in which polarization
emerges even though agents gather evidence about their beliefs, and true belief yields a payoff advantage. The key mechanism that generates polarization involves treating evidence
generated by other agents as uncertain when their beliefs are relatively different from one’s
own."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read polarization science_as_a_social_process collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9ea890e2b0b2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:polarization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:science_as_a_social_process"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691181998/open-democracy">
    <title>Open Democracy | Princeton University Press</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-25T21:25:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691181998/open-democracy</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["To the ancient Greeks, democracy meant gathering in public and debating laws set by a randomly selected assembly of several hundred citizens. To the Icelandic Vikings, democracy meant meeting every summer in a field to discuss issues until consensus was reached. Our contemporary representative democracies are very different. Modern parliaments are gated and guarded, and it seems as if only certain people—with the right suit, accent, wealth, and connections—are welcome. Diagnosing what is wrong with representative government and aiming to recover some of the lost openness of ancient democracies, Open Democracy presents a new paradigm of democracy in which power is genuinely accessible to ordinary citizens.
"Hélène Landemore favors the ideal of “representing and being represented in turn” over direct-democracy approaches. Supporting a fresh nonelectoral understanding of democratic representation, Landemore recommends centering political institutions around the “open mini-public”—a large, jury-like body of randomly selected citizens gathered to define laws and policies for the polity, in connection with the larger public. She also defends five institutional principles as the foundations of an open democracy: participatory rights, deliberation, the majoritarian principle, democratic representation, and transparency.
"Open Democracy demonstrates that placing ordinary citizens, rather than elites, at the heart of democratic power is not only the true meaning of a government of, by, and for the people, but also feasible and, today more than ever, urgently needed."]]></description>
<dc:subject>books:noted democracy re:democratic_cognition collective_cognition books:owned in_NB books:suggest_to_library downloaded</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8a51cf4a8a38/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:owned"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:suggest_to_library"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0667">
    <title>Creativity in temporal social networks: how divergent thinking is impacted by one’s choice of peers | Journal of The Royal Society Interface</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-19T14:14:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0667</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Creativity is viewed as one of the most important skills in the context of future-of-work. In this paper, we explore how the dynamic (self-organizing) nature of social networks impacts the fostering of creative ideas. We run six trials (N = 288) of a web-based experiment involving divergent ideation tasks. We find that network connections gradually adapt to individual creative performances, as the participants predominantly seek to follow high-performing peers for creative inspirations. We unearth both opportunities and bottlenecks afforded by such self-organization. While exposure to high-performing peers is associated with better creative performances of the followers, we see a counter-effect that choosing to follow the same peers introduces semantic similarities in the followers’ ideas. We formulate an agent-based simulation model to capture these intuitions in a tractable manner, and experiment with corner cases of various simulation parameters to assess the generality of the findings. Our findings may help design large-scale interventions to improve the creative aptitude of people interacting in a social network."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition innovation social_networks re:democratic_cognition to_read via:dedeo</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:028606341ce4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:dedeo"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1183">
    <title>Diversity and prosocial behavior | Science</title>
    <dc:date>2020-09-04T18:27:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6508/1183</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Immigration and globalization have spurred interest in the effects of ethnic diversity in Western societies. Most scholars focus on whether diversity undermines trust, social capital, and collective goods provision. However, the type of prosociality that helps heterogeneous societies function is different from the in-group solidarity that glues homogeneous communities together. Social cohesion in multiethnic societies depends on whether prosocial behavior extends beyond close-knit networks and in-group boundaries. We identify two features of modern societies—social differentiation and economic interdependence—that can set the stage for constructive interactions with dissimilar others. Whether societal adaptations to diversity lead toward integration or division depends on the positions occupied by minorities and immigrants in the social structure and economic system, along with the institutional arrangements that determine their political inclusion."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB diversity sociology evolution_of_cooperation re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:11862e7a9183/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:diversity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evolution_of_cooperation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/342545BA6FCD67BC8A5BE03B321D95C5/9781108826815AR.pdf/social_media_and_international_relations.pdf">
    <title>Social Media and International Relations</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-26T23:45:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/342545BA6FCD67BC8A5BE03B321D95C5/9781108826815AR.pdf/social_media_and_international_relations.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Democracies have long been credited with advantages ranging
from sound governance to wartime effectiveness. Advantages accrue
largely because the marketplace of ideas–freedom of expression,
freedom of the press–enables a genuine debate about the virtues and
vices of different policies in ways that inform the public, enable
accountability, and produce better policy outcomes. This Element
argues that the rise of social media undermines those democratic
advantages. When citizens in the democratic populace turn to the
marketplace of ideas, they increasingly confront misinformation, often
strategically deployed by foreign actors seeking to exploit polarization in the political landscape and undermine trust in domestic institutions.  Those actors can succeed because liberal democratic principles enshrine the media openness that becomes susceptible to foreign interference. Autocratic regimes have advantages because they can erect high barriers to entry into their own media markets. They can censor, counter, or even cut access to social media, which inoculates themselves from foreign influence and serves as a regime-preserving
function. This Element updates these fundamental theories of
international relations in light of changes to the media landscape and
offers important insights into democratic governance and the conduct
of conflict."

--- But on this account closed societies still don't have the advantage of discussion, or even the advantage of being exposed to new ways of thinking.  ]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB books:noted social_media collective_cognition democracy re:democratic_cognition re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator downloaded color_me_skeptical</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:34caafb457c7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:noted"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:downloaded"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:color_me_skeptical"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-1788-6">
    <title>Disagreement and the division of epistemic labor | SpringerLink</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-15T21:10:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-1788-6</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In this article we discuss what we call the deliberative division of epistemic labor. We present evidence that the human tendency to engage in motivated reasoning in defense of our beliefs can facilitate the occurrence of divisions of epistemic labor in deliberations among people who disagree. We further present evidence that these divisions of epistemic labor tend to promote beliefs that are better supported by the evidence. We show that promotion of these epistemic benefits stands in tension with what extant theories in epistemology take rationality to require in cases of disagreement. We argue that the epistemic benefits that result from the deliberative division of epistemic labor can provide epistemic reason to maintain confidence in cases of disagreement. We then show that the deliberative division of epistemic labor constitutes a distinct kind of epistemic dependence."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7d064bfaf46a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599250?journalCode=ajs&amp;">
    <title>The False Enforcement of Unpopular Norms1 | American Journal of Sociology: Vol 115, No 2</title>
    <dc:date>2020-07-13T16:31:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599250?journalCode=ajs&amp;</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Prevailing theory assumes that people enforce norms in order to pressure others to act in ways that they approve. Yet there are numerous examples of “unpopular norms” in which people compel each other to do things that they privately disapprove. While peer sanctioning suggests a ready explanation for why people conform to unpopular norms, it is harder to understand why they would enforce a norm they privately oppose. The authors argue that people enforce unpopular norms to show that they have complied out of genuine conviction and not because of social pressure. They use laboratory experiments to demonstrate this “false enforcement” in the context of a wine tasting and an academic text evaluation. Both studies find that participants who conformed to a norm due to social pressure then falsely enforced the norm by publicly criticizing a lone deviant. A third study shows that enforcement of a norm effectively signals the enforcer’s genuine support for the norm. These results demonstrate the potential for a vicious cycle in which perceived pressures to conform to and falsely enforce an unpopular norm reinforce one another."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read evolution_of_cooperation information_cascades social_influence sociology re:democratic_cognition macy.michael_w. no_youre_the_one_falsely_enforcing_an_unpopular_norm</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:041074ae3cfd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:evolution_of_cooperation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:information_cascades"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:macy.michael_w."/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:no_youre_the_one_falsely_enforcing_an_unpopular_norm"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-information-henry-farrell/">
    <title>The Politics of Information | Five Books Expert Recommendations</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-01T15:34:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-information-henry-farrell/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>books:recommended farrell.henry re:democratic_cognition political_science institutions kith_and_kin</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b6a109032673/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:books:recommended"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:institutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://psyarxiv.com/ra9qy">
    <title>PsyArXiv Preprints | Collective Problem-Solving of Groups Across Tasks of Varying Complexity</title>
    <dc:date>2020-02-12T13:49:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://psyarxiv.com/ra9qy</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["As organizations gravitate to group-based structures, the problem of improving performance through judicious selection of group members has preoccupied scientists and managers alike. However, it remains poorly understood under what conditions groups outperform comparable individuals, which individual attributes best predict group performance, or how task complexity mediates these relationships. Here we describe a novel two-phase experiment in which individuals were evaluated on a series of tasks of varying complexity; then randomly assigned to solve similar tasks either in groups of different compositions or as individuals. We describe two main sets of findings. First, while groups are more efficient than individuals and comparable “nominal group” when the task is complex, this relationship is reversed when the task is simple. Second, we find that average skill level dominates all other factors combined, including social perceptiveness, skill diversity, and diversity of cognitive style. Our findings illustrate the utility of a “solution-oriented” approach to identifying principles of collective performance."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB problem_solving experimental_psychology experimental_sociology collective_cognition watts.duncan re:democratic_cognition to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:cf887026fa4a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:problem_solving"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_psychology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:experimental_sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:watts.duncan"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12650">
    <title>Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology - Kalmoe - - Political Psychology - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2020-02-10T16:21:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12650</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Ideology is a central construct in political psychology. Even so, the field's strong claims about an ideological public rarely engage evidence of enormous individual differences: a minority with real ideological coherence and weak to nonexistent political belief organization for everyone else. Here, I bridge disciplinary gaps by showing the limits of mass political ideology with several popular measures and components—self‐identification, core political values (egalitarian and traditionalism's resistance to change), and policy indices—in representative U.S. surveys across four decades (Ns ~ 13 k–37 k), plus panel data testing stability. Results show polar, coherent, stable, and potent ideological orientations only among the most knowledgeable 20–30% of citizens. That heterogeneity means full‐sample tests overstate ideology for most people but understate it for knowledgeable citizens. Whether through top‐down opinion leadership or bottom‐up ideological reasoning, organized political belief systems require political attention and understanding to form. Finally, I show that convenience samples make trouble for ideology generalizations. I conclude by proposing analytic best practices to help avoid overclaiming ideology in the public. Taken together, what first looks like strong and broad ideology is actually ideological innocence for most and meaningful ideology for a few."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB ideology surveys us_politics political_science social_measurement public_opinion re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:85077edfe17c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:ideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:surveys"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:political_science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_measurement"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:public_opinion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/">
    <title>Decision Makers · Chris Hayes</title>
    <dc:date>2020-01-29T01:06:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[16 years later, the bellicose isolationists are in the saddle and ride mankind.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>us_politics democracy hayes.chris re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:3c0d98477ef4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:us_politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:democracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hayes.chris"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12469">
    <title>The Incidental Pundit: Who Talks Politics with Whom, and Why? - Minozzi - 2020 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2020-01-10T14:45:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12469</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Informal discussion plays a crucial role in democracy, yet much of its value depends on diversity. We describe two models of political discussion. The purposive model holds that people typically select discussants who are knowledgeable and politically similar to them. The incidental model suggests that people talk politics for mostly idiosyncratic reasons, as by‐products of nonpolitical social processes. To adjudicate between these accounts, we draw on a unique, multisite, panel data set of whole networks, with information about many social relationships, attitudes, and demographics. This evidence permits a stronger foundation for inferences than more common egocentric methods. We find that incidental processes shape discussion networks much more powerfully than purposive ones. Respondents tended to report discussants with whom they share other relationships and characteristics, rather than based on expertise or political similarity, suggesting that stimulating discussion outside of echo chambers may be easier than previously thought."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB to_read social_networks social_life_of_the_mind re:democratic_cognition lazer.david via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:c70100763941/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:lazer.david"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://psyarxiv.com/82r6q/">
    <title>PsyArXiv Preprints | Why do so Few People Share Fake News? It Hurts Their Reputation.</title>
    <dc:date>2019-12-18T23:16:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://psyarxiv.com/82r6q/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Despite their potential attractiveness, fake news is shared by a very small minority of internet users. As past research suggests a good reputation is more easily lost than gained, we hypothesized that the majority of people and media sources avoid sharing fake news stories so as to maintain a good reputation. In two pre-registered experiments (N = 3264) we found that the increase in trust that a source (media outlet or individual) enjoys when sharing one real news against a background of fake news is smaller than the drop in trust a source suffers when sharing one fake news against a background of real news. This asymmetry holds even when the outlet only shares politically congruent news. We suggest that individuals and media outlets avoid sharing fake news because it would hurt their reputation, reducing the social or economic benefits associated with being seen as a good source of information."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_media natural_history_of_truthiness mercier.hugo social_life_of_the_mind re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator re:democratic_cognition via:henry_farrell</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:7cceb8c6c827/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:natural_history_of_truthiness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:mercier.hugo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_life_of_the_mind"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:actually-dr-internet-is-the-name-of-the-monsters-creator"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:henry_farrell"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2019/11/25/seeing-like-a-finite-state-machine/">
    <title>Seeing Like a Finite State Machine — Crooked Timber</title>
    <dc:date>2019-11-25T17:42:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2019/11/25/seeing-like-a-finite-state-machine/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[(The title makes me wonder what "seeing like a push-down stack machine" would entail, but well said...)]]></description>
<dc:subject>machine_learning authoritarianism farrell.henry kith_and_kin have_read re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:11c67e489521/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:machine_learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:authoritarianism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:farrell.henry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:kith_and_kin"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11262">
    <title>[1910.11262] How robots in a large group make decisions as a whole? From biological inspiration to the design of distributed algorithms</title>
    <dc:date>2019-10-25T14:25:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11262</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Nature provides us with abundant examples of how large numbers of individuals can make decisions without the coordination of a central authority. Social insects, birds, fishes, and many other living collectives, rely on simple interaction mechanisms to do so. They individually gather information from the environment; small bits of a much larger picture that are then shared locally among the members of the collective and processed together to output a commonly agreed choice. Throughout evolution, Nature found solutions to collective decision-making problems that are intriguing to engineers for their robustness to malfunctioning or lost individuals, their flexibility in face of dynamic environments, and their ability to scale with large numbers of members. In the last decades, whereas biologists amassed large amounts of experimental evidence, engineers took inspiration from these and other examples to design distributed algorithms that, while maintaining the same properties of their natural counterparts, come with guarantees on their performance in the form of predictive mathematical models. In this paper, we review the fundamental processes that lead to a collective decision. We discuss examples of collective decisions in biological systems and show how similar processes can be engineered to design artificial ones. During this journey, we review a framework to design distributed decision-making algorithms that are modular, can be instantiated and extended in different ways, and are supported by a suit of predictive mathematical models."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB collective_cognition robots_and_robotics re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:ab5b48c00be5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:collective_cognition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:robots_and_robotics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12603">
    <title>[1909.12603] Tyranny to Anarchy: Regimes of Organisational Influence on Directed Hierarchical Graphs</title>
    <dc:date>2019-10-01T16:27:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12603</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Social organisational is critical to coordinated behaviour with a diverse range of management structures. In almost all organisations, a power structure exists with managers and subordinates. Often a change in one part can cause long-term cascades throughout the organisation, leading to inefficiencies and confusion. As organisations grow in size and complexity, as well as change the way they share information and power, we analyse how their resilience to disturbances is affected. Here, we consider majority rule dynamics on organisations modelled as hierarchical directed graphs, where the direction indicates task flow. We utilise a topological measure called the trophic incoherence parameter, q, which effectively gauges the stratification of power structure in an organisation. This is shown to bound regimes of behaviour. There is fast consensus at low q (e.g. tyranny), slow consensus at mid q (e.g. democracy), and no consensus at high q (e.g. anarchy). These regimes are investigated analytically and empirically with diverse case studies in the Roman Army, US Government, and a healthcare organisation. Our work has widespread application in the design of organisations as well as analysing how some become inefficient and stagnate."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB social_networks social_influence re:democratic_cognition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bceea6d15d1e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:social_influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:democratic_cognition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>