[PREV - SYSTEM_3] [TOP]
June 20, 2016
May 12, 2023
Working toward some
version of
SYSTEM_3 From the rainbow
pluto notebook.
A website to achieve human
Though there's
AUGMENTATION no reason you
should care.
Or, to advance the
state of the art in phrases: POCKET_MARKED
human cognition...
human cogs
A hexagonal cog
cognitive cogs: in a triangular hole
human beings.
Begin with light rules, A method:
but with features that
you flip on when needed Community votes on Cards with component
to get things to scale. features-- when to ideas-- "stories":
roll out a new one. shuffle and deal.
The deck in use
LIVING_ALGORITHMS here remains
unpublished...
Transparency. So this is a dance
Avoid even the with an invisible
Funding sources. appearence of partner.
corruption.
Simplicity. (I sometimes
call this the
"Cog 3" deck.)
Other times I
count differently:
The appearence of
simplicity. COG_ZERO
Don't do stupid shit.
Don't be evil. EYES_ON_EVIL
"Court" to adjudicate
things such as
decisions to ban.
Identiy verification The tradition of
brings privileges. anonymous sources in the
press is someone who is Direct analogy:
not anonymous is willing wikileaks.
to vouch for someone who
is. Transitive trust. Looser analogy: The
anonymous posts are
hidden by default,
they're bumped up in
visibility only if
vetted by a verified
user.
Compare process of
formation of
discussion groups of Committees and
reddit and usenet. subcommittees?
Possible source material:
At what level are Robert's Rules of Order.
rules (*and* standards
of judgement, *and* Note: Gregory Dicum's project,
methods of intellectual studying the different
investigation) imposed? organizational strategies of
The site, the discussion different Burning Man camps.
group, the society?
Voting nerds have endless
If a set of rules is variations they find interesting
universal to all discussion that no one else can understand.
groups, it makes picking Condorcet is just the beginning.
up the system easier
(makes bonehead mistakes A group I was in tried to
less likely) but makes use a variant where
experimentation with variants everyone was allowed to
difficult. re-formulate proposals at
any time. The intention
(1) Universal defaults was to capture one of the
(2) Local overrides virtues of "consensus", to
try to find compromise
positions that would keep
everyone happy, rather
than leave people trapped
in Arrow's Paradox.
American's raised in a winner-take-all
culture couldn't fathoms what was going
on. Why are we voting on this again?
Didn't we settle this already?
A radical change in rules,
*even if the change has
virtures* can run into
such problems with
adoption. If it's so
unfamiliar that it's
rejected out-of-hand,
The dailykos tip jar: that's actually a problem
a later-hack to deal for the rule change. The
with the problem that rules, after all, are
"deserves approval" linkages between the
and "feature as components we have to work
a lead story" are with, i.e. human beings.
different decisions.
Different strategies:
intentional, announced
breaks with convention
Obviously: a "rec" ("backwards compatibility").
should *always* imply
a "tip", but it remained Gradual incremental change,
two separate actions... perhaps in a pre-planned
direction, perhaps as an
evolutionary walk through
the space of possibilities.
A better institution to study
than British bureaucracy (Robert's
Rules) is, of course, Science.
Kuhn is a decent place to start.
The very thought of Robert's
Rules produces a visceral GENERAL_VAGUE
revulsion. Often satirized,
often abused... is there
anyone who loves them?
They're the paradigmatic
example of a certain kind I've seen Robert's Rules
of breakdown: extremly abused by a ruling
detailed, rigid, impossible clique in an uncergrad
to master except by a certain student organization.
kind of fussy power-freak who The insiders get there
you really don't want to have way because they
in control of them. understand the
maneuvering better.
(More charitably: they
care enough to
understand the
maneuvering... but
then what sane person
would care that much?)
Wikipedia is very close to the
Robert Rule's state in many
respects, with wikilawyers
infesting the place spouting
obscure jargon obscured by
initials, trying to bring off
points by bluff and posture.
A particular favorite of mine is
the people who behave in willfully
obtuse ways to get the other side
to lose their cool. Then the
moderators come in, and do the
most shallow reading of the
situation possible, going after
the side that's flaming, and
ignoring the flame-bait.
web search:
Probablistic Risk Assessment.
vs. worst case analysis
(the safety factors style I
was taught?).
A paradigm shift in engineering?
Kuhn (and Feyerbrand, I think): "incommensurability".
This is essentially the point that it can be
difficult to communicate across a "paradigm
shift": the concepts are by definition very
difficult on either side, words may have changed
their meanings in subtle ways, and so on.
This sounds like something to keep in mind,
but not the insurmountable problem, which is Compare to the SF:
how he seems to be inclinced to play it. every problem is
exaggerated into a
"dystopia".
--------
[NEXT - GENERAL_VAGUE]