Fwd: Re: (SD2) Q@A/ Bushmonkey algorithm / Golden Rule
Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:19:05 -0000
--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
-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
> > >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
>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
> > > > -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
> > >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
>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
> > >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.
> > > > -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
> > -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
--- End forwarded message ---