Let the Paradigm Shift Begin
Polymathic Governance Through Random Selection
Shifting Paradigms
A paradigm is
a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated
A paradigm shift is
an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way
Historical Context
Dr. Thomas S. Kuhn is credited with introducing the world to the term paradigm shift. He was a physicist, philosopher, and science historian (a polymath). His groundbreaking publication, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was published in 1962 and established a paradigm shift of its own.
Kuhn questioned the traditional conception of scientific progress as a gradual, cumulative acquisition of knowledge based on rationally chosen experimental frameworks. Instead, he argued that the paradigm determines the kinds of experiments scientists perform, the types of questions they ask, and the problems they consider important. A shift in the paradigm alters the fundamental concepts underlying research and inspires new standards of evidence, new research techniques, and new pathways of theory and experiment that are radically incommensurate with the old ones.
The word incommensurate in the last sentence requires further explanation, per the below excerpt from Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The functions of a paradigm are to supply puzzles for scientists to solve and to provide the tools for their solution. A crisis in science arises when confidence is lost in the ability of the paradigm to solve particularly worrying puzzles called ‘anomalies’. Crisis is followed by a scientific revolution if the existing paradigm is superseded by a rival. Kuhn claimed that science guided by one paradigm would be ‘incommensurable’ with science developed under a different paradigm, by which is meant that there is no common measure for assessing the different scientific theories.
In summary, a paradigm is a framework that structures and governs the evolution of something. Therefore, that framework establishes limits or boundaries. Here is a concrete example (pun intended).
The foundation one builds for a structure, like a home, reduces the total possibilities of what can be built on top of it. If the foundation is designed for a one-story home, you can’t demolish the structure and build a 50-story skyscraper on the same foundation. The two structures are incommensurable regarding the initial foundation. So if you want to build a 50-story skyscraper in that location, you need a new foundation.
Political Economy
I believe we need a paradigm shift in economic and political systems to not just properly meet the needs of humanity now and well into the future but to also enable as many people as possible to maximize their potential in positive ways.
Exactly what this shift looks like, I don’t know. However, I have a few ideas stemming from concepts presented in the next two articles I published previously on Substack and one idea I presented in my social media accounts.
In this K-Bit article, I focused on the Constitutional Preambles for different countries. Preambles present the why under the what and how to guide a constitution. They are the rubric or measuring stick to grade how well the governance model is working. In the article, I asked how well our government is functioning compared to the goals outlined in the Preamble.
Next, in this AI Conversations article, I focused on the concept of the many granting power to the few. How much power do we abdicate by voting for people into office? How do we achieve a “true” democracy? How much is their political race about themselves instead of about us, the voting public? A key phrase to help answer that last question is how often do you hear a political candidate talk about “their opponent”?
Lastly, I shared the following image and associated political typology quiz created by the Pew Research Center on my LinkedIn and Facebook accounts.
Link to quiz: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/
How can only two political parties properly represent this level of political diversity?
If there was a political party for each of these buckets and our voting system was truly representational of the people, then the 435 seats in the House of Representatives and the 100 seats in the Senate would not be primarily composed of just Democrats and Republicans. Instead, we would see something like 43 seats in the House representing the “Stressed Sideliners”, 13 seats in the Senate for the “Establishment Liberals”, and 10 seats in the Senate for the “Faith and Flag Conservatives”.
Then what needs to change to make this representation possible?
The Polymath Paradigm
I believe it is time to move beyond the Information Age and into the Polymath Era.
The new framework (aka Paradigm) needs a lot of work; however, below are three initial concepts to ponder.
Concept #1: Polymath People
What if the majority of people were considered polymaths? How would that change economic and political systems?
Concept #2: Polymath Teams
Do we need to limit the definition of a polymath to an individual? Could a team of people work so well together, by leveraging complimentary knowledge & abilities, be the next Leonardo da Vinci?
Concept #3: Polymath Governance
If the vast majority of people are either polymaths or capable of working within a team so well to be polymath teams, how much power from the many do we need to give to the few? How do you reward polymaths who learn subjects that are not directly tied to their profession?
Instead of many people voting for the few people into positions of governing power, what if the many were randomly selected to fill those positions—and were compensated properly for their service?
This concept goes beyond government, so can potentially be implemented with corporate governance as well. However, I will provide three government examples.
Keep in mind these are just a few variations of the core concept. How would you implement a governance model based on the random selection of people, who are qualified to serve?
Local Government
The government for a city of 100,000 people is run by a City Manager (instead of a Mayor) with a 5-person Commission that oversees the manager’s activity (like many local governments have today). However, the difference is the commissioners don’t run for office. Residents of the city who want to serve must first complete a basic state-wide certification exam that registers them as available for service. Every two years a new commissioner is randomly selected to serve. If selected, a person can decline the offer.
State Government
Representatives for the legislature of a state or provincial government are not based on geographic representation. They do not run for office. Using the same state-wide exam, 10 seats in a 50-seat legislative body are filled by people who are randomly selected from the state-wide pool each year. This process completely refreshes the entire governing body every five years. Given the random nature of the selection process, geographic representation should occur from a statistical perspective. No need for politics anymore when drawing electoral boundaries.
Federal Government
The Executive Branch of the government is split into two independent parts.
One division is focused on foreign policy. The leadership of this division is comprised of the President and the Vice President.
The other division is focused on domestic policy. The leadership of this division is comprised of the Chief Governor and the Deputy Chief Governor.
If the executive branch of a government is structured like this, and the leadership of those two divisions is not filled by a vote from a political race, what are some ways you think the positions can be filled?
More than a Subscription Fee
If you choose to pay for a subscription, your financial contribution goes beyond paying for features that immediately benefit you from a content perspective. If that were the case, I would have a hard time competing with the plethora of other options out there.
However, your contribution will help fund The Polymath Movement. So if you are tired of the status quo, join me in doing something about it.
Are you ready to support the shift?
Note: This article was originally published on March 2025 and was revised slightly in May 2025.