Thanks for the useful comments and the recommendation of the Jason Brennan book.
Iāve looked through the evidence on deliberation he cites as being more damning than people realize. He relies mostly on a review from 2002 (Mendelberg). There have been a number of reviews of evidence since then which this essay also draws upon.
Brennanās main issues also relate not to the main decision-making improvements of concern here (e.g. opinion change and knowledge gain) but mostly about who is included and whether this fosters an engaged civil society. He is also more warm towards Deliberative Polling specifically and acknowledges further research could win him over (page 66 of his book). Arguably we now have a lot more of such evidence.
With further regard to a fairer hearing/āstudy selection I have made a direct reply on Matt_Lernerās comment/ā updated the text to include more counter arguments.
Thanks for that Dal BĆ³ et al. paper recommendation. It doesnāt seem to me to follow that even if politicians are āsmarter and better leadersā it should make them better deliberators also. Even if this is true that politicians are likely to be ābetterā than citizens in this regard, I think the reasons mentioned to be sceptical of proposals for deliberative reforms of existing bodies make this seem somewhat less attractive than citizen bodies that might still be good deliberators.
Thanks for the useful comments and the recommendation of the Jason Brennan book.
Iāve looked through the evidence on deliberation he cites as being more damning than people realize. He relies mostly on a review from 2002 (Mendelberg). There have been a number of reviews of evidence since then which this essay also draws upon. Brennanās main issues also relate not to the main decision-making improvements of concern here (e.g. opinion change and knowledge gain) but mostly about who is included and whether this fosters an engaged civil society. He is also more warm towards Deliberative Polling specifically and acknowledges further research could win him over (page 66 of his book). Arguably we now have a lot more of such evidence.
With further regard to a fairer hearing/āstudy selection I have made a direct reply on Matt_Lernerās comment/ā updated the text to include more counter arguments.
Thanks for that Dal BĆ³ et al. paper recommendation. It doesnāt seem to me to follow that even if politicians are āsmarter and better leadersā it should make them better deliberators also. Even if this is true that politicians are likely to be ābetterā than citizens in this regard, I think the reasons mentioned to be sceptical of proposals for deliberative reforms of existing bodies make this seem somewhat less attractive than citizen bodies that might still be good deliberators.
Thanks for your response!