Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Re: (SD2) Q@A/ Bushmonkey algorithm / Golden Rule

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    --HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, Mark wrote: ... generates a bottom-up hierarchy that requires broad support. There are technical details on PR if you go the
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:
      --"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:

      > > -M: The PageRank algorithm is very collusion resistant. PageRank
      generates a bottom-up hierarchy that requires broad support. There
      are technical details on PR if you go the the links section of my
      group. PageRank doesn't reward for reciprocal links.(Your concerns
      are legitimate.) SD2 is democratic, and would have quality filters to
      keep the plastic-flashy-money-puppet candidates from rising in peer-
      status.

      >R: It would be creating collusion, not preventing it. People vowing
      for dominance amongst a close nit system cannot work. It is like
      putting people in a cabin when an avalanche submerges them 20 feet
      beneath the ice, deciding once and for all that the last one not
      eaten might well have a chance to come out alive. Whenever people
      constantly fear for their position, it is likely no real work can be
      done.

      -M: I disagree. Only the top three or five would be the decision
      makers - chances are they got there by NOT worrying about their
      position, and acted like their real self.

      >R: You must reallocate the resources, confuse the contacts with a
      new voice, and possibly fight over the office furniture. No new ideas
      would come into play, and people would be burdened by the thought
      that any new decisions would revert to the old 'tried and true'
      methods. Well, not everyone wants tried and true methods, because
      once they look back, they'll find out that the competition has just
      thrown them into the dirt. You need people outside the system to
      determine whether they are fit to exist where they are at, though
      that is still a prerequisite, if we intend any competition to come
      into play with any system.

      -M: I think that statecraft experts would want innovation, and would
      select those without entrenched mindsets. I see your description as
      being more fitting of the current system.

      > > -M: No. Having a deeply layered hierarchy, like SD2 would
      generate, would create an identifyable and uncontestable statecraft
      community. This community would be very interested in its own
      legitimacy and in serving the people. If not, the top ranked would
      quickly be replaced - rank recalculations can occur as frequently as
      weekly. Legitimacy comes from accountability.

      >R: Things are a bit more complicated than that. It is similar to
      looking back on the 'indulgences' that were handed out for a fee. You
      can't say that the church, deciding on allowing such people to
      practice this process, were in affect 'helping' people
      altruistically. Besides, when you have people in a comfortable
      position, they may well be comfortable and self-confident enought to
      attempt to play the system game, without any real checks and balance
      in place; as they are good at looking innocent. They befriend others
      for their own gain, and they would like-wise find accountability in
      seeking trust with likeminded people.

      -M: Are you suggesting that "players" would "worm" and "weasel" their
      way up the hierarchy in my system? The thing is, players know other
      players - they would go partway, but people would see their game - I
      think that there would be only sincere people past a point. Again,
      you seem to be describing the current system and not my system.

      >R:...isn't going to change too much. If only there was a way to tell
      a boss, "Your performance has been unsatisfactory, and I want you to
      step down; I'm taking your place."

      -M: With SD2, it is conceivable for a worker to ask his/her coworkers
      to have him/her replace his/her boss.

      > > -M: Your concern is with *entrenchments* of whatever form. With
      SD2, it would be in everyone's interest to be a watchdog - "I found
      omeone's conflict of interest!"

      >R: decide on a system where anything has come into fruitation, that
      has depended on subserviance to equidesent people? Where someone is
      in a position, that yet again, isn't in position; and nothing is
      certain. However, if you put someone in place that is known to be
      superlative, you than find that such a person is best to lead. CEOs
      find this in place, where the senior executives are all-together in
      deciding whether such a person should step down, or whether or not
      they should take the reigns (I hate using cliches.) I'm not
      advocating protection from incompetents. I just as well assume that
      such a system would work together to mislead people and make it
      appear on the outside that nothing is wrong, when the facts remain
      that people are taken advantage of. The people within the ranking
      system would try their best to not let anyone lead in on their flaws
      or their actions. Thereby, we would have less accountability. The
      people being put in place have already learned how to play off
      people.

      -M: Again, you are describing the current system. Buddy systems work
      well in the current system, but wouln't work well with SD2.

      > > -M: With SD2, I think that the supporting community would
      pressure there to be a transparent governance process.

      -R: Than, we are left with a term by which a community (which is
      defined by what?) is watching these individuals.

      -M: The leaders would define the boundry between the *statecraft
      experts* and the *activists*. If the community was too big, it would
      be watered down. If it was to small, it would be too exclusive and
      would lack sufficient diversity. If I was a leader, I would look at
      the rank numbers. I would look for *clustering* relative to
      theoretical rank distributions.

      -R: What if we only need one individual? We than have a similar
      voting process in place to elections; such as city mayor?

      -M: Mayors are the administators of laws passed by city council. In
      normal politics, there are NEVER single individuals. However, there
      are provisions within SD2 that would allow an individual to be both
      the sole rule-maker and administrator - this is called *emergency
      mode*.

      -R: That wouldn't require the SD2 system. Than, if we are talking
      about the media, we are making a similar analogy to the CEO of MSNBC
      (I believe there's a CEO). We wouldn't need any different system, as
      a checks and balance is already established by the executives. Such
      people are already determined to function where they are at, and the
      implied system is already in place; it just isn't talked about. Ryan
      M. Parr

      -M: There are states which allow for single owner corporations in
      which one person can be both the CEO and board of directors, however,
      these are always small private corporations. SD2 operating in
      *emergency mode* would have a similar structure.

      -M: SD2 operating in *normal mode* is like a corporation with a three
      or five member board of directors, with the CEO as an executive
      director. The main difference is that SD2 is a bottom-up hierarchy,
      compared with a business corporation which is a top-down hierarchy.
      Business corporations operate by the *Golden-Rule*:
      "He who has the gold, RULES!"

      -M: Fortuanately, SD2 constraints can be written into the bylaws of
      both business and nonprofit corporations. Used in a business
      corporation, investors would loose control over most, if not all, of
      their investment. They might still make a profit.

      -M: SD2 used by a nonprofit would be a *nonprofit with members* and a
      three or five member board. This would be *normal*, except the member
      votes would be processed with PageRank instead of in-degree.

      -Shanti
      -Mark, International Social Organizer, SD2
      -Seattle WA USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
      --- End forwarded message ---
    • Mark
      --HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, Mark wrote: ... vowing for dominance amongst a close nit system cannot work. It is like putting people in a cabin when an
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:
        --"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:

        > > >R: It would be creating collusion, not preventing it. People
        vowing for dominance amongst a close nit system cannot work. It is
        like putting people in a cabin when an avalanche submerges them 20
        feet beneath the ice, deciding once and for all that the last one not
        eaten might well have a chance to come out alive. Whenever people
        constantly fear for their position, it is likely no real work can be
        done.

        > > -M: I disagree. Only the top three or five would be the decision
        makers - chances are they got there by NOT worrying about their
        position, and acted like their real self.

        >R: What you are considering is something that would be indifferent
        to the architect of governing people. Human nature will be the same
        from one system to the next, and we will find that people will act
        the same irregardless. The decision makers are probably pretty aware
        of how some workers act, and are set to make the decisions. Either
        they promote, or they don't. You find different characteristics of
        people within governing laws that were placed their for a reason. The
        smaller the business, the less a system applies, though SD2 will not
        work in that situation. It is just the same as having someone like
        Ted Turner as the head of his media empire. You just can't tell
        someone who has been in place for many years to just step down on
        account of dissagreement.

        -M: Yes we can: "Step down." In the case of a business, the
        shareholders would think before adopting SD2 provisions. If they did
        adopt SD2, they would know about potential instabilities.

        >R: The system won't change, as it can't change.

        -M: Sounds like a statement that King George would have made.

        >R: Democracy has defined the liberties of people, to work on account
        of their own doing, and determine for themselves that their work has
        paid off. Besides, look at anything on TV, where people are
        determined to judge one individual to the next. People are bias in
        many ways. You can't expect one person to look at credentials,
        thinging to themself that this person is qualified, only to look up
        from the paper and see the real person. They may say, "I don't like
        their hair color, or this person has squinty eyes and can't be
        trusted," etc.

        -M: Your point? Again, we are comparing algorithms. Bias effects both
        PageRank and in-degree. I suspect that bias effects PageRank less
        since it would select more disciplined people.

        > > -M: I think that statecraft experts would want innovation, and
        would select those without entrenched mindsets. I see your
        description as being more fitting of the current system.

        >R: It wouldn't make a difference. Politics has entrenchments, as any
        persons behavioral patterns have entrenchments. You can't reconfigure
        their brains.

        -M: Again, we are comparing algorithms. I suspect that PageRank would
        select less entrenched people that in-degree would.

        > > -M: Are you suggesting that "players" would "worm" and "weasel"
        their way up the hierarchy in my system? The thing is, players know
        other players - they would go partway, but people would see their
        game - I think that there would be only sincere people past a point.
        Again, you seem to be describing the current system and not my system.

        >R: You tell me about human behavior amongst business. I've observed
        human behavior extensively where I work. Systems can't change a thing
        because peoples personalities are too different. They are either
        aware of certain people in situations, or they aren't. Many people
        that are bosses are too uncomfortable with themselves to gain an
        introspective glance at how they act.

        -M: Again, you seem to be argueing for my system. The idea is to make
        the least entrenched people the ones in charge - they would
        understand real leadership and those that are too entrenched would
        lose status.

        > > -M: With SD2, it is conceivable for a worker to ask his/her
        coworkers to have him/her replace his/her boss.

        >R: Well, I've read Animal Farm. Think about how such a lose[loose]
        system would become a little too liberal.

        -M: My system is fluid, but has the potential for stabilities. If
        people were satisfied with an SD2 leadership structure I could see it
        as becoming rigid.

        > > > > -M: Your concern is with *entrenchments* of whatever form.
        With SD2, it would be in everyone's interest to be a watchdog - "I
        found someone's conflict of interest!"

        > > >R: decide on a system where anything has come into fruitation,
        that has depended on subserviance to equidesent people? Where someone
        is in a position, that yet again, isn't in position; and nothing is
        certain. However, if you put someone in place that is known to be
        superlative, you than find that such a person is best to lead. CEOs
        find this in place, where the senior executives are all-together in
        deciding whether such a person should step down, or whether or not
        they should take the reigns (I hate using cliches.) I'm not
        advocating protection from incompetents. I just as well assume that
        such a system would work together to mislead people and make it
        appear on the outside that nothing is wrong, when the facts remain
        that people are taken advantage of. The people within the ranking
        system would try their best to not let anyone lead in on their flaws
        or their actions. Thereby, we would have less accountability. The
        people being put in place have already learned how to play off
        people.

        > > -M: Again, you are describing the current system. Buddy systems
        work well in the current system, but wouln't work well with SD2.

        >R: Think about how a buddy system would establish a lose dichotomy
        of awareness from outside the leadership ranks.

        -M: "Loose dichotomy of awareness" - ?

        -M: I will try decoding this one. Opposing opinions? Opposing the
        opinions of the leadership? I hope that you don't think that an SD2
        environment would be composed of "yes"-men and "yes"-woman. Dissent
        would get attention and would get votes.

        > > -M: The leaders would define the boundry between the *statecraft
        experts* and the *activists*. If the community was too big, it would
        be watered down. If it was to small, it would be too exclusive and
        would lack sufficient diversity. If I was a leader, I would look at
        the rank numbers. I would look for *clustering* relative to
        theoretical rank distributions.

        >R: There wouldn't be any real motivation, and things would become
        too unorganized if no one has significant power.

        -M: Imagine rational arguements actually being DECISIVE for a change.
        SD2 is intended to create an environment where this would occur. This
        is real power. People would be rewarded for being disciplined.

        >R: And again, organizations have ups and downs with a single leader,
        and you would find that certain members would be nonconforming to a
        particular leader, to the point that no real teamwork would be
        initiated.

        -M: This is why I call it *emergency mode*, it is a non-standard
        condition. Non-conformity is a part of ANY social system. Again, we
        are comparing systems.

        > > -R: What if we only need one individual? We than have a similar
        voting process in place to elections; such as city mayor?

        > > -M: Mayors are the administators of laws passed by city council.
        In normal politics, there are NEVER single individuals. However,
        there are provisions within SD2 that would allow an individual to be
        both the sole rule-maker and administrator - this is called
        *emergency mode*.

        >R: Just like current candidates for mayor, they may retain the same
        workers from former mayors, though the representative mayor would be
        replaced or retained depending on election results. I'm aware of
        that, though it seems too enterprising with various uncertain rules
        that seem more involved with systems rather than results.

        -M: The job of ANY system is to generate results - how else does one
        interact with a system without interacting with its results? You are
        interacting the results of hardware and software systems right now.

        -M: Systems and results are inseparable. SD2's approach is to create
        a maximally co-evolutionary environment for the optimization of
        RESULTS. This system can generate rules that are certain.

        > > -R: That wouldn't require the SD2 system. Than, if we are talking
        about the media, we are making a similar analogy to the CEO of MSNBC
        (I believe there's a CEO). We wouldn't need any different system, as
        a checks and balance is already established by the executives. Such
        people are already determined to function where they are at, and the
        implied system is already in place; it just isn't talked about. Ryan
        M. Parr

        > > -M: There are states which allow for single owner corporations in
        which one person can be both the CEO and board of directors, however,
        these are always small private corporations. SD2 operating in
        *emergency mode* would have a similar structure.

        > > -M: SD2 operating in *normal mode* is like a corporation with a
        three or five member board of directors, with the CEO as an executive
        director. The main difference is that SD2 is a bottom-up hierarchy,
        compared with a business corporation which is a top-down hierarchy.
        Business corporations operate by the *Golden-Rule*: "He who has the
        gold, RULES!"

        >R: In other words, even when an implied system of governing within
        business isn't determined by the owner or original policy maker, we
        are determined to assume that some successful individual that has
        worked with the company from start to finish has yet to be demoted to
        an uncertain leader?

        -M: This would take a measure passed by the board, but if passed,
        then yes, though this would be unlikely.

        --- End forwarded message ---
      • Mark
        --HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, Mark wrote: ... wouldn t be any different, and the implied meanings, along with those who would choose to implement it. In
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:
          --"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:

          >R:...My impression is quite different from yours. I'm certain it
          wouldn't be any different, and the implied meanings, along with those
          who would choose to implement it. In the end, your impression that
          *emergency* mode would be implemented after a boss entrenchment had
          been violated, seems to contradict the actual process intended.
          Unless the boss were to try to save himself from losing power, it
          seems that everyone else is just his little weiner dog, pleading yes
          and hoping he doesn't pull the leash too tight.

          -M: SD2 constraints currently have three *modes* - these modes are
          determined by a popular vote only, the directors can only make
          recommendations. I don't see easy potential of abuse here.

          [...]
          > > -M: Your point? Again, we are comparing algorithms. Bias effects
          both PageRank and in-degree. I suspect that bias effects PageRank
          less since it would select more disciplined people.

          >R: This works through a "natural selection" process already in
          place.

          -M: Yes, absolutely! Think of SD2 as *amplifying* this process.

          > > > > -M: I think that statecraft experts would want innovation,
          and would select those without entrenched mindsets. I see your
          description as being more fitting of the current system.

          >R: People exist throughout various sectors of society, simply
          because they filter out through that particular stratum. I see no
          other difference than to suggest that people find themself where
          there particular mindset is illuminated. Otherwise, people become
          completely miserable. . .

          -M: The idea is that people usually choose those more qualified than
          themselves - so SD2 tries climbing this ladder as far as possible. I
          would assume that the most qualified would also tend to have less
          entrenched mindsets.

          > > >R: It wouldn't make a difference. Politics has entrenchments, as
          any persons behavioral patterns have entrenchments. You can't
          reconfigure their brains.

          > > -M: Again, we are comparing algorithms. I suspect that PageRank
          would select less entrenched people that in-degree would.

          >R: There wouldn't be any more than the same interpretations, the
          same bias, and the same candidacy. There is a diverse fauna of people
          waiting to be poked to enter a paddock. Oops, I mean't, "no comment."

          -M: Silliness. You were recently in High School. If you "asked
          around" for the twenty most intelligent people you would get a
          significantly different body than you would with a simple polling.
          Please use your imagination and try to understand the algorithm.
          PageRank and in-degree are entirely different.

          > > >R: You tell me about human behavior amongst business. I've
          observed human behavior extensively where I work. Systems can't
          change a thing because peoples personalities are too different. They
          are either aware of certain people in situations, or they aren't.
          Many people that are bosses are too uncomfortable with themselves to
          gain an introspective glance at how they act.

          > > -M: Again, you seem to be argueing for my system. The idea is to
          make the least entrenched people the ones in charge - they would
          understand real leadership and those that are too entrenched would
          lose status.

          >R: I've written a lengthy responses to these, so I'm not energized
          right now to want to make a reply. I only wish it worked, though I
          still doubt people.

          -M: Keep in mind, I am not looking for the *perfect* system, just the
          *best* algorithm. There are good people out there an I want to find
          them.

          > > > > -M: With SD2, it is conceivable for a worker to ask his/her
          coworkers to have him/her replace his/her boss.

          > > >R: Well, I've read Animal Farm. Think about how such a lose
          [loose] system would become a little too liberal.

          > > -M: My system is fluid, but has the potential for stabilities. If
          people were satisfied with an SD2 leadership structure I could see it
          as becoming rigid.

          > > > > > > -M: Your concern is with *entrenchments* of whatever
          form. With SD2, it would be in everyone's interest to be a watchdog -
          "I found someone's conflict of interest!"

          > > > > >R: decide on a system where anything has come into
          fruitation, that has depended on subserviance to equidesent people?
          Where someone is in a position, that yet again, isn't in position;
          and nothing is certain. However, if you put someone in place that is
          known to be superlative, you than find that such a person is best to
          lead. CEOs find this in place, where the senior executives are all-
          together in deciding whether such a person should step down, or
          whether or not they should take the reigns (I hate using cliches.)
          I'm not advocating protection from incompetents. I just as well
          assume that such a system would work together to mislead people and
          make it appear on the outside that nothing is wrong, when the facts
          remain that people are taken advantage of. The people within the
          ranking system would try their best to not let anyone lead in on
          their flaws or their actions. Thereby, we would have less
          accountability. The people being put in place have already learned
          how to play off people.

          > > > > -M: Again, you are describing the current system. Buddy
          systems work well in the current system, but wouln't work well with
          SD2.

          > > >R: Think about how a buddy system would establish a lose
          dichotomy of awareness from outside the leadership ranks.

          > > -M: "Loose dichotomy of awareness" - ? I will try decoding this
          one. Opposing opinions? Opposing the opinions of the leadership? I
          hope that you don't think that an SD2 environment would be composed
          of "yes"-men and "yes"-women. Dissent would get attention and would
          get votes.

          >R: Another lengthy response I made, though not in this message. My
          impression is that people outside the organization would not be
          remotely aware of what goes on; as need be.

          -M: A statecraft community would have pressure to be transparent.
          Imagine all the activists shifting their votes to the experts who
          want transparency. This is a *bottom-up* hierarchy with
          accountability. This is real democracy.

          [...]
          > > > > -M: The leaders would define the boundry between the
          *statecraft experts* and the *activists*. If the community was too
          big, it would be watered down. If it was to small, it would be too
          exclusive and would lack sufficient diversity. If I was a leader, I
          would look at the rank numbers. I would look for *clustering*
          relative to theoretical rank distributions.

          > > >R: There wouldn't be any real motivation, and things would
          become too unorganized if no one has significant power.

          > > -M: Imagine rational arguements actually being DECISIVE for a
          change. SD2 is intended to create an environment where this would
          occur. This is real power. People would be rewarded for being
          disciplined.

          > > >R: And again, organizations have ups and downs with a single
          leader, and you would find that certain members would be
          nonconforming to a particular leader, to the point that no real
          teamwork would be initiated.

          > > -M: This is why I call it *emergency mode*, it is a non-standard
          condition. Non-conformity is a part of ANY social system. Again, we
          are comparing systems.

          > . . . I already made a comment on this.

          -M: OK.

          > > > > -R: What if we only need one individual? We than have a
          similar voting process in place to elections; such as city mayor?

          > > > > -M: Mayors are the administators of laws passed by city
          council. In normal politics, there are NEVER single individuals.
          However, there are provisions within SD2 that would allow an
          individual to be both the sole rule-maker and administrator - this is
          called *emergency mode*.

          > > >R: Just like current candidates for mayor, they may retain the
          same workers from former mayors, though the representative mayor
          would be replaced or retained depending on election results. I'm
          aware of that, though it seems too enterprising with various
          uncertain rules that seem more involved with systems rather than
          results.

          > > -M: The job of ANY system is to generate results - how else does
          one interact with a system without interacting with its results? You
          are interacting the results of hardware and software systems right
          now. Systems and results are inseparable. SD2's approach is to create
          a maximally co-evolutionary environment for the optimization of
          RESULTS. This system can generate rules that are certain.

          >R: Although you implied that discipline would be the key to results,
          it would seem demeaning to the process intended when people aren't
          quite sure who would make a better candidate.

          -M: With SD2, all voters are candidates, and everyone votes for two
          or more people. If someone isn't certain about the best of those that
          are top ranked, they can vote for their favorite underdogs. Because
          SD2 is based on the PageRank algorithm, their vote would *reflect*
          off their chosen candidates, and would strengthen their candidates'
          endorsements - this way, there are no wasted votes.

          >R: I've read that 20% of high school dropouts are in the gifted
          range. I'm not completely shocked (though it seems fairly high), as
          the people I know at very high percentiles make mediocre grades. I
          barely even studied, yet recieved numerous recognition from various
          groups; which I detest having recieved because I never tried very
          hard.) The problem I see is that people put up a facade and choose to
          address the assumption of success with needless self-agrandizement.
          The kinds of people that want everyone in the room to love them. Not
          to mention that the American culture shuns introversion. You MUST be
          an extrovert, or otherwise people think you aren't a "team player."
          What if any needless verbatim of pedantic nonsense isn't in the
          question of need at some particular moment? You've quickly mastered
          all the information requisite of you, and are ready to speedily go
          through the process demanded? Perhaps you're already the fastest,
          only you've gotten tired of it and decide to move on. Yet, one thing
          is holding you back; others aren't REMOTELY familiar with such a
          strange superpower. They think that someone must be lazy if they
          don't see you moving from one step to the next, as you've already
          doubled up on the job at hand, while they are behind--completely
          oblivious to the fact you've completed many things. Well, that
          wouldn't look good now would it, having completed many things on your
          own? Perhaps I'm just talking to myself. . .

          -M: Many interesting points - relevance - hmmmm...

          R: Though, I imply to the meaning that people aren't usually aware of
          certain things. I suspect however, that perhaps the more demanding
          jobs are entirely different?

          -M: This would be more of a point against in-degree. In SD2, one can
          vote for those that they know or are aware of, without throwing away
          votes.
          --- End forwarded message ---
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.