Your answer is wise. It is a great conversation, thank you.
“in a complex society we are required to rely on those with different skills and specializations to do things that are in our collective best interests. We want this, because without this, we will not be able to maintain the complex systems that make our lives so relatively easy.”
agree, well said
“but regardless of you being right, we should still give competence and weight and allow delegation to others”
I don’t care, obviously, to be right, I am here to look for a good conversation with you and anyone else interested, in order to find a good possible option. And, yes, there’s always a downside. That’s actually the trick, not to have the perfect system, but a learning system. To ALLOW mistakes, not to forbid them. It’s like in trading, you need retests, you need dips, you need some mistakes to learn and grow.
“There will be no perfect system because human beings are involved.”
oh that’s not because of humans, it’s because good and bad are not part of nature, in physics there’s no good or bad, so you don’t have “perfection” but “adaptation” I like to say we need an adaptive and learning system. Our community should fall, but learn from falling. No need to tear anything apart.
My interest is let’s say we use a yes/no question, without doubting of the yes/no, once we have 51% yes and 49% no, are we really sure we should do the yes? That’s my main concern.
Maybe in that case it’s better to discuss things more, because what could stop in that case to tear the community in two, or better, to tear the market cap in two?