Ignorant of History and Other Countries

In the following TED talk James Flynn explains how we have improved our cognitive abilities over time - I have previously argued that this supports my assertion that, as a population, we can do Interactive Democracy. But he also claims that we are becoming "ignorant of history and of other countries" and, therefore, we "can't do politics". This runs counter to my argument. But I'd suggest that by debating each issue and by ensuring the quality of that debate through presenting it in a logical manner and ensuring it is factually correct, then we can educate ourselves about history and geopolitics and thus are capable of "do[ing] politics".
(Switzerland has being doing direct democracy for more than 150 years. Back then hardly anyone was as educated as the average person today!)

The Key to Growth? Race with the Machines

Could Interactive Democracy be a super team that solves societies problems?

In this TED Talk, Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT Director of Digital Business, closes by saying

"The new machine age can be dated to a day 15 years ago when Gary Kasparov, the world chess champion, played Deep Blue, a supercomputer. The machine won that day, and today, a chess program running on a cell phone can beat a human grandmaster. It got so bad that, when he was asked what strategy he would use against a computer, Jan Donner, the Dutch grandmaster, replied, "I'd bring a hammer."
But today a computer is no longer the world chess champion. Neither is a human, because Kasparov organized a freestyle tournament where teams of humans and computers could work together, and the winning team had no grandmaster, and it had no supercomputer. What they had was better teamwork, and they showed that a team of humans and computers, working together, could beat any computer or any human working alone."

I suspect that internet technology facilitating a vast web of human experience could outperform any political expert or supercomputer. "Technology is not destiny. We shape our destiny."

Collaborative Art

This TED Talk by Aaron Koblin shows some of the collaborative art he has been working on. Are there any lessons in it for Interactive Democracy?
Aaron highlights the significance of the interface claiming that if the 19th century was the century of the novel, the 20th was the century of the moving image then the 21st will be the century of the interface. The design and capability of the Interactive Democracy interface should have several objectives: security, enhancing the quality of the debate and ease of use.
The video demonstrates how visual some information can be and how users may be able to drill down into the detail of it. Maybe this type of presentation will become a new opportunity for original insight... or for information to be spun. Despite my note of pessimism, by freeing the data thousands of people may become analysts, feeding the debate in novel ways.
Collaborative Art also demonstrates how willing people are to contribute, even if they know little about what the end result is meant to be, and for little personal reward.

Expert Influence

We don't all have the time or capacity to become experts. Most of us know a little about a lot of stuff and would like to listen to experts before deciding, so how are experts identified and who should we listen to?
The following brief talk about the Koran may illustrate the point: Lesley Hazleton was "approved" by TED to give a short (10 min.) talk; their website provides some background about her; her talk explains the research that she has done and touches on her relevant experience; and what she says may be corroborated if you want to look into it. These are the sorts of ingredients needed to trust an expert.


The Interactive Democracy model should allow MPs, from both sides of The House, to recommend experts, giving them "air time" on the ID website. Voters, debating the point on the same site, may also point to other experts other publications.