402. Replacing Democracy with Epistocracy feat. Jason Brennan
unSILOed with Greg LaBlanc
The Influence of Social Affiliations on Voter Behavior
The chapter explores how voters often align with political parties for social acceptance rather than ideological reasons, leading to ignorance of party stances. It discusses the impact of tribalistic bias on voting patterns and its consequences in democracy and societal relationships. The conversation also touches on the challenges of rational decision-making in politics and the role of social signaling in voter behavior.
Democracy stands as one of humanity's most treasured institutions, but what if the very foundation it’s built upon is less solid than we believe? What is an epistocracy and how could it work better as a form of government?
Jason Brennan is a professor at Georgetown University and the author of several books. His latest work is titled Against Democracy.
Jason and Greg discuss how voting, often romanticized as the pinnacle of civic duty, hides a twisted web of irrational loyalties and tribal instincts that can lead us astray. Jason explains the historical context of political discord and the role of expertise in an era where trusted figures become polarizing symbols. They scrutinize the influence of political factions and social signaling, the curious ways in which political interests align across different cultures, and whether deliberation in democracy genuinely elevates decision-making or merely intensifies division. Jason concludes by revealing the hidden trials and tribulations of pursuing a PhD, and the emphasis on research productivity over teaching, the financial realities of academic life, and the necessity of guidance for non-academic careers.
*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*
Episode Quotes:
Why don't voters admit their ignorance and defer to experts in policy matters?
16:37: You're right that even in markets when we do a lot of delegation, however, we still have a kind of check on this, right? So, I know only the most basic plumbing. So if I have any big problem, I'm going to have to call the plumber in. But when the plumber leaves, I can tell if there's still a leak underneath the bathtub, right? It's like, well, the water is still dripping, so he must have done a bad job. I couldn't fix it myself, but I can check to see whether he fixed it. [17:09] We don't have that same ability when it comes to politics. If a person implements a policy, I put in the Cares Act; did that make things better? How would you know? How would you measure that? That takes expert ability, not just to sort of know what's happened in the past five years as a result of it, but to disentangle the effects of that policy from all the other confounding things. I mean, you and I see policy papers where people try to do this, and it's extremely difficult. So the average person doesn't know how to do that. They do, however, defer to experts in a way, but the experts they defer to are people like comedians on late-night TV who make fun of the other side.
Politics as Social Signaling
28:46: A lot of what we're doing with politics is this kind of signaling to one another: we're the right kind of person, we're good, we're virtuous, we're kind. Please like me, be my friend, etc. I think that's what's happening in politics. We're using our vote as a way of getting social benefits for ourselves.
Why does Europe's political landscape look different?
23:21: One of the reasons why I think political distances, or differences, are less pernicious in most of Europe than they are in the U.S. is partly because when you have proportional voting systems, you have more viable political parties. And as a result, it's like your neighbors are all going to be people at different parties. It's really hard for you to segregate yourself in terms of your work, where you live, whom you date, and whom you befriend, because there's just so much variation. So, you can't afford to make that the same kind of signal that you do in the U.S., we have a first-past-the-post voting system that predicts there's going to be two major parties, and I think we get this behavior as a result.
In politics, you don't get the same kind of reward-punishment system that you get elsewhere
15:42: When it comes to politics, there are only two major parties, and so you can afford and get rewarded for excluding a bunch of people and just playing along with your team. So I think the incentive structure of politics is worse than the incentive structure we have in most other aspects of our lives.
Show Links:
Recommended Resources:
- Epistocracy
- Jeremy Waldron
- Alexis de Tocqueville
- Voltaire
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- Thomas Christiano
- John Rawls
Guest Profile:
His Work:
- Amazon Author Page
- Business Ethics for Better Behavior
- Against Democracy: New Preface
- Democracy: A Guided Tour
- Cracks in the Ivory Tower: The Moral Mess of Higher Education
- Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia
- Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Libertarianism.org Guides Book 1)
- Injustice for All: How Financial Incentives Corrupted and Can Fix the US Criminal Justice System
- Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know?
- Why Not Capitalism?
- When All Else Fails: The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice
- Why It's OK to Want to Be Rich
- In Defense of Openness: Why Global Freedom Is the Humane Solution to Global Poverty
- A Brief History of Liberty (Brief Histories of Philosophy Book 1)
- Compulsory Voting: For and Against
- Google Scholar Page
The AI-powered Podcast Player
