Simon Threlkeld
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Melman
Mar 25, 2025, 2:08:32 PMMar 25
to election by jury
Hey do we know this Simon Threlkeld guy? I randomly stumbled upon this piece he wrote advocating for EBJ: https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/08/why-americas-judges-should-be-chosen-by-citizen-juries/
Rajiv Prabhakar
Mar 25, 2025, 4:15:26 PMMar 25
to election...@googlegroups.com
Great find! I haven't met him before, but it would be great to reach out to him. Were you thinking of contacting him, or shall I?
Regards,
Rajiv
Rajiv
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 2:08 PM Paul Melman <pmel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey do we know this Simon Threlkeld guy? I randomly stumbled upon this piece he wrote advocating for EBJ: https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/08/why-americas-judges-should-be-chosen-by-citizen-juries/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "election by jury" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to election-by-ju...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/6d1c1497-01f2-4213-8cec-754d3375a759n%40googlegroups.com.
Clay S
Mar 25, 2025, 5:18:05 PMMar 25
to election by jury
yeah I came across him last year or so.
but I think I couldn't find a good email address or something? I don't remember, but it would be great to reach out.
Paul Melman
Mar 26, 2025, 4:36:15 PMMar 26
to election by jury
I'm pretty busy with Assemble America stuff this week. I guess if you find his contact info, could you reach out? Otherwise I can try when I'm more free.
Clay S
Mar 26, 2025, 7:10:19 PMMar 26
to election by jury
Clay S
May 4, 2025, 5:08:39 PMMay 4
to election by jury
i found his number and we chatted a bit by phone today. he has our web site and the link to this forum, so hopefully he'll drop us a note some time.
Simon Threlkeld
Aug 13, 2025, 3:40:15 PMAug 13
to election by jury
Hi Clay, everyone,
Thanks for tracking me down and chatting back in May. Great to hear some of your thoughts and what you are doing. Sorry to take so long to respond further.
My published articles on civic juries choosing public officials (election by jury) and deciding laws, go back to 1997 and 1998. Links to them are here: https://simonthrelkeldsite.wordpress.com/articles/
I was in favor of election by jury, for a wide range of public offices, and also in favor of juries deciding laws, preferably all laws, with proposed laws being considered and decided in a trial-like process, for years and years before I published anything. These ideas seemed obvious and more or less commonsensical, to me.
I long assumed others must have published such ideas, but I never found anyone who did. I was not able to think of any convincing counter-arguments, and in my view am yet to find any.
Jury decision-making is, if properly designed, well-suited for providing informed decision-making by representative cross-sections of the public, on a fair and level playing field, unskewed by economic and political elites. Popular election and referendums are, as I think you all appreciate, nothing of the kind. They are instead a method of poorly informed decision-making, on an unfair and slanted playing field, skewed in favor of the preferred outcomes of economic and political elites, with the portion of the public that votes in them being unrepresentative of the public (unless voting is mandatory like in e.g. Australia).
Any acceptable method of decision-making by the people, needs, it seems to me, to be well-suited for informed decision-making, because informed views are, rather obviously, a far better basis for decisions and good governance than poorly informed, misinformed and uninformed views. This is one of the reasons why popular election should not be used to choose public officials.
One of the especially important areas of lawmaking that needs to be transferred out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of the people, is how public officials are chosen. It is ridiculous and undemocratic for politicians to decide how politicians and other public officials are chosen. First of all, they have a blatant conflict of interest, and one that poses serious risks to the public, and to such democracy and freedom as we have. Secondly, there is a much higher and far more legitimate authority for deciding such laws: the people.
One of the great things about Clay's call was finding out that H.G. Wells wrote in favor election by jury. This was previously unknown to me.
Here is a fascinating quote from Lysander Spooner, the 19th century American lawyer and legal theorist. He is talking about trial juries and their right and duty to reject unjust laws from the government. What he says is very much applicable to the idea of transferring the lawmaking power from the government to juries, even though he is not talking about that (but only about the power and right of trial juries to reject the application of government laws to the case before them):
“The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves—the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise.”
Thanks for tracking me down and chatting back in May. Great to hear some of your thoughts and what you are doing. Sorry to take so long to respond further.
My published articles on civic juries choosing public officials (election by jury) and deciding laws, go back to 1997 and 1998. Links to them are here: https://simonthrelkeldsite.wordpress.com/articles/
I was in favor of election by jury, for a wide range of public offices, and also in favor of juries deciding laws, preferably all laws, with proposed laws being considered and decided in a trial-like process, for years and years before I published anything. These ideas seemed obvious and more or less commonsensical, to me.
I long assumed others must have published such ideas, but I never found anyone who did. I was not able to think of any convincing counter-arguments, and in my view am yet to find any.
Jury decision-making is, if properly designed, well-suited for providing informed decision-making by representative cross-sections of the public, on a fair and level playing field, unskewed by economic and political elites. Popular election and referendums are, as I think you all appreciate, nothing of the kind. They are instead a method of poorly informed decision-making, on an unfair and slanted playing field, skewed in favor of the preferred outcomes of economic and political elites, with the portion of the public that votes in them being unrepresentative of the public (unless voting is mandatory like in e.g. Australia).
Any acceptable method of decision-making by the people, needs, it seems to me, to be well-suited for informed decision-making, because informed views are, rather obviously, a far better basis for decisions and good governance than poorly informed, misinformed and uninformed views. This is one of the reasons why popular election should not be used to choose public officials.
One of the especially important areas of lawmaking that needs to be transferred out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of the people, is how public officials are chosen. It is ridiculous and undemocratic for politicians to decide how politicians and other public officials are chosen. First of all, they have a blatant conflict of interest, and one that poses serious risks to the public, and to such democracy and freedom as we have. Secondly, there is a much higher and far more legitimate authority for deciding such laws: the people.
One of the great things about Clay's call was finding out that H.G. Wells wrote in favor election by jury. This was previously unknown to me.
Here is a fascinating quote from Lysander Spooner, the 19th century American lawyer and legal theorist. He is talking about trial juries and their right and duty to reject unjust laws from the government. What he says is very much applicable to the idea of transferring the lawmaking power from the government to juries, even though he is not talking about that (but only about the power and right of trial juries to reject the application of government laws to the case before them):
“The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves—the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise.”
Clay S
Aug 13, 2025, 3:46:18 PMAug 13
to election by jury
i'm a utilitarian so i don't believe in ideas like "justice", yet i think the spooner quote demonstrates the broad appeal of the core idea to a variety of preference models.
Rajiv Prabhakar
Aug 18, 2025, 7:08:53 AMAug 18
to election...@googlegroups.com
Hi Simon. It's so awesome that you've been spreading the word about jury-elections for almost 3 decades! I had written about this 10 years ago as well, but I see that you've beaten me to the punch by multiple decades. I have now added the link to your articles to our EBJ website.
It's also saddening that most people have never heard about this idea, despite a handful of people writing about it across so many years. I worry that unless we build more momentum, we will share the same fate as HG Wells - championing an idea that is eventually forgotten and takes many decades/centuries to resurface. Check out our discord, we'd love to get your input on our organizing efforts: https://discord.gg/uM56g8cQXt
P.S. I'm a Utilitarian and believe in Justice but that's a rabbit hole best avoided :D
Regards,
Raji
Raji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "election by jury" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to election-by-ju...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/b0e4bb3f-dcda-4baf-ad51-414065bf5b14n%40googlegroups.com.
Simon Threlkeld
Aug 19, 2025, 8:12:49 AMAug 19
to election by jury
In the 90s even political scientists (including the ones I spoke to) had never heard of the idea of laws being decided by jury, rather than by politicians or in referendums. Same for the the idea of choosing public officials by jury (election by jury), rather than being chosen by politicians or popular election.
Despite the fact it is clearly the best option of the three, in a wide range of cases ;o). The most democratic, the most in accord with rule by the people and political equality, the best for informed decisions by the people on a fair and level playing field, the best for good governance, and the best for preventing corruption.
Including being the best option for choosing all the independent and supposed-to-be independent public officials (the judiciary, regulatory commissions, inspector generals, prosecutors, public defenders, heads of independent agencies ...), and for choosing politicians, both in primaries and in general elections.
I think it might be hard to convince most people that general elections for the most important political offices ought to be replaced with election by jury, such as elections for the president, governors, mayors, and members of legislative assemblies. Easier I think to convince people that election by jury ought to replace the primaries.
I think the best and most democratic popular election primaries in the USA currently, are maybe the "top few primaries," in which all candidates from all parties, and also independents, run in the same popular election primary with the top four, or top two, proceeding to the general election. I think it would be good for democracy and good governance, for all of the existing primaries to be replaced with "top few" jury primaries, using a proportional representation voting method, of a kind that ensures the Condorcet winner (the winner in one-to-one match ups with the other candidates) is included in the winners. Whether "the few" who proceed to the general election will be two, three for four candidates, should I think be decided by jury, as I think should all laws about how public officials are chosen.
I think that the deciding of election laws by jury is an important and essential part of having democratic elections. I think the deciding of election laws by politicians is contrary to democracy and good governance, and taints such laws with oligarchy and a lack of democracy, and with the self-interest and perceived-self-interest of the politicians who decide
such laws. I see no valid reason for excluding the public from deciding the election laws, if the public do so in an informed and democratic manner, as we can, through juries.
As for judges ruling on the constitutionality of election laws, this in my view is only reasonable if those judges are democratically chosen by jury. And not if those judges are for example chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Also, I think split decisions of the top appellate courts, including the US Supreme Court, on election laws (and on all other laws, but here my focus is on election laws), ought to be referred to a trial by jury, on a fair and level playing field, to decide which of the different legal opinions of the court prevails and becomes the law of the land.
If the justices on the Supreme Court disagree, let the informed judgement of the people, through a jury, decide which of the different opinions on the court will prevail and become the law of the land.
If the law is so uncertain that the Supreme Court justices disagree on what the law is, let the matter be decided democratically, by the informed judgement of the people, through a jury, after a fair trial on a level playing field. Such juries would, in my proposal, be limited to choosing between the different opinions of the court on what the law is (they would not formulate and write a decision of their own), and would be large enough to be a statistically accurate cross-sections of the public.
If all of the opinions on the court overturn existing law, then maybe the jury should have the option to reject all of the opinions on the court, and keep the existing law. In order for the status quo (the existing law) to get a fair trial, one or more capable advocates for the status quo would need to be able make the case for the status quo to the jury, on a level playing field. I think it especially desirable for the jury to have this option, if the Supreme Court continues to be chosen in an undemocratic manner. Being chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate is in my view undemocratic, and is also corrupt in that the politicians who choose the justices, and the billionaires, lobbies and super PACs that may influence their choice, all have a strong interest in having judges that will make the decisions they want. And what they want is likely to be often at odds with what the public want, and with the public good.
Despite the fact it is clearly the best option of the three, in a wide range of cases ;o). The most democratic, the most in accord with rule by the people and political equality, the best for informed decisions by the people on a fair and level playing field, the best for good governance, and the best for preventing corruption.
Including being the best option for choosing all the independent and supposed-to-be independent public officials (the judiciary, regulatory commissions, inspector generals, prosecutors, public defenders, heads of independent agencies ...), and for choosing politicians, both in primaries and in general elections.
I think it might be hard to convince most people that general elections for the most important political offices ought to be replaced with election by jury, such as elections for the president, governors, mayors, and members of legislative assemblies. Easier I think to convince people that election by jury ought to replace the primaries.
I think the best and most democratic popular election primaries in the USA currently, are maybe the "top few primaries," in which all candidates from all parties, and also independents, run in the same popular election primary with the top four, or top two, proceeding to the general election. I think it would be good for democracy and good governance, for all of the existing primaries to be replaced with "top few" jury primaries, using a proportional representation voting method, of a kind that ensures the Condorcet winner (the winner in one-to-one match ups with the other candidates) is included in the winners. Whether "the few" who proceed to the general election will be two, three for four candidates, should I think be decided by jury, as I think should all laws about how public officials are chosen.
I think that the deciding of election laws by jury is an important and essential part of having democratic elections. I think the deciding of election laws by politicians is contrary to democracy and good governance, and taints such laws with oligarchy and a lack of democracy, and with the self-interest and perceived-self-interest of the politicians who decide
such laws. I see no valid reason for excluding the public from deciding the election laws, if the public do so in an informed and democratic manner, as we can, through juries.
As for judges ruling on the constitutionality of election laws, this in my view is only reasonable if those judges are democratically chosen by jury. And not if those judges are for example chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Also, I think split decisions of the top appellate courts, including the US Supreme Court, on election laws (and on all other laws, but here my focus is on election laws), ought to be referred to a trial by jury, on a fair and level playing field, to decide which of the different legal opinions of the court prevails and becomes the law of the land.
If the justices on the Supreme Court disagree, let the informed judgement of the people, through a jury, decide which of the different opinions on the court will prevail and become the law of the land.
If the law is so uncertain that the Supreme Court justices disagree on what the law is, let the matter be decided democratically, by the informed judgement of the people, through a jury, after a fair trial on a level playing field. Such juries would, in my proposal, be limited to choosing between the different opinions of the court on what the law is (they would not formulate and write a decision of their own), and would be large enough to be a statistically accurate cross-sections of the public.
If all of the opinions on the court overturn existing law, then maybe the jury should have the option to reject all of the opinions on the court, and keep the existing law. In order for the status quo (the existing law) to get a fair trial, one or more capable advocates for the status quo would need to be able make the case for the status quo to the jury, on a level playing field. I think it especially desirable for the jury to have this option, if the Supreme Court continues to be chosen in an undemocratic manner. Being chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate is in my view undemocratic, and is also corrupt in that the politicians who choose the justices, and the billionaires, lobbies and super PACs that may influence their choice, all have a strong interest in having judges that will make the decisions they want. And what they want is likely to be often at odds with what the public want, and with the public good.
Clay S
Aug 19, 2025, 8:25:51 AMAug 19
to election by jury
On Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 8:12:49 AM UTC-4 simonth...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it might be hard to convince most people that general elections for the most important political offices ought to be replaced with election by jury, such as elections for the president, governors, mayors, and members of legislative assemblies. Easier I think to convince people that election by jury ought to replace the primaries.
That's why we want to start with lower stakes elections, ideally things that are currently appointed. our ballot measure for Portland is to change the chief of police from appointed by the mayor to elected by a jury of 23 randomly chosen citizens. remember that several significant positions are elcted by the jury in Georgia. The next step up the ladder might be something like electing the Multnomah county flood control commission with EBJ. The more familiar with people get with the idea the more plausible it becomes that they could imagine using it for electing people like your city council and even the mayor. or you could even hybridize it and have some of the seats elected by jury.
I think the best and most democratic popular election primaries in the USA currently, are maybe the "top few primaries," in which all candidates from all parties, and also independents, run in the same popular election primary with the top four, or top two, proceeding to the general election.
well we have some simulation results on this. for instance, approval voting followed by a top two runoff can be better than just one round of approval voting.
I'm highly confident that more than a top two is bad.
I think it would be good for democracy and good governance, for all of the existing primaries to be replaced with "top few" jury primaries, using a proportional representation voting method
proportional representation is the opposite of what you want for A primary that ultimately results in a single winner. The candidates most likely to be the social utility maximizer will be at the centroid position of the population.
Clay S
Aug 19, 2025, 8:28:38 AMAug 19
to election by jury
what do you do if justice and utilitarianism contradict?
in any case, I think the bigger problem with Justice is that it's not Even a clearly defined idea.
justice is a multifaceted concept with no single, universally accepted definition. it's often discussed in terms of fairness, equity, and the impartial administration of law. however, different philosophical traditions offer varying perspectives.
in western philosophy, a major thread begins with plato and aristotle. for plato, justice is a virtue of the soul and the state, a harmonious balance where each part—whether a person or a class in society—does what it's best suited for. aristotle viewed justice in terms of "giving to each what is due," distinguishing between two main types: "distributive justice," which is about the fair allocation of resources and honors, and "corrective justice," which is about redressing wrongs.
the idea of justice as a social contract is prominent in the modern era, particularly with thinkers like hobbes, locke, and rousseau. they saw justice as arising from an agreement among individuals to give up some freedoms in exchange for the security and order of a structured society. this view often emphasizes the protection of individual rights.
john rawls, in his book "a theory of justice," offered a highly influential modern take. he proposed that principles of justice are those that rational, self-interested individuals would agree to from behind a "veil of ignorance"—a hypothetical state where they don't know their own social status, wealth, or talents. this thought experiment is meant to ensure fairness and impartiality. rawls's two principles of justice are:
* each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar liberty for others.
* social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
another perspective, often called utilitarianism, defines justice in terms of maximizing overall well-being or happiness. a just action or policy is one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. this contrasts with rights-based views, as a purely utilitarian approach could, in theory, justify harm to a minority if it significantly benefits the majority.
in contrast, the concept of "free equitism" that you have described—which aims to maximize net welfare by using efficient taxes and subsidies—aligns with a sophisticated form of utilitarianism. it seeks to achieve a just outcome (maximum welfare) through specific, economically sound mechanisms (pigovian taxes, land value taxes, universal basic income) that have minimal deadweight loss, thereby reconciling the goal of maximizing utility with the practicalities of economic efficiency.
other views include:
* retributive justice: focuses on punishment for wrongdoing. the idea is that an offender should receive a punishment that is proportionate to the harm they caused.
* restorative justice: emphasizes repairing the harm caused by a crime or conflict. it often involves direct engagement between the victim, the offender, and the community to find a path toward resolution.
* procedural justice: centers on the fairness of the processes used to make decisions. the idea is that if the process is fair and impartial, the outcome is more likely to be accepted as just, regardless of what it is.
ultimately, justice is not just a theoretical concept; it's a practical and ongoing struggle to create a more fair and equitable world.
in western philosophy, a major thread begins with plato and aristotle. for plato, justice is a virtue of the soul and the state, a harmonious balance where each part—whether a person or a class in society—does what it's best suited for. aristotle viewed justice in terms of "giving to each what is due," distinguishing between two main types: "distributive justice," which is about the fair allocation of resources and honors, and "corrective justice," which is about redressing wrongs.
the idea of justice as a social contract is prominent in the modern era, particularly with thinkers like hobbes, locke, and rousseau. they saw justice as arising from an agreement among individuals to give up some freedoms in exchange for the security and order of a structured society. this view often emphasizes the protection of individual rights.
john rawls, in his book "a theory of justice," offered a highly influential modern take. he proposed that principles of justice are those that rational, self-interested individuals would agree to from behind a "veil of ignorance"—a hypothetical state where they don't know their own social status, wealth, or talents. this thought experiment is meant to ensure fairness and impartiality. rawls's two principles of justice are:
* each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar liberty for others.
* social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
another perspective, often called utilitarianism, defines justice in terms of maximizing overall well-being or happiness. a just action or policy is one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. this contrasts with rights-based views, as a purely utilitarian approach could, in theory, justify harm to a minority if it significantly benefits the majority.
in contrast, the concept of "free equitism" that you have described—which aims to maximize net welfare by using efficient taxes and subsidies—aligns with a sophisticated form of utilitarianism. it seeks to achieve a just outcome (maximum welfare) through specific, economically sound mechanisms (pigovian taxes, land value taxes, universal basic income) that have minimal deadweight loss, thereby reconciling the goal of maximizing utility with the practicalities of economic efficiency.
other views include:
* retributive justice: focuses on punishment for wrongdoing. the idea is that an offender should receive a punishment that is proportionate to the harm they caused.
* restorative justice: emphasizes repairing the harm caused by a crime or conflict. it often involves direct engagement between the victim, the offender, and the community to find a path toward resolution.
* procedural justice: centers on the fairness of the processes used to make decisions. the idea is that if the process is fair and impartial, the outcome is more likely to be accepted as just, regardless of what it is.
ultimately, justice is not just a theoretical concept; it's a practical and ongoing struggle to create a more fair and equitable world.
Clay S
Aug 19, 2025, 8:31:00 AMAug 19
to election by jury
also, I suppose it could be useful to differentiate altruistic utilitarianism from my preferred "selfish Gene" anti-altruistic utilitarianism.
Rajiv Prabhakar
Aug 19, 2025, 9:53:12 AMAug 19
to election by jury
This is precisely the rabbit hole that I didn't want to get sucked into, haha
Btw, I really don't want to debate moral philosophy, but you're going to confuse most people if you describe yourself as a utilitarian. Most people understand utilitarianism using a definition similar to the following:
"an action is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it"
Regards,
Rajiv
Rajiv
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 8:31 AM Clay S <cshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
also, I suppose it could be useful to differentiate altruistic utilitarianism from my preferred "selfish Gene" anti-altruistic utilitarianism.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "election by jury" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to election-by-ju...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/8009a2b1-c8d8-49aa-8720-9058e70bc3fbn%40googlegroups.com.
Erik Carter
Aug 24, 2025, 8:46:32 PMAug 24
to election...@googlegroups.com
Clay, \what is "selfish Gene" anti-altruistic utilitarianism?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 8:31 AM Clay S <cshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
also, I suppose it could be useful to differentiate altruistic utilitarianism from my preferred "selfish Gene" anti-altruistic utilitarianism.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "election by jury" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to election-by-ju...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/8009a2b1-c8d8-49aa-8720-9058e70bc3fbn%40googlegroups.com.
Check out my Free Democrat Substack here.
Erik Carter
Aug 24, 2025, 8:46:36 PMAug 24
to election...@googlegroups.com
Rajiv, is there a way to get a recording of your talk to DWE on Sun?
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/CAP3Kxt8fPDEVd7BMXLPr%3DgCia9c37yUDD7Rq2YwG2J3fHnChyQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Clay S
Aug 24, 2025, 8:50:30 PMAug 24
to election by jury
On Sunday, August 24, 2025 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-7 mave...@gmail.com wrote:
Clay, \what is "selfish Gene" anti-altruistic utilitarianism?
genes exist in proportion to their propensity to "selfishly" get themselves copied, ergo they are (stochastically) selfish. but there are two phenomena which makes genes appear to behave altruistically.
1. kin altruism. e.g. a gene in a bird that says "if there is an egg in your nest, sit on it" manifests as a behavior where a bird cares for its young, apparently "altruistically". but in actuality, that gene is just selfishly helping a likely copy of itself in that egg.
2. reciprocal altruism, aka iterated prisoner's dilemma. in this scenario, you want to "be nice" because how you treat others will affect how they treat you in future iterations.
2. reciprocal altruism, aka iterated prisoner's dilemma. in this scenario, you want to "be nice" because how you treat others will affect how they treat you in future iterations.
both of these behaviors are really selfish, but they superficially look like altruism, so we have this notion of "ethics", as if it's some higher minded ideal about how to treat others. this is confusion. ethics is just selfish behavior that appears altruistic because most people aren't familiar with how natural selection works.
rajivprab
Aug 26, 2025, 8:58:37 PMAug 26
to election by jury
> Rajiv, is there a way to get a recording of your talk to DWE on Sun?
Hmmmm, some past meetings were recorded, but I'm not sure if this one was. I've emailed Leonora and I'll let you know once I hear back from her.
Rajiv Prabhakar
Aug 26, 2025, 9:02:25 PMAug 26
to election...@googlegroups.com
Just heard back from Leonora. They don't have a recording available sadly.
Always happy to re-present for a different audience if you have one in mind, haha
Regards,
Rajiv
Rajiv
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "election by jury" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to election-by-ju...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/70a80ab2-40f3-4ef1-8f2a-96d89a1aeba2n%40googlegroups.com.
Dylan Hirsch-Shell
Aug 27, 2025, 2:13:49 PMAug 27
to election...@googlegroups.com
Present to "the Internet" audience in a YouTube video? :-)
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/CAP3Kxt-axhhyWV_9EnEXfZQLGZ9V22q0buSLi7TOcSPFf0z4Ow%40mail.gmail.com.
Rajiv Prabhakar
Aug 28, 2025, 3:33:53 PMAug 28
to election...@googlegroups.com
In theory, these 2 youtube videos were created for that purpose: https://www.youtube.com/@ElectionByJury
But if you guys think people would rather listen to me speaking into the camera, I can shoot a personal video as well, haha.
Regards,
Rajiv
Rajiv
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/election-by-jury/CAM7kKwRdBdFo36x%3DTDLzLZ0rV8pnYLJq0BbmPXBArA1-npp7Jg%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages