Are we (collectively) stupid? | Brett Hennig | TEDxLakeComo

On the stage of TEDxLakeComo, Brett made a compelling case that by randomly selecting their representatives, humans can find smarter collective solutions for the problems in their community. We will only achieve true progress in collective decision making when we manage to root our decisions on empathy and understanding of other people’s problems through an informed dialogue, in search of a truly common good.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

Recently,

I came across an interview
with Yuval Harari

where he said,

"We should never underestimate
human stupidity.

It’s one of the most
powerful forces in the world."

This reminded me of an essay
by the Italian Carlo Cipolla

where he talks about
"The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity"

and in particular, his first
fundamental law of human stupidity:

"Always and inevitably,

everyone underestimates the number
of stupid people in circulation."

(Laughter)

So I want to talk about stupidity!

But I want to talk about it -
in particular, I want to ask,

Is humanity stupid?

But I mean that in a collective sense:
Are we [collectively stupid]?

Because obviously, there are very many
highly intelligent people in the world.

Even here, I'm sure, in this room,

there are many very clever people -

probably some less clever people

but surely, no stupid people, right?

(Laughter)

Not here.

But seriously, I think
this question is really important.

Is humanity stupid?

Can we collectively
make clever decisions?

Or is there no hope?

Because it would be pretty stupid

to pump so much pollution
into the atmosphere

that we poison the air we breathe,

to knowingly and willingly heat the planet

so that we change the climate
and change the weather systems

that we rely on to grow
the food we need to eat.

It would be pretty stupid

for a single species
on such a beautiful blue planet

to let it burn.

So we'd better start making some
clever collective decisions pretty soon,

or it’s going to be too late.

But how did we get here?
How did we get to this point?

To understand that,

I want to look at the history
of decision making:

how we made collective
decisions in the past,

how we are making
collective decisions today,

and how we could make
better collective decisions

tomorrow and into the future.

So first, to the past.

For hundreds of years,
all throughout the Middle Ages,

we had what you might call
"Game of Thrones" style decision making -

various powerful houses
slaughtered one another

to try to take control
and be the ones who made the decisions.

It was always a battle
between various rich factions.

And here we see a bit of a pattern:

that the arrows of political
and economic power

are often in alignment,

or to put it more simply,
the rich often rule.

But then, in 1215, in the UK,
they signed the Magna Charta.

This marks the symbolic beginning
of the era of classical liberalism.

The aristocracy and the nobility
and the other rich people

had had enough of the "Game of Thrones,"

and they decided to put some constraints
on the powers of rulers;

for example,

you could no longer just throw
your vanquished enemy into a dark dungeon

and leave them there to rot.

It is absolutely no coincidence

that at the end of the final episode
of Game of Thrones,

all the various rich factions sit around

and try to come up with a better way
to make collective decisions.

The end of Game of Thrones

is all about this transition
to classical liberalism.

Then, after the Middle Ages,
some major changes happened:

the industrial and scientific revolution
led to the birth of capitalism

and the rise of a new group
of wealthy people

who were typically excluded
from political power.

This was perhaps the first time in history

that the arrows of political
and economic power

came out of alignment,

and this led to war,
bloodshed, and revolution.

Now the rich men, who were victorious
in these various revolutions,

both in the US and in France,

had to decide how to make
collective decisions.

And perhaps not surprisingly,

both groups of rich men
came to more or less the same decision:

that rich men should rule.

So they held elections
where only rich men could vote,

they elected rich men to legislatures,
and rich men then made the laws.

This is the phase that I've called
"electoral republicanism,"

and it brought about the happy outcome

of realigning our arrows
of economic and political power.

But some people,
such as not-so-rich men,

weren't very happy about this,

and they struggled

and, in some places,
eventually won the right to vote.

And this ushered in a new phase
of decision making

which was soon being called "democracy."

Now other people,

women in England
and elsewhere in the world,

and men and women of color in the US

demanded and eventually won
the right to vote.

So now, approximately 90 % of adults
in our societies can vote.

Migrants are probably the largest group
of disenfranchised people

in our societies.

But what's surprising, perhaps,

is that even though
most adults can now vote,

the composition of our parliaments,

of our elected legislatures,
our congresses

haven't changed that much.

A hundred years after women
won the right to vote,

most of our rulers are still
typically rich men -

not all of them, just most of them.

The arrows of political and economic power

are still quite firmly in alignment.

Perhaps this answers our question:
Is humanity stupid?

Or is the system by which we select
our decision makers stupid?

Are elections stupid?

Who wins elections?

The clever people win elections,
or the cunning people win elections?

The honest people win elections,

or the people who know how to manipulate
our fears and anxieties win elections?

And when we vote,
do we make informed decisions,

or are we swayed
by powerful media conglomerates

and other groups
peddling fake and biased news?

And once elected,

do politicians care more
about the long-term good

of people and the planet,

or do they care more about
how they could win the next election?

Now I know that calling elections
stupid in our societies

is tantamount to heresy.

Aren't elections
the cornerstone of democracy?

Aren't they the fundamental basis
on which democracy is built?

The answer, the simple answer
to that question is,

"No, they're not."

Aristotle, more than 2,000 years ago,
in the birthplace of democracy,

said, "it is thought to be democratic

for the officers
of constitutional government

to be assigned by lot,

for them to be elected oligarchic."

The people in Aristotle's time

thought democracy meant lottery,
or random selection,

and that election meant oligarchy.

The better way
to make collective decisions

has been known for thousands of years,

and fortunately,
it's being rediscovered today.

And that is using "sortition,"

which is simply the technical name
for "random selection" -

we must randomly select people

and bring them together
in citizens' assemblies,

which are happening all over the world.

In Ireland, they have held
two citizens' assemblies;

in France, President Macron

is holding a citizens' assembly
on the climate emergency;

in Scotland, they are holding
two citizens' assemblies;

in Wales, they held
a citizens' assembly last July;

and events using sortition

have happened in Australia, in Canada,
in Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Brazil.

All around the world,
events using sortition have happened,

and these are just a tiny handful
of the hundreds of recent events.

But what's more exciting to me
than these ad hoc, one-off events

is what's happening in OstBelgien.

In the German-speaking region
of East Belgium,

they have created a permanent,
randomly selected citizens' council

to sit alongside the elected parliaments.

But how would you run
a citizens' assembly?

How would you set up a citizens' senate?

Well, the first thing you want to do

is randomly select a broadly
representative bunch of people.

This is typically done in two steps.

The first step, you send out invitations
to a lot of randomly selected people;

and from those that respond,
you do a second random selection,

where you make sure
that you get half men and half women,

and proportional numbers
of young and old, rich and poor.

You cannot ask to be a part
of the citizens' assembly,

and you cannot buy a seat
in the citizens' assembly.

The random selection is crucial;

it's what makes it fair.

Everyone should have an equal chance

of being selected
for the citizens' assembly.

So this is your citizens' assembly.

The second step is to pour information
into that citizens' assembly.

This is obviously very tricky.

For example, who gets
to choose the experts?

Who gets to fact-check what they say?

How do you make sure
that there is a balanced range of views

presenting to the citizens' assembly?

I'm not going to talk much
about that today;

I only want to say that it can be done,

it has been done and done well
many times all across the world.

Then, after you have your ingredients,

a broadly representative bunch of people
in an informed environment,

you mix.

The technical name for this mixing
is "deliberation."

It's not a debate,
with winners and losers,

and it's not just
a friendly chat at the pub.

It's deliberation.

What this means

is you do not only say
what you think and feel,

but you say why you think
and feel the way you do.

You say, I think this because ...

And it's the "because"
that's really important;

it's the because that lets you understand
and empathize with others,

and for others to understand
and empathize with you -

and then, we make a decision.

This decision -

after you have sprinkled
your citizens' assembly

with your information

and you have mixed with deliberation,

you get to decide.

This is not public opinion.

It is not what you get
when you run a public opinion poll.

It's what you get after people
have considered the evidence,

listened to the advice of experts,

and then deliberated with people
who are very different to themselves.

People like you and me,

who do not care about getting
good media coverage

and who do not care
about winning the next election.

What you get,

instead of a media soundbite,

is trusted public judgment.

This to me is the democratic ideal

and how we could -
and in some places are -

make clever decisions today.

So humanity can be collectively clever.

Citizens' assemblies
are a better and fairer way

to make clever democratic decisions.

Of course it's not easy
being collectively clever;

it takes a bit of work.

But I've seen it happen
again and again and again and again.

So the more important question to me now

is how do we replace
elections with sortition

before the planet burns.

Thank you, grazie.

(Applause)