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 
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 
> > -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 
*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 ---