New Civilization News: Amazingly, a Geodemocracy is incorruptable.    
 Amazingly, a Geodemocracy is incorruptable.18 comments
picture21 Jun 2005 @ 20:38, by Roan Carratu

A geodemocracy is unique because it is based upon a natural geometry, the geometry of Nature, Synergetics, discovered in Nature rather than made up by people who thought the world was flat.

The geometric design of the Geodemocracy concept not only sidesteps the usual problems of hierarchic government/organization but has characteristics not deductible by the parts considered separately.

That is... a geodemocracy is not corruptible.

This is a very weird idea for people who have grown up with the idea that 'a single bad apple spoils the barrel' and other such sad cliches. In all other organizations, one idiot hassler can spoil the whole experience and the results of the experience simply by hassling everyone. A charismatic powermonger can con everyone and get agreement to be put in a position of power where he or she can spoil everything, ruin the effort of a whole group. Jeeze, I've seen that many times, dozens at least.

A Geodemocracy prevents such a 'hassler' or 'powermonger' from influencing anything in the organization, and since there are no 'power positions', they cannot work themselves into a position to mess up anything. They are equal by position, and that position cannot become a thorn in the side of the democracy.

One of the CIA's most basic control strategies for breaking up groups is to infiltrate two or more agents into the organization and the agents help work each other up into positions of power, where they then start separating people into subgroups which oppose each other, eventually destroying the unity of the organization through internal disagreement. I've seen that done also.

There are no positions of power beyond each individual in the Geodemocracy, so this also has no effect at all. And there is no way any outside group, or even government, could shut down a large geodemocracy, even if it has no function as a government but is just an organization to do good among humanity and the environment. A Geodemocracy would likely do things the governments should do but don't, and being a benefit to any government pretty much makes that organization liked by that government.

The geometry of a Geodemocracy would judo almost anything that might corrupt it, the way steel is not damaged by wax, even hot wax. The characteristics of the materials themselves prevent corruption, and the interaction causes no harm. Human Nature is every way humans can be, but the geometry does not allow interaction with the aspects of human nature which easily messes up all the other forms of government or organization.


[< Back] [New Civilization News]

Category:  

18 comments

21 Jun 2005 @ 21:41 by bushman : Hmm,
The black market and hot lead, maybe the bigger issue, closing down the black market, thru legalisation, of black market goods and services. Solve that first, then at least a Geodemocracy could take root on a leveled field. Still, how would it be protected? There are bad people in the world who dont care at all, they have thier agendas, some will need leaders to follow, I know people who know nothing but to follow, and put thier faith in the decisions of men, not god or source. These people would be criminals in any form of government, no matter what became leagal, how does Geodemocracy deal with that? Would we have an organized army to go after evil/bad thugs? What would happen if a node cryed wolf? Who would show up, how long would it take to send them help if it had been an accual emergency? I mean obviously the towns people would have to pick up thier torches and pitch forks to deal with it in real time. Hmm, How would it compeet with the NWO way of doing things? A Geodemocracy, would have to depend on existing infastructure, till it took hold, but we would still have to answer to the NWO meglomaniacs, unless of course we can get our own people into thier ranks as advisors and consultants, lol.  


22 Jun 2005 @ 11:04 by rcarratu : Hmm
Sorry, bushman, you haven't a clue. Read it and try to understand it before you derisively try to stuff it into some existing box. It's not anything you think, at this point. Your statement is like a child trying to describe what he thinks the word 'electromagnetism' means using sticks and mud to explain it, when the kid actually hasn't a clue to what electromagnetism is. It was funny though. grin.  


22 Jun 2005 @ 17:51 by bushman : Still
What your proposing here, is a government run by people with common sence, as you mentioned in your latest post. Sure something new would be embraced if everyone had common sence, but they don't. It is with the mind of the child that we find the kingdom of heaven. Well, my grandma, always used to say use your common sence. Common sence dictates, that man does what man does with no sence. Are public schools teaching common sence? And I could explaine electromagtetisim, with sticks and mud. lol. People arnt going to give up thier box as easily as you think they might, if you throw them a big enough bone, they might, but theres always someone with a bigger and tastyer bone to toss. How can anything be asured if it hasnt been tryed? Computer models? At least Im willing to take the risk of all out world war, to do something better. As it is now, I wouldnt give the governments we have now the time of day, and my common sence is just as the parents might say, if you cant get along with them , just don't play with them. How will the thoughs of man become common enough? To even understand, and subvert the mess we have now? Otherwise, all Im seeing here is a pipedream, a sudo utopia that will become its own box.  


23 Jun 2005 @ 23:41 by Vidyagama @63.17.94.23 : Geodemocracy vs. SD2
-M: Roan, first I would classify this as "social systems design"

"...two or more agents into the organization and the agents help work each other up into positions of power, where they then start separating people into subgroups which oppose each other, eventually destroying the unity of the organization through internal disagreement..."

-M: If your system is populistic, it could still be split into groups. My trick is to find those that provide the most group cohesiveness by using Social Network Analysis. Some people are harder to manipulate than the general population - these are the people that should have positions of power.

"There are no positions of power beyond each individual in the Geodemocracy"

-M: This sounds like normal direct democracy. This has been tried. Representitive democracy is the norm and usually works better.

What is the minimum number of people needed to test this system?

-Shanti
-Mark Rosst, International Social Organizer, SD2
-Seattle WA USA  



24 Jun 2005 @ 13:13 by rcarratu : Vidyagama
Please tell me when and where a direct democracy was ever tried. I can't find any reference to that.

The Geonet is not anything like what I think you are imagining. It is not 'populistic' in the sense you are using. It's a structure of individuals who work together in a system, but it has no hierarchy with the weakness of such hierarchies. It creates a mechinism for small group decision making without the dynamics of small group manipulation so often found in existing organizations. It's coordination is revolving and set, not elected. Read it so you can find real problems with it. (I don't claim there are none.)

Peace,
-Roan  



24 Jun 2005 @ 13:20 by rcarratu : Bushman
You haven't even read it. When you do, please come back and tell me why it won't work. As is, your words do not carry much good information.

Bushman: "What your proposing here, is a government run by people with common sence, as you mentioned in your latest post. Sure something new would be embraced if everyone had common sence, but they don't"

I am not proposing any such thing, Bushman. Common Sense is not a necessary characteristic for the Geonet members. But it might well generate a common sense approach to decision making in most of the members, once it is tried. I agree with you that very little real common sense exists now... gee, I think I said that in my essay too. Hmmm.

Peace and good health, Bushman.
-Roan Carratu  



24 Jun 2005 @ 16:19 by bushman : Hmm
I never said it wont work, :} I want it to work, I want to see people take control of thier futures. I read all of everything you posted, and have sent thru yahoo, Im an average joe, there has to be room for the average joe, your lucky I accualy understand most the words you used to explain Geodemocracy. Thing is, I can visulise the mechanics needed to cause Geodemocracy to take hold on a mass scale, where the decisions made, accually become into being for all those who want to take part. Comming up with our own currecy etc... the mechanics are very important, anyone can draw up a device, and I see Geodemocracy as a device to do some sort of operation, so many angles to factor in, acuators to change an overall motion, and self expanding so as it becomes the many controling the few. I dont want it to become some rosacrutionesk round table thing, where the people involved dont have the ability to drop down a level or two, to be able to debate it with an average joe. I'm all for a change, but I cant see how this will happen.  


24 Jun 2005 @ 21:35 by Vidyagama @128.95.243.236 : Structural Deep Democracy (SD2)
Roan,

First, thanks for joining SD-2:
[link]

My comments are interspirsed:

"Please tell me when and where a direct democracy was ever tried. I can't find any reference to that."

-M: At least one of the "republics" during the French Revolution was a direct-democracy. [link] has a "Communities Directory" of over 500 registered Intentional Communities, many of which are direct democracies. This is NOT the favored form of governance.

Do you remember Carol Willie from The Farm (a blonde who must of been a hottie at the time)? Two of her sons went to a school governed as a direct-democracy(for internal operations - a PUBLIC school!)

"The Geonet is not anything like what I think you are imagining. It is not 'populistic' in the sense you are using. It's a structure of individuals who work together in a system, but it has no hierarchy with the weakness of such hierarchies."

-M: Hierarchies are not weak, they are strong, thats why they are used.

"It creates a mechinism for small group decision making without the dynamics of small group manipulation so often found in existing organizations. It's coordination is revolving and set, not elected. Read it so you can find real problems with it. (I don't claim there are none.)"

-M: I have since read it.
Where is the reward for EXCELLENCE and MERIT?
What structures keep people accountable to reason?
And why should anyone participate?
How are activities coordinated?

-Shanti
-Mark Rosst, Seattle  



25 Jun 2005 @ 20:47 by Vidyagama @63.17.29.221 : Brain Farts
People,

I posted a list of common contradictions on WorldCitizen-Yahoo:

> They try making elite positions against elitism.
>
> They try making meritorious arguements against merit.
>
> They try being authoritative against authority.
>
> They try putting non-hierarchy in a hierarchy above hierarchy.
>
> They try making superior arguements against superiority.
>
> They try to make the lack of universal truth itself a universal
> truth.

Another to add is:

-They try making a competitive arguements again competition.

Roan seems to be giving us another one:

-They try taking leadership positions against leadership.

You all are welcome to join a group that is contradiction free:
[link]

Shanti
Mark Rosst, Seattle  



26 Jun 2005 @ 10:16 by Roan @24.10.158.224 : Response
I think your approach to republican election ranking is excellent. It would help out a lot! ...if the ruling elite allowed it's use.

But the contraction is... Why should the elite who rule the republican system under the easily manipulative existing methods of vote counting change their system when the new system might well oust them from their exalted positions?

The system you propose is excellent and I heartally recomend it's implimentation at the people's eariliest convenience.

You seek to make a balsa wood foundation into a hard wood foundation. I seek to create structures that need no foundation. But you would not likely see it that way.

Regardless of your excellent SD-2 system, if your paradigm sees no worth in people other than the few elite, then who in their right mind would accept your paradigm as their own except those who thought they were the best canidates for elitedom? Who defines the criteria for eliteness in a system in which the elite wish to keep their eliteness by any means necessary? There are more questions, but these will suffice for now.

I have no delusions that the geodemocracy will even start in my lifetime. It is a system for a Level One civilization, and we are still in the middle of a Level Zero civilization. However, what is contained in the basic knowledge every child learns before age five grows daily, the great achievements of the past absorbed and taken for granted by the new generations, and with that change in basic data, the common aspects of people's worldviews shifts towards ephiphanies like electrons shift from lower shells to higher shells. Your SP-2 concept may well be implemented in your lifetime. I hope it is, and done so without bloodshed. Only a good means creates a good end.  



27 Jun 2005 @ 13:20 by Vidyagama @63.17.18.45 : Good Sport
"I think your approach to republican election ranking is excellent."

-M: Thanks for your support!

"It would help out a lot! ...if the ruling elite allowed it's use. But the contraction is... Why should the elite who rule the republican system under the easily manipulative existing methods of vote counting change their system when the new system might well oust them from their exalted positions?"

-M: What choice do they have? If SD2 works at a small scale, it will eventually be adopted for larger scale purposes. The current elite aren't the only ones with power.

"The system you propose is excellent and I heartally recommend it's implimentation at the people's eariliest convenience."

-M: Thanks for being a sport!

"You seek to make a balsa wood foundation into a hard wood foundation. I seek to create structures that need no foundation. But you would not likely see it that way."

-M: Roan, that sounds bizarre to me.

"Regardless of your excellent SD2 system, if your paradigm sees no worth in people other than the few elite, then who in their right mind would accept your paradigm as their own except those who thought they were the best canidates for elitedom?"

-M: SD2 is designed to be a moderating influence over people, so those that would support it would be those that are opposed to extremism, which is most people. SD2 is elitist like ALL representitive systems, and those selected would be the chosen statecraft experts - I think that most would consider the chosen directors to be superior statespeople to themselves.

"Who defines the criteria for eliteness in a system in which the elite wish to keep their eliteness by any means necessary?"

-M: SD2 still is representitive democracy, so its the voters who make this determination.

"There are more questions, but these will suffice for now.[...] Your SD2 concept may well be implemented in your lifetime. I hope it is, and done so without bloodshed. Only a good means creates a good end."

-M: Agreed.

-Shanti
-Mark, Seattle
[link]  



1 Jul 2005 @ 09:56 by rcarratu : No foundation
The conventional idea of a foundation is as in modern house building where a rigid structure is under the house itself, so there is as little movement as possible. If a modern house was picked up whole by a helicopter, for instance, it would crumble without massive restructuring.

A geodesic dome, however, needs no foundation. It's 'foundation' is it's structural integrity. A geodesic dome could be, and has been, picked up by helicopters and moved without any structural damage whatsoever.

A geodemocracy has that same structural integrity, because doesn't have the 'stress' points inherent in all hierarchies. Every 'delegated' person is a stress point in the structure, and stress points can fail, which in social terms is called 'corruption' or 'inadequacy'. Every nailed together join in a normal house is a stress point, and it will simply fail if stress is applied at an angle it is not designed to handle, designed by the very geometry of the house itself. A geodesic, because stress is spread out almost equally on all the joints in the system, does not fail. A good example of this is the domes put over radars in the far north, the Defense Early Warning system, (DEW line) which withstood every stress possible in that extreme environment without failure. Even when a truck backed into the cube structure the dome sat on, collapsing the cube, the dome was without damage. (The only failure in nearly 50 years of use. In materials, time in construction, and manpower, the DEW domes exceeded in savings all Engineer estimates by a huge factor.

Since every person in a geodemocracy is responsible for him or her self, has exactly the same access, and the same ability to make choices and allocate resources, there is no place anyone can get access to other's cooperation beyond the basic dynamic of the system. There's no sources of delegated power available for any silver tongued popular yahoo to get into and use in a corruptible way. It works like electrical wiring, where single wires which cannot carry the required current will melt, while a net of wires parallel linked will naturally divide the current so all wires remain working. The first kind of connection is as strong as it's weakest link... a geodesic net is only as weak as the strength of the whole system itself. Even if you take a sledge and pound at a vertex until it breaks, the structure will stand without much damage or weakness. The structure of a geodesic becomes stronger the larger and higher frequency it becomes.

The Internet was originally based upon this principle, so if any or most of the system is bombed out of existence in a nuke war, the remaining nodes would still remain in contact.

As for 'where's the merit and reward for excelling'? Well, there are two kinds of reward, interior and exterior. Personally, I go for interior, that is, when I do something well, I am happy to have done it. Exterior award is primarily watching the world (hopefully) get better and better as the decisions I am part of become action and result. This is the only reward in a geodemocratic system because all others opens the system up to corruption.

There is no guarantees in life besides death, none at all, and there is no way to know beforehand if something will succeed. One hopes, of course, and using modeling and other algorithms, one can take that hope to a very precise level, but things fail that have been modeled and figured out to the nth degrees. That's life. The Geodemocracy system cannot guarantee any results, any more than any other system. The incorruptibility of it is a characteristic of the geometry of the system, so that is not a matter of success or failure.  



2 Jul 2005 @ 21:45 by Vidyagama @128.95.163.228 : Hierarchies are needed.
>RC:[...]The Internet was originally based upon this principle, so if any or most of the system is bombed out of existence in a nuke war, the remaining nodes would still remain in contact.

-M: Yes, its a DISTRIBUTED network to implement the commands of a HIERARCHY. You still haven't explained how someone would receive instructions in your system.

>RC: As for 'where's the merit and reward for excelling'? Well, there are two kinds of reward, interior and exterior. Personally, I go for interior, that is, when I do something well, I am happy to have done it. Exterior award is primarily watching the world (hopefully) get better and better as the decisions I am part of become action and result. This is the only reward in a geodemocratic system because all others opens the system up to corruption.

-M: Most of the world isn't ready for an *exclusively-interior reward system* yet. I am for giving people BOTH interior and exterior rewards. We both are idealistic, but I think that I am more realistic than you.

>RC: There is no guarantees in life besides death, none at all, and there is no way to know beforehand if something will succeed. One hopes, of course, and using modeling and other algorithms, one can take that hope to a very precise level, but things fail that have been modeled and figured out to the nth degrees.

-M: SD2 is not based on modeling, however there is a potentially strong descriptive component to it which can be used to better understand and build a community.

>RC: That's life. The Geodemocracy system cannot guarantee any results, any more than any other system. The incorruptibility of it is a characteristic of the geometry of the system, so that is not a matter of success or failure.

-M: Roan, a hierarchy is still needed to coordinate collective action, unless you know something about logic and systems theory that I don't.

 



4 Jul 2005 @ 17:06 by rcarratu : Heirarchies are needed for sure.
>>RC:[...]The Internet was originally based upon this principle, so if any or most of the system is bombed out of existence in a nuke war, the remaining nodes would still remain in contact.

> -M: Yes, its a DISTRIBUTED network to implement the commands of a HIERARCHY. You still haven't explained how someone would receive instructions in your system.

Yes, the Internet was created to implement the commands of a Hierarchy, but it doesn't require a hierarchy other than an organizational board to allocate classifications, and that was not purely required either. The Internet would work fine without such allocations, if not so conveniently.

There is no need for anyone to give instructions in a geodemocracy. The format of the Subject process is the only 'instructions' required. All it does is organize the choices of the members into a voting order which makes the realtime decision meetings take only an hour rather than many hours. Debate, self-education, fact finding, all that is done during the Ongoing meeting, which is much like an elist. The only requirement for each member is that they put in the time to participate, at least an hour a day five days a week. Since government is a very serious matter and is far more important than just choosing 'leaders', the future will require more input from citizens than 15 minutes every four years. Even your system will require frequent plebiscites, (not the right word but close enough) than the existing once every two or four year elections.

>-M: Most of the world isn't ready for an *exclusively-interior reward system* yet. I am for giving people BOTH interior and exterior rewards. We both are idealistic, but I think that I am more realistic than you.

People don't usually particularly like getting gas for their car or going to the grocery store to buy food, but they do it because it's necessary and part of living. You can say that the travel or the food is their reward, but most people just see it as necessary. If people realize the world is as much theirs as anyone else's and that putting in the time to govern it is as necessary as filling their gas tank, I think people will do it. Certainly the past record of civilization points hard at the results of placing the decisions on the shoulders of only a few people. On a small level, like towns, a few people can contain all the variables necessary to make good decisions for the whole town, but on larger levels, it is obvious it becomes too complex to see all the ramifications of any given situation. A Geodemocracy will produce a much larger collective mind for figuring things out than any small group of people, no matter how smart or educated they are. The Geodemocracy concept takes the 'leaders' vs 'sheeple' phenomena out of the equation of government. SD-2 does also, to a degree.

>-M: Roan, a hierarchy is still needed to coordinate collective action, unless you know something about logic and systems theory that I don't.

Hmmm, maybe logic and systems theory hasn't caught up with living yet? grin! The Geodemocracy does not do action directly... it sets up Projects for that. And Projects do have hierarchy. But the hierarchy has only the authority the members in the Geodemocracy who support it allows. And yes, that condition does limit the 'leaders' in the hierarchy, and will produce tension from time to time. But nobody has to do anything they don't want to do, so any project 'leader' who finds they do not want to work it out with the supporting members can resign. That's true for most organizations now.

The main difference is the dynamic motivation for being on a Project. Most Projects will be doing something that solves a particular problem and disband after that. That will be the motivation of anyone who gets into a Project. It's like the police. The best police are those who really joined up to serve the people, to protect them, while those who are doing it for other reasons, or just to make a paycheck seem to not do so well. They are more corruptible.

Projects, being limited in time and authority, will not be 'careers', so many of the dynamics will be different than in present organizations. There are drawbacks in not having 'career' people doing jobs, but I doubt a Geodemocracy will be the only system in existence, so if biologists are needed, they would most likely be in a Project which needs biology expertise. But the Project itself will not continue past the application of the solution or the time limit set by the Geodemocracy, whatever members choose that to be.  



5 Jul 2005 @ 05:04 by Vidyagama @67.171.35.113 : Hierarchies
>>RC:[...]The Internet was originally based upon this principle, so if any or most of the system is bombed out of existence in a nuke war, the remaining nodes would still remain in contact.

>RC: [...]The only requirement for each member is that they put in the time to participate, at least an hour a day five days a week. Since government is a very serious matter and is far more important than just choosing 'leaders', the future will require more input from citizens than 15 minutes every four years.

-M: Roan, these people are NOT like the people on your The Farm, and they are not like those that you associate with. If you want to see the caliber of Joe Sixpack, go to your nearest Department of Motor Vehicles and size up the people that are waiting. I don't want these people to run things.

>RC: Even your system will require frequent plebiscites, (not the right word but close enough) than the existing once every two or four year elections.

-M: With my system, people vote whenever they want, and rank recalculations can occur a frequently as once a week.

>-M: Most of the world isn't ready for an *exclusively-interior reward system* yet. I am for giving people BOTH interior and exterior rewards. We both are idealistic, but I think that I am more realistic than you.

People don't usually particularly like getting gas for their car or going to the grocery store to buy food, but they do it because it's necessary and part of living. You can say that the travel or the food is their reward, but most people just see it as necessary. If people realize the world is as much theirs as anyone else's and that putting in the time to govern it is as necessary as filling their gas tank, I think people will do it.

-M: No, Roan. Joe Sixpack is an idiot. He needs to appoint those that are more qualified than himself.

>RC: Certainly the past record of civilization points hard at the results of placing the decisions on the shoulders of only a few people. On a small level, like towns, a few people can contain all the variables necessary to make good decisions for the whole town, but on larger levels, it is obvious it becomes too complex to see all the ramifications of any given situation.

-M: SD2 is modular and can decentralize projects down to more community scales.

>RC: A Geodemocracy will produce a much larger collective mind for figuring things out than any small group of people, no matter how smart or educated they are. The Geodemocracy concept takes the 'leaders' vs 'sheeple' phenomena out of the equation of government. SD-2 does also, to a degree.

-M: Yes, and I hope that these are the systems that we are comparing.

>-M: Roan, a hierarchy is still needed to coordinate collective action, unless you know something about logic and systems theory that I don't.

>RC: Hmmm, maybe logic and systems theory hasn't caught up with living yet? grin! The Geodemocracy does not do action directly... it sets up Projects for that.

-M: The act of setting up a project is hierarchal.

>RC: And Projects do have hierarchy. But the hierarchy has only the authority the members in the Geodemocracy who support it allows. And yes, that condition does limit the 'leaders' in the hierarchy, and will produce tension from time to time. [...]The main difference is the dynamic motivation for being on a Project. Most Projects will be doing something that solves a particular problem and disband after that.

-M: SD2 has provisions for Disappearing Task Forces.

>RC:That will be the motivation of anyone who gets into a Project. It's like the police. The best police are those who really joined up to serve the people, to protect them, while those who are doing it for other reasons, or just to make a paycheck seem to not do so well. They are more corruptible. Projects, being limited in time and authority, will not be 'careers', so many of the dynamics will be different than in present organizations.

-M: Clinton's professor Quigley talked about the *ossification* of institutions over time. SD2 was designed to counter this.

-Shanti
-Mark  



9 Jul 2005 @ 19:21 by rcarratu : Re: Hierarchies
> -M: Roan, these people are NOT like the people on your The Farm, and they are not like those that you associate with. If you want to see the caliber of Joe Sixpack, go to your nearest Department of Motor Vehicles and size up the people that are waiting. I don't want these people to run things.<

And by what criteria do you judge who should run things?

Actually, Mark, when I find myself in a semi-random group of people, like at the DMV, I use the opportunity to poll them for their opinions. I have always been very suprised how little appearance reflects the level of discourse and opinions people come up with. It has a lot to do with the level of self-awareness in each person and if they realize or not how much of what they think is conditioned into them. It's not that the average person is dumb, but that they may be 98% conditioned into their opinions without any self-analysis. But that also fits the bell curve and those who are most aware tend to be on one fringe of the bell curve.

Also, one of the most basic principles of troubleshooting in survival situations is to consider all opinions and proposals, regardless of who they come from. Joe Sixpack might well be the person who happens to come up with the solution that others miss, so if you devalue that person's opinion, then that solution might be missed and the solution picked and implimented by the people who others consider 'higher caliber' may lead everyone to their deaths.

Ever been to a Mensa meeting? Would you consider them to be 'high caliber'? Frankly, while they were slightly more interesting than the average person, their thinking was in many ways more rigid and boxed in. You certainly cannot point to intelligence as a determiner of 'caliber'.

Ever meet a really good street con? They are excellent at getting people seperated from their money, and usually leave the mark feeling like the con is their friend. But the smartest cons go into legit businesses, cause there's a lot more money in legit economics and less threat of jail.

What about those who are 'experts' in the fields of 'politics'? When I went to Washington DC and talked to various levels of people working there, from Congressmen to their third level down minions, I found a level of manipulation and outright lying that convenced me that the power in politics attracts the corruptable more than anything. Give me Joe Sixpack over them anytime.

Remember the 'popular' kids in high school? Were they the 'high caliber' people you speak of? Or are you speaking of the rich people, the millionairs? I found the 'popular kids' to be vain, foolish, and in their status only because they have a talent others didn't have, a kind of superficial 'socialability' factor, and I have hung out with many millionairs and they also have their wealth due not to intelligence or ability, but because they have a talent at economics, which was more of being in the right place at the right time and sucking up to the right people than anything else. Money is certainly not a measure of 'high caliber'. I wouldn't buy a used car from any of them.

Any criteria you pick, you find that all people are Joe Sixpack wearing different clothing, or speaking different jargon or part of different social groups or with different talents.

The fact is, only over as wide and diverse a group as possible can the bell curve of distrubution work to our benefit. Only when as many people as necessary work on a problem can a solution be found that would otherwise slip through the cracks of all the various classifications one might put on each individual. The synergy of an group, even if most are 'Joe Sixpack', can far exceed any 'superior' individual's best. (Doesn't always though, of course. But the Geodemocracy is designed to put a decided weight towards positive results.)  



9 Jul 2005 @ 21:23 by Vidyagama @128.95.163.202 : Saints are not Joe Sixpacks.
>"-M: Roan, these people are NOT like the people on your The Farm, and they are not like those that you associate with. If you want to see the caliber of Joe Sixpack, go to your nearest Department of Motor Vehicles and size up the people that are waiting. I don't want these people to run things."

>RC: And by what criteria do you judge who should run things?

-M: Brin and Page of Google don't decide what a "good" web page is other than by the link endorsements of other "good" web pages.

So the criteria of who should run things would be: *the endorsement of others*, quantified in this manner: rank = (# of votes) X (avg. strength of in-votes). This is BALANCED when: strength of vote = rank / # of out-votes

This is the idea behind the PageRank algorithm. I thought that you already knew this.

>RC: Actually, Mark, when I find myself in a semi-random group of people, like at the DMV, I use the opportunity to poll them for their opinions. I have always been very suprised how little appearance reflects the level of discourse and opinions people come up with. It has a lot to do with the level of self-awareness in each person and if they realize or not how much of what they think is conditioned into them. It's not that the average person is dumb, but that they may be 98% conditioned into their opinions without any self-analysis.

-M: Whether someone is ignorant, stupid or both, the outcome is still the same: WRONGNESS.(Granted, ignorance is better than stupidity because it is more curable.)

>RC: But that also fits the bell curve and those who are most aware tend to be on one fringe of the bell curve. Also, one of the most basic principles of troubleshooting in survival situations is to consider all opinions and proposals, regardless of who they come from. Joe Sixpack might well be the person who happens to come up with the solution that others miss, so if you devalue that person's opinion, then that solution might be missed and the solution picked and implimented by the people who others consider 'higher caliber' may lead everyone to their deaths.

-M: If someone was trully higher-caliber, wouldn't they be listening to their underlings? I think so.

>RC: Ever been to a Mensa meeting? Would you consider them to be 'high caliber'?

-M: No, I have never been to a Mensa meeting, but I am on several high-IQ groups. I rarely find them to be high-caliber because most are painfully PRESUMPTOUS.

>RC: Frankly, while they were slightly more interesting than the average person, their thinking was in many ways more rigid and boxed in. You certainly cannot point to intelligence as a determiner of 'caliber'.

-M: I would say that intelligence is a factor in caliber, but spiritual advancement is more important.

>RC: Ever meet a really good street con?

-M: If I have, I didn't recognize them as being good.

>RC: They are excellent at getting people seperated from their money, and usually leave the mark feeling like the con is their friend. But the smartest cons go into legit businesses, cause there's a lot more money in legit economics and less threat of jail. What about those who are 'experts' in the fields of 'politics'? When I went to Washington DC and talked to various levels of people working there, from Congressmen to their third level down minions, I found a level of manipulation and outright lying that convenced me that the power in politics attracts the corruptable more than anything.

-M: I said experts, not "experts". A real expert will have honor and integrity - this is what I am looking for.

>RC: Give me Joe Sixpack over them anytime. Remember the 'popular' kids in high school? Were they the 'high caliber' people you speak of?

-M: ABSOLUTELY NOT! :-(

>RC: Or are you speaking of the rich people, the millionairs?

-M: AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY NOT! :-(

>RC: I found the 'popular kids' to be vain, foolish, and in their status only because they have a talent others didn't have, a kind of superficial 'socialability' factor, and I have hung out with many millionairs and they also have their wealth due not to intelligence or ability, but because they have a talent at economics, which was more of being in the right place at the right time and sucking up to the right people than anything else. Money is certainly not a measure of 'high caliber'. I wouldn't buy a used car from any of them.

-M: I would agree with these assesments.

>RC: Any criteria you pick, you find that all people are Joe Sixpack wearing different clothing, or speaking different jargon or part of different social groups or with different talents.

-M: No, saints are not Joe Sixpacks.

>RC: The fact is, only over as wide and diverse a group as possible can the bell curve of distrubution work to our benefit. Only when as many people as necessary work on a problem can a solution be found that would otherwise slip through the cracks of all the various classifications one might put on each individual. The synergy of an group, even if most are 'Joe Sixpack', can far exceed any 'superior' individual's best.

-M: I only see synergy through hierarchy - this is where SD2 beats Geodemocracy. Sure, people can and do horizontally synergize, but the selection and coordination of this synergy requires hierarchy.

>RC: (Doesn't always though, of course. But the Geodemocracy is designed to put a decided weight towards positive results.)

-M: Roan, SD2 does not run contrary to diverse opinions. In fact, SD2 encourages diversity by being democratic - those that respect diversity are selected, and my suggested advisor boards are algorithmicly built to have people from different groups.

-Mark, Seattle [link]  



17 Oct 2016 @ 17:32 by yakuza4d2 @103.12.162.3 : togel online hongkong
thank you for providing web were very nice and helpful
promo
[link]
daftar
[link]
cara
[link]
hasil
Buku mimpi
[link]  



Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other entries in
21 May 2008 @ 06:34: Life is abundant all around but we fail to detect it
14 Jun 2007 @ 13:47: Denial of complexity
5 Apr 2007 @ 14:31: Annual Report on Global Touch Project
19 Jul 2006 @ 09:24: NCN-mission - creation of New Civilization! And why also is not present?
13 Jul 2006 @ 18:10: Noetic Consciousness
4 Jan 2006 @ 14:07: You Dirty Rat!
5 Apr 2005 @ 01:53: Back to the Future
13 Mar 2004 @ 05:35: The Indian computing revolution
6 Feb 2003 @ 16:35: Work
14 Feb 2002 @ 10:12: Actualizing The New Civilization NOW!!!



[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?