Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (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: -And it it here you don’t have any proof of superiority over letting > > the people decide for themselves.
> >-M: People themselves prove the superiority of others by selecting > others. This is people deciding for themselves. > DD already selects others too, but arbitrarily limits this process to > directness. By contrast, PageRank/SD2/SD2-S selects people by an unlimited process.
> -But not all is about selecting a big daddy. If so….I have already > explained.
-M: Even if AD isn’t legislatively ‘Big Daddy’, ‘Big Daddy’ is still the natural evolution as people look for the top experts. The end result is still ‘Big Daddy’ for both legislation and administration. So the only major difference between AD and SD2-S is still the c-algorithm -
SD2-S is peer-endorsement and AD is arbitrary and lemmingist.> >>mG: The idea of need for filtering away the Lemmings from the process are > > still challenged as BS by me and others util you have bette evidence. > > >-M: Not evidence – logic – the lack of arbitrariness. > > -Fine, I know that your standpoint is this arbitrar. The lack of logic > is obvious to all.
-M: At what point?
- For government, other people are needed.
- Because of this, other people need to be selected.
- If others can select others, then these selectees should also be able to select others.
At what step should the depth of this selection process be stopped? PageRank/SD2/SD2-S have the unlimited depth of augmented democracy. Where has my logic been challenged?
Lomax dodged this one.> >> With SD2 this is not guaranteed since the enlightened peers can do > > things non-TOP away from the eyes for the people. > > >-M: This may be useful for national security. > I like TOP, but some administration should be secret.
>mG: -Just minimum. All heads of defence, police etc has to be elected with > immediate recall.
-M: OK.
>mG: And their inscructions have to be open and democratically decided upon.
-M: Internal policy? Maybe. Everyday orders? That would be a bitch and quite involved.
>mG: When it comes to foreign politics, open diplomacy should be the rule, > so no need for secrecy there.
-M: Allied countries should be allowed to plot against enemy countries. This requires secrecy.
> >>mG: -What if your conclusions is wrong? And people just dont bother anymore > > to tell you that? > > >-M: If I am wrong, people should tell me. > I have been at this for 1.5 years, and I do think that I am right. > > -So I’m the only one saying that you are wrong?? I dont find it so.
-M: So? What if everyone said that I was wrong? I could still be right.
> >-M: I prefer calling you a ‘Lemmingist’ instead of a ‘lemming’.
>mG: -Still an insult, aimed to lower my credability.
-M: I think that your positions are Lemmingist. I like you and have no interest in attacking your credibility.
> >>mG: -But some things are best decided by yourself. > > >-M: Yes, but how is this ‘yourself’ to be measured? > I want a better algorithm than simply direct counting with majority > thresholds. > > -Doink! By the AD-algo! Only proposals with enough quality will be > bothering the voters and those who want can delegate.
-M: So, like Emmanuel’s V-V-V, and Rodriguez’s DDD, the voter gets the choice of RD OR DD.
I keep asking why the fuck’n override? (I ask you, Emmanuel and Rodriguez and I get DODGING.) By contrast, SD2-S gives the option of RD and/or DD. And even if the individual voter gives a DD input,
there is still an underlying RD component because people have to be selected anyway,
atleast for administration.
Again, this aligns with SD2-S’s philosophy of minimizing external complexity.> >>mG: How will the average citizen be able to judge when, if big daddy tends > > to control and steer everything, just as today? > > >-M: Big Daddy would have more control over an AD system than a > TOP-SD2-S because the lemmings in the AD system would be more dupable > and influential. > > -Why?
-M: Because people are selected with the lemming-algorithm instead of a deep peer-selection algorithm like SD2.
> >-M: Even with AD, there is still the media manipulating the minds of > the masses. > With SD2-S, the peer structure would counter faulty popular opinion.
>mG: -What is faulty opinion?? I dont see the difference except that with > SD2, people and lobbyists would concentrate to try to convince big > daddy about things instead of building opinion among neighbours and the > rest of the population, gving an open debate. > A system error frankly, to via reps when the people should rule. Which > is leading to corruption already today.
-M: At what point in SD2-S are people separated from the process? Look at the generative chains. Where?
> >>mG: -Yes I am! Because AD minimizes the risk whereas SD2 amplifies it. > > >-M: No – AD is more dangerous because the leaders can be selected by > popularity, instead of by statecraft expertese.
>mG: -This is not the issue here. I have said many times that I’m not > against the selection of reps (if needed) by the SD2 algo.
-M: You don’t have SD2-S as the umbrella. This is the problem.
> You are trying to win with open doors and hide the fact that SD2 as > only system, actually amplifies todays problems compared to AD.
-M: Again, at what point in my process is there a breakdown?
> >-M: Lower decisionmaking is an administrative nessescity. > I don’t know what you have in mind here.
>mG: -Just as todays politicians, you are mixing administration tasks with > decicion making tasks. On lower levels, there should and can be only administration, > controlled by decisions made by higher levels, in AD case, the people. > In SD2 case, statecraft expertise, ready to be corrupted.
-M: SD2-S’s anti-corruption methods are:
- real-time voting
- commiteed peer review
- and built in juxtoposition of: -a. specialist opinion -b. generalist opinion -c. popular opinion This is SD2-S’s TRIAD.
Your AD has this potential,
but its not built-in.> >> >-M: SD2-S is about choosing the best people for the job. > > Nothing new here. > >mG: -And again you avoid to answer the key issue, SD2 will also lead as > > much as possible into decions by big daddy, since big daddy will sit in > > the top.
> -M: Big Daddy always sits at the top, even in DD systems. > Again, no comparison.
>mG: -Is he? Where in the AD system? And how can an SD2 big daddy be > comparable?
-M: With AD, he is the top delegates and the top administrators. They would team-up.
> >>mG: SD2 have mechanism to deliberate you say, but the key problem > > is that it is up to bigdaddy to decide (together with his group > > thinkers). > >-M: DD has group thinkers and Big Daddy too. > Again, no comparison.
>mG: -No…dont try give me yor headakes. A groupthinking group in AD will > be ignored since the rest of society will go around it or a corrupt big > daddy.
-M: AD is closer to popular opinion – this is group thinking. By contrast, SD2-S has a TRIAD.
>mG: In SD2 there is no clear way of cleaning out group thinkers if they all > cooperate in the top just switching top ranks with each other. > Which is abig risk that you have not adressed fully. > So I make a very important comparison.
-M: If you understood PageRank, you would know that endoresement circles are not possible without broad support.
Either study PageRank, or accept Emmanuel’s, Rodriguez’s, Markus’s and my knowledge of it.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
