Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
-
MG wrote:
> >> Like: Statement from MG: RD leads to Hitler or at least corrupt leadership. > > Marks comment: No! the Lemmings do, not RD. L-RD., Not my RD. > > But DD leads to lemminghood.I have proof of that from the trial of > > Sokrates. Do you call that logic? I have commented on why the trial of Sokrates not can be taken as a proof of Leminghood in relation to DD but you never challenged that.
> >-M: I remember numerous points that you have not responded to.
>mG: -Huh? Tell me one and answer the one above!
-M: I don’t quite remember, but I do think that I responded to you.
>mG: You know perfectly well that I have been very responsive and answered > almost all so called arguments coming from you. If there was a vote on that I’m 100% sure of winning it.
-M: You are one of the more responsive ones, but you still have dodged.
> >-M: I am more responsive than you are. > Look at the response trees. I have more dead-ends than anyone else.
>mG: O my….and my dad has a bigger car than yours,…. > How old are you, Mark?
-M: Old enough to be an American President – 35.
>mG: And how can the only conclusion for your enormous number of dead-ends > be that you won them?
-M: The rule structures of debate. Not meeting the burden of rejoinder is indicative that the other has won.
How else should it work?>mG: There might be another reason too and I leave it to you to figure out.
-M: The only conclusion is that they fucked-up.
> >-M: How is this legitimacy measured? (in the scientific world) > PageRank of SD2-S is a way.
>mG: The open scientific gives different possibilities to build reputation, > but in the base, there is always facts and well grounded conclusions. > Exact measures och legimitacy is not needed because the focus are on > issues, not individuals like you refuse to understand. > Pagerank is not used the way you want there, bacuse it could draw focus > to indivduals rather than issues in the science.
-M: Let there be issues – it is people’s response to these issues that is the way to evaluate peers. And I understand that there are more than issues.
You seem to be for issues only while I am for issues and people.> >> Like: today there is 40 deg C outside, says the scientist. A man in the > > street can then go: Are you insane, today we have full winter and -40 > > deg C! Nothing stops this challenge and we know who will win that debate in > > the middle of the winter.
> >-M: Yes, and with SD2-S, such a man on the street is likely to increase > in rank. Again, SD2-S is the system you are seeking.
>mG: Sometimes the man doesn’t care about his rank, he just want to put > things right, quickly. So where is the value of high rank to him? He might be of no interest > of being a scientist or even working with wheater issues. > The value to mankind is that the faulty scientist can be questioned and > his conclusions too, nomatter what rank he has or will have tomorrow.
-M: Fine – this is why SD2-S has open participation.
> >>mG: Of course most of the times things are not so clear but the principle is > > the same anyone having a different opinion can raise it and that works > > as a guarantee from misrule by specialsts using their fine ranks and > > titles.
> >-M: Which is why SD2-S is democratic.
>mG: Do you call that a logic answer, supporting your ideas? I rest my > case.
-M: Where was your attack on my ideas? SD2-S is open, so that anyone can challenge ranked specialists.
> >>mG: You are not adressing the need for fully open debate. > > You wan’t a proxy system giving possibilities for an elite to ignore > > facts. If all of the top ranked ignore the same facts due to group > > thinking or stupidity, there can be stagnation and corruption. > > Seen today.
> >-M: No, those who have the appearance of entrenchment will loose rank. > And yes, specialists can descend into group-think, > which is one reason why SD2-S has generalists to maintain a devil’s > advocacy, and other counter-entrenchment processes.
>mG: You agree on that specialists can decend to goup thinking, but > generalists?
-M: I’d say that ranked generalists would be the least group-thought prone.
>mG: Welcome to the politacal world! Today folked [fucked?]by generalist all over the > place, not doing much more than group thinking! This is the key problem with raising up individuals over arguments,…
-M: Doink! Its not individuals vs arguments, its individuals-and-arguments vs. arguments.
>mG:… this is your problem. And SD2 might help, but not fully, explained by me and others several times.
-M: SD2-S uses people as the quality filters - this requires them to be ranked.
> >-M: Humans are behavior generation systems – and there is nothing in > policy that isn’t implimented by humans. > This is why choosing the best humans for collective action is the > panecea for achieving collective goals.
>mG: -Wrong again, software is what drives the world, not hardware. > Rethink.
-M: You want software without the hardware. :-(
> >> >-M: You are advocating peer-endorsement instead of lemming-endorsement. > > Again you make a case for SD2-S. > >mG: Explain?
> -M: Your L-RD and DD make selections based on popularity. > By contrast, SD2-S uses PageRank, which is a peer-endorsement > algorithm.
>mG: -No, DD makes selections on facts (is the bridge on the best place, how > can we solve this environmental problem etc) even if the can be biased > by emotions, to vote on a person who should solve everything in order > to give him higher rank is definately a popularity action though. > Again, where is your logic?
-M: The measure of people’s positions on these issues - AD uses the lemming-algorithm.
By contrast, when SD2-S measures of people’s positions on issues, PageRank is used, which gives accumulative voting toward expert opinion.
This is quality filtering.> >-M: Did I ever say that I wanted to close science and statecraft? NO! > Both science and statecraft should have open exchange of ideas, > but for democratic decisionmaking, a c-algorithm is mandated.
> -Why?
-M: C-algorithms are the ONLY way to measure peoples positions on issues.
This is why I made the c-algorithm the main focus since day one.> >-M: Meaning that populistic voting is exactly that, it is populistic > where the lemmings can be duped with emotional arguments and ones that > pander to ignorance. > This is why the DD and L-RD of your AD is not appropriate for > peer-review. > By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm.
>mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?
-M: It has accumulative voting toward expert opinion. shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
>>mG: -Huh? Tell me one and answer the one above!
>-M: I don’t quite remember, but I do think that I responded to you.
-It’s all in the forum. I can still not see any answer on the last question,
>-M: You are one of the more responsive ones, but you still have dodged.
-You mean: not agreed on what you say is logic. I have no problem with that since I have showed you several times that not all from you is logical.
>-M: Let there be issues – it is people’s response to these issues that is the way to evaluate peers. And I understand that there are more than
issues.
You seem to be for issues only while I am for issues and people.-No, it is you who wants to make issues> issues + leaders. This is the great error of your logic. And doing so takes focus from the issues which are all corrupt leaders best tool. A structured way of working with issues which eliminates the arbitrary bias that always comes with personal aspects will lift the worst burden mankind ever had. Your logic is: issues + leaders is better than issues + leaders. Prooven wrong by history because leaders by RD is tested now for several hundreds years with known results.
Mine is: Issues + leaders can be worse than issues. And mine is not prooven wrong by history.>> The value to mankind is that the faulty scientist can be questioned and > his conclusions too, nomatter what rank he has or will have tomorrow.
>-M: Fine – this is why SD2-S has open participation.
-Dont try to leave the discussion easy, The parallell was that the scientific world is a better way of working with issues than the election of reps.doring the same job. Participation is not the same as being on the same level. Participating citizen can always be ignored, the examples are many. You are self advocating numerous ways of filtering the words of public by the top ranked. (Because the will not stand the words of the lemmings)
>>mG: Do you call that a logic answer, supporting your ideas? I rest my > case.
-M: Where was your attack on my ideas? SD2-S is open, so that anyone can challenge ranked specialists.
-Only if he is interested in gaining rank. Many are not. They are just interested in one isse at the time. Which speaks for issues rather than individuals.
>>mG: You agree on that specialists can decend to goup thinking, but > generalists?
>-M: I’d say that ranked generalists would be the least group-thought prone.
-Maybe so but still a big problem, not adressed by SD2.
>>mG: Welcome to the politacal world! Today folked [fucked?]by generalist all over the > place, not doing much more than group thinking! This is the key problem with raising up individuals over arguments,…
>-M: Doink! Its not individuals vs arguments, its individuals-and-arguments vs. arguments.
-Still an unlogical answer, the problem is group thinking, coming from personal pleasure of beeing part of a group.
>-M: SD2-S uses people as the quality filters - this requires them to be ranked.
-And people (including reps) are arbitray. Wrong things can be filtered by arbitrary reasons against an individual or because of individual arbitrary reasons by the rep. AD adressed this. SD2 not. The bottom line is really: What is worst, that single issues gets arbitrary filtered away due to mass-phycoses or whatever you might refer to as lemminghood among the citizens, or, that whole areas or many ideas gets filtered away by a rep. just because they come from wrong originator or some personal causes never made public?
>-M: You want software without the hardware. :-(
-Yes, if the hardware is broken or corrupt and can be bypassed.
>-M: The measure of people’s positions on these issues - AD uses the lemming-algorithm.
By contrast, when SD2-S measures of people’s positions on issues, PageRank is used, which gives accumulative voting toward expert opinion.
This is quality filtering.-You mean that selecting reps having certain positions in a debate is quality filtering? I call it hardware quality filtering without all facts known for the hardware.
>-M: C-algorithms are the ONLY way to measure peoples positions on issues.
This is why I made the c-algorithm the main focus since day one.-It is time to go to the bottom with this. What do you mean centrality-algo?
Why is SD2 an C-algo and AD not?>> By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm. >mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?
>-M: It has accumulative voting toward expert opinion.
-I’d call it accumulative voting toward experts. How their opinion is excercised is a different story.
AD is accumulative voting towards best solution as a whole for each single issue. Less unknown parameters.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
