Yes, I am cynical.

You are not the only one, Dadi

And I read your questions before you posted them here…Thanks to Gary!

But! Let’s say that Anthill stands for good and nothing but the good. And the people behind are honest, decent, wise, experience, full of integrity and best wishes.
Would that change anything? I doubt about it.
Remember that “skyr and pot revolution” recently? Did it change your cynical life?

So I’m really not interested in the answers. And you won’t get them anyway. I mean you can get a lot of “answers” and “explanations” but they might make you be even more cynical than now…

PS. Two cynical minds can make any blog boring… sorry, Alda.

These are thought-provoking questions, thanks for posting them. I know some of these people personally and so am perhaps not quite as sceptical as you – but nevertheless I think the questions are good and deserve an answer.

Thinking it might be a good idea to get the Anthill people to answer them here on the site. Hm.

a) Who is behind the Anthill?

b) How is the whole thing being paid for? Who is paying? Why?

c) What will be done with the information gathered? How is the material gathered supposed to be “owned” by the nation?

d) What is the follow through going to be like afterwards?

e) Who is going to speak on the behalf of this gathering afterwards? How?

f) How is the Nation’s meeting going to implement and spread the wisdom gathered?

g) Who elects them to do so?

h) If an idea is voiced at the gathering, could someone else use it to his/hers gain?

i) Does the Anthill have employees? What happens with the donations it is gathering? Who is able to distribute its funds?

j) What is Mobilitius? Why is the Nation’s Meeting presented by Mobilitus? Who is behind it?

The people behind the Anthill are Gudjon Mar Gudmundsson, Maria Ellingssen, Halla Tomasdottir, Larus Ymir Oskarsson, Bjarni Snaebjorn Jonsson, Gunnar Jonatansson and curiously enough Svandis Svavarsdottir, minister of environmental affairs.

Maybe I am just too cynical but I have sat through more than enough focus groups and strategic meetings in my life to question this whole thing. No matter what Capacent would like to sell you, these things are usually for show.

The danger is that you’ll get a lot of people in one room who are eager to talk, but not listen.

We the nation are supposed to have a representative body of 63 people you know. It would be much more interesting if Svandis Svavarsdottir would start a tradition of open and transparent government where experts on relative matters are called upon for consultation using scientific and Socratic methods, and open for innovation instead of meeting interest groups behind closed doors.

I would be very wary of this event. It sounds like a great thing to put on the organizers’ CV to get them up on a TED stage.

Yes, I am cynical. Nowadays I rarely gush about things without examining them thoroughly, experiencing the rise of the banking sector has taught me that. But more people should be critical and cynical in the current climate. People who attend should ask these questions of the organizers, seeing as some of them commissioned reports on the healthy state of the financial industry and have been spinning the banking crash to their advantage.

Thanks for a great site Alda.

he event could potentially be replicated in other countries (as long as participants are selected randomly, larger countries won’t need 0.5% of the population taking part in order to be statistically significant).

James.
For the USA this would result in ONE AND A HALF MILLION people. Or ONE million if we count voters only.
How do you think it’s possible – in practical term – to get them to “discuss” anything? I’m just curious.

The organisers may be assuming that the group will form a wise crowd and potentially perform better than a small team of representative experts.

The fact that it’s just a theory of James Surowiecki – who is not Isaak Newton of social behavior – but let’s say he is right.
So the crowd’s wisdom is greater that the combined wisdom of its members. As such the wisdom of the selected group is greater than wisdom of those randomly selected Icelandic individuals. I agree.
BUT what the wisdom of 1,500 has to do with the will, dreams, opinion of 300,000 other individuals?
Why should I trust this crowd more than I trust Doddsson&Co?
Why should I delegate MY power to them?

Whatever the motivations, it’s an interesting experiment.

Well, I have a little bit different opinion about relations between motivation and the experience resulted of that motivation. Believe me – you might not like some of the results….

these are invitees to a mere brainstorming session that is planned, not representative delegates in a government. BIG difference!

Thorunn, what difference do you see?
This is not about difference. This is about HOPE that some random people might come out with something different and kannski better then “professionals”.
My opinion – this is wishful thinking as best. Or cynical plan as worst.

It really doesn’t matter how we select our representatives – electing them once in a while or randomly inviting. There is nothing new about it – just read the story about Althingi – the oldest Crowd The Wise
So my point is – why should we delegate to someone our right to discuss, make decisions and take responsibility by ourselves?

Very little needed for this – just to think different

I’m not one of the invitees to the brainstorming session, but the plan is for me to do a live Tweeting session from their press room.

If this is real this sounds seriously exciting.