Bayesian society

It is maybe a more flexible society one which is guided by a variable ideology “I”,  fine-tuned continuously by bayesian techniques. The individual would be replaced by the bayesian individual, which forms its opinions from informations coming through a controlled channel. The input informations are made more or less available to the individual by using again bayesian analysis of interests, geographical location and digital footprint (creative commons attribution 2.0 licence, free online), closing the feedback loop.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Bayesian society”

    1. I reproduce here a comment I posted on g+.

      In a democracy the society is stirred, in principle, by the opinions of a majority of individuals. In a democracy is not the individual who counts, but a majority of individuals. In a bayesian society, the society is ruled as a control problem, in the mathematical sense. This is done by controlling statistically the input of information at the individual level (well, almost, at the level of the “bayesian individual”, see link in the post), and by using a variable ideology, as a tool, i.e. by adapting the ideology so that it fits the bayesian individual, it keeps it happy in the bubble of available information which it has access to.

      Democracy is based on the primitive notion of the force of a majority of individuals. If you think, this “majority” is an abstract construct, it does not have the reality which individuals have. But we are used with this abstraction, so we speak about the power of the people, democracy, opinions of the people, people’s will, as if this abstract notion of a majority of people has the same reality as individuals.

      In a bayesian society this abstraction called majority is replaced by a collection of bayesian individuals. This is an evolution with respect to the democracy, because in a bayesian society one might claim that not a majority of people feels good, but on average every people feels good almost all the time.

      However, everything in the human culture is self-referential, i.e. based on beliefs of humans. In a democracy, the beliefs of individuals are formed through pyramidal structures, controlled by few, as for example school, media, religion. The goal of leaders is not to satisfy eveybody, but just a majority, and leaders can do this by modifying the beliefs of people through these channels. The goal is attained if a majority is satisfied.

      In a bayesian society we have (already?) a more sophisticated notion, the one of a society of “average” individuals. The channels of information are finely-tuned, so that not a majority is satisfied, but (statistically) everybody, most of the time.

      Of course, the problem is that in a democracy there always are minorities, i.e. groups of people which share opinions, but which are not the ones of a majority.

      In a bayesian society, those individuals which are not close to the average are alone and feel bad, because the bubble of information which is accesible to them, individually, filters only information showing that they are not normal, that nobody shares their individual views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s