Fwd: Re: (SD2) Q@A/ The experts decide who an expert is.

Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Mon, 04 Apr 2005 07:57:56 -0000

--HighIQSingles@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote:
--"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote: 
> --"Mark" wrote:
> > --"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:  
> > >R: I will refer to my first post on this matter, in that I 
presume those who haven't made it up the ladder to the top have 
presumedly not achieved "self-actualization" as Maslow put it?
> > -M: I am not into Maslow. "Self-actualization" is what my 
tradition calls "Self-realization". Those who have achieved self-
realization are called *siddhas*, or "perfected masters". I don't 
know if my system would select for these beings or not. I hope that 
it would.
> > >R: That the majority of them may not be qualified to attest to 
the facts presented, and that people beneath the leadership position 
would revert all leadership into a non-discrimitory value system that 
assumes that "lesser" is better? 

> > -M: I don't think that would make sense, therefore it would be 
unstable in a fluid environment.
>R: You still haven't discriminated between the reasons an 
outsourcing agent wouldn't be any more qualified, if not better 
qualified than your system.

-M: Either an in-degree system or an SD2 system can get outsourcing 
agents. I just think that an SD2 leadership would be better 
positioned in a social network to know who to ask for references for 
a good outsourcing agent.

>R: At the same time, if an organization is to run, it must have 
supervisors responsible for looking over the employees. Some 
organization promote from within, though I see no logical flow of 
correlation here. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume you're 
suggesting a third party group that is looking at the product of an 
individual. Now, who is representative group, and how is it 
determined that such a system isn't much different from a third party 
group, if a supervisor isn't involved, and neither any other 
official? Is it not much different to assume those being postioned 
are being sorted on bias, and that an individual has not apparent 
benefits from normal selection processes? 

-M: Everyone is the representitive group and everyone selects by 
their own processes. 
> > >R: That these people whom comprise of some 3rd party group would 
somehow know the ladders and the ruts, etc.; to such a point in time 
that they are omniscient in acuity of each personality type, value 
system, and ability level within the organizatoin? That perhaps, 
because one particular person appears challanged and enthused all the 
time, without seeing the peculiarities of various system integration, 
that perhaps that 'smile' may well be the entrenchment constructed 
That those who see them 'smile' are the very people that think that 
such a person deserves a promotion? 
> > -M: This doesn't sound like meritocracy to me.
>R: I refuse to comment if you neither follow the correlations 

-M: The problems that you describe are ones that would effect an in-
degree system more. With SD2, the best experts are given power over 
the organization. They would be accountable to be as objective as 
possible in selection processes or they would be replaced. An in-
degree selected director is accountable only to popular opinion.
> > >R: Well, others might see it as absurd. Others might be inclined 
to do their job, amongst a society replete with assumptions and lack 
of reverse psychology on themselves to undertand the most important 
system facing life; that of human nature. It is much like the High 
School dropouts in the gifted range. Surely someone may hear about 
such a droupout and presume such a person is an incompetant, 
underclass retard. Who is determined to presume they are unable; that 
they are this undisciplined individual incapable of performance? 

> > -M: Again, this sounds more like a criticism of in-degree and not 
>R: Your aren't demonstrating deductive reasoning.

-M: Since when has *popular opinion* ever been better than *expert 
opinion*? You seem to keep diverting from the most relevent issue. 

>R: To assume that a fuller representation is made of the available 
candidates, we are to assume the sample study is purely objective, 
rather than subjective, if it were to benefit anyone through a 
different algorithm. 

-M: The algorithm is for determining who is best for handling the 
objective data.

>R: This would suggest that the same according benefits would be 
atributed to the traditional system in play. Irregardless of 
whichever system is designed, it would seem uncoordinated in its 
construct, and would benefit no one. BENEFIT is the key word here. 

-M: The algorithm is for determining who is best to impliment 
traditional processes.

> > >R: In my impression, those who are at the top are going to be 
more critical of what is going on, and less inclined to hide their 
flaws if they are truly aware of the stakes at hand. In the page-rank 
system, people who are putting all of their effort in trying to 
nullify the presumptions of others, to such a degree as to tackle 
that assumption through defensive barriers;
> > -M: This is how the in-degree system is.
> > >R: I must assume that such a system as the SD2 would create that 
roadblock to the point at hand. If every problem amongst Enron, 
Harken oil, etc, where to be addressed beforehand, than perhaps it 
would be a whole different story. A better method would be to create 
an umbrella of analysis for all Corporations, so that such abuse of 
power or missrepresentation of the stock market doesn't occur. 

> > -M: You just said "...a better method...". Finally we are doing 
direct comparison. 
> > -M: You are showing an example of *perscriptivity* - "If we just 
do this or that..." The problem?
> > -1. How do we know that your way is authoritative?
> > -2. Who is going to administer such a plan?
>R: You may well apply the same questions to your own plan. At the 
same time, how can you defy a system that already makes sense, as 
opposed to a system that doesn't?

-M: SD2 can be used to find the best systems and the best to 
impliment those systems.

>R: The authority could be provided through government regulation, 
just like the UN sanctioned Iraq. Corporations could be monitored, as 
they would have the authority in this matter. You still have yet to 
define the true authority in SD2. 

-M: This is it, and it is testable:
PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

-M: It is authoritative because it finds the convergence of trust 
when analyzing affective data. Have you defined authority with in-
> > -M: SD2 can be used to adress these issues. 
> > >R: I certainly am no dropout however, just to be clear on the 
issue. Though I've known enough about the various myths, legends, 
nonsense propogating the vast awareness factors of average people. I 
certainly have taken test and performed very well on them to know 
what I am capable of. What I see and hear has to do with what common 
misperceptions abound.
> > -M: Who is authoritative to tell people that they are wrong about 
their misconceptions? SD2 can create a hierarchy of experts.
>R: How are these 'experts' any different from the EXPERTS identified 
in the corporate world? Many of them come from Harvard, Yale, etc. 
Many of them are identified and probably damn good at what they do. 
How can you define experts through a system that is designed 
unilaterally from an undefined path. 

-M: The algorithm is very defined because it is solid math.

>R: There are reasons the piramids are shaped the way they are, 
otherwise they just wouldn't hold up after all these years. The 
foundation was merely the start, though the capstone is what kept it 
in place. With minor tweaking of the measurements, it worked. 
Question how an inverse piramid could hold up; as it defies the 
natural laws. 

-M: -1. Business corps -       deep top-down pyramid
-2: in-degree democracy -  shallow bottom-up pyramid
-3:   SD2 democracy -         deep bottom-up pyramid

-M: All three have downward administrative structures and all are 
small on top and wide on the base.
> > >R:...People in academics don't want to be bothered with people 
that pester them and are oblivious to what goes on in academics. 
Scientist, likewise, don't want to be told they are wrong; or even to 
be 'found out' about their motives in discussion. So, lets face it; 
who is to judge?
> > -M: The experts. I have no preconception of what an *expert* is - 
I would let the PageRank algorithm, using human inputs, recursively 
define this.
>R: In otherwords, you still have no clue what it is. 

-M: Personally, I may be an expert in knowing what an expert is, but 
from an SD2 perspective, its not for me to decide what an expert is 
or not. With SD2, the *experts* decide what an *expert* is.

> > >R: I don't intend to sound uncaring to the issue. Perhaps my 
personality is too 'remote' from the majority of other personality 
traits? Though, such particular personality traits are needed amongst 
a society as this. I'm just unsure of whether I'll use it in a like-
way to gain 'success.' Ryan M. Parr
> > -M: Keep on truck'n, and be true to your higher self.
> > > ** More below ** 
> > > --"Mark" wrote: 
> > > > --"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:  
> > > > >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 
> > > > -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:...I realize this system is supposed to filter out this 
notion, though from a lower to higher hierarchy, it would simply be 
best to use a good outsourcing agent. Some people get paid thousands 
of dollars to search for the proper candidates. Clearly their must be 
some success in it? 
> > -M: Again, more perscriptivity: 
> > 1. Who is going to select the talent scout?
> > 2. Which talent scout is the best?
> > 3. Why isn't this talent scout already in the network?

>R: 1. The outsourcing agents already exists.

-M: The agent(s) still have to be selected by someone. Who is that 
going to be?

>R: 2. Depends on who wants whichever outsource agent, with whatever 
finances available. At the same time, finances and organized strategy 
would be implemented differently.

-M: With SD2, these agents would have rank numbers.

>R: 3. What if it already is? Many exists, look around. Some 
companies are open to letting scouts know about employees willing to 
cross over to another company, and are looking for replacements. The 
agent is only an intermediary. 

-M: If SD2 was in place, it would be good for talent to put themself 
into the SD2 network. If they weren't in the network for peer-
ranking, this would be suspicious.

> > >R: However, if we were to suggest that people withing a system 
organized to benefit the lower stratum, clearly there is going to be 
some emotional bias. 

> > -M: We can't have human systems without emotional bias. I still 
want to minimize all emotions except for agape(spiritual love)- this 
is the one that is amplifying of reason.

>R: How?

-M: How what? How to minimize emotional bias, or how does agape 
amplify reason?

-1. SD2 is for climbing the ladder of qualification - more qualified 
people tend to be more disciplined and less emotionally biased.

-2. Agape is associated with our power of will(iccha) - this will can 
give us the strength for rigorous thought.
-Mark, International Social Organizer, SD2
-Seattle WA USA  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2
--- End forwarded message ---