Many social scientists are not math afficianados. If they had to have Math BSc before starting social studies they would have instead turn to English Lit. There are easier ways to earn a living.
Maybe OT: i think the point of the book itself is wrong.
Democracy is not about the people's choice of items (that's referenda) but about the people's choice of the ruling elite. That's why "character vote" is more diffuse than "item vote". An elector misinformed about the item but informed about the character may cast a correct vote.
I love when you pwn some random social scientist with your superior knowledge of statistics and probability.
Many social scientists are not math afficianados. If they had to have Math BSc before starting social studies they would have instead turn to English Lit. There are easier ways to earn a living.
This is funny. Assuming that guessing might not be completely free from acquired tacit knowledge, maybe they are misinformed about how to guess.
Maybe OT: i think the point of the book itself is wrong.
Democracy is not about the people's choice of items (that's referenda) but about the people's choice of the ruling elite. That's why "character vote" is more diffuse than "item vote". An elector misinformed about the item but informed about the character may cast a correct vote.
I suspect a subscription to this Substack is one of the items, but they won't actually say that......