You're Part of The Problem With Democracy

"On Ideal Deliberative Distance"

(Read the original discussion too!)

ON IDEAL DELIBERATIVE DISTANCE

We look on in horror as democracy fails in many objectives, like major existential threats, where the whole stands to gain the most from wresting power from the richest part and changing course.

We're the victim of many circumstances for which we aren't to be blamed, but I have to tell you: *you're part of the problem with democracy* if you:

- don't regularly engage in very private deliberation with others who disagree

- don't regularly engage in very public deliberation with others who disagree

- don't consume any contradictory news sources

- don't vote (but do the part above first)

- don't systematically apply "radical honesty" (see: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10107446637905022&id=28125583 )

Ironically you're in one sense more free to spend your time otherwise in a Theoretical Liberal Autocracy, but Democracy simply doesn't work without these steps, and it also doesn't work if you only do the 4th step. I've suggested in a few places (such as here:

)

that there's an ideal 'deliberative distance' for people to have a productive conversation:

- too close and it's too easy to resolve disagreements--you're in an echo chamber

- too far and the principle of charity

( facebook.com/adamgolding/posts/10107882836754032 ) breaks down, and it becomes unlikely that views will change

You can operate at a larger deliberative distance if you apply the principle of charity more vigorously.

I think eventually we'll have voting systems that, instead of being the last step in a conversation, estimate deliberative distance and group people for conversation who are more likely to advance reflective equilibrium ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_equilibrium ) but until then, just feel it out--of the people you disagree with, who is at an "ideal deliberative distance""? What if you were more charitable? What if you were more honest?