Fwd: Re: (SD2) Q@A/ Bushmonkey algorithm / Golden Rule
Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:22:21 -0000
--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
> > -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
-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
-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
> > -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
> > -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
-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
>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: 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
>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 ---