The minute I read this, I was sold. I actually came up with a very similar system, only simpler. After my initial mulling over Sapiocracy, I was totally for it in favor of my own system. I even promoted it on sites I often comment on. But after someone pointed out the fallacy of having weighting as a criteria for voting, I must say, it changed my mind back to preferring my own system which I call The Egalitarian Proposal System. A simple generic name that conveys all it means.
I can see your reasoning that people who study subjects have more knowledge on those subjects, however it misses on another 2 points - the wisdom of crowds and specialization tends to keep experts closed-minded on other areas, not necessarily of scholarship, but of that layer of humanity that doesn't have a name for it as yet.
I guess it comes right down to our foundational beliefs - do we believe that everyone is equally valuable? Not to the economy, but to life. I believe each of us are, even if we are incapacitated in any way.
The wisdom of crowds is also a phenomenon that we should recognize as it has been shown many times, there is this phenomenon and it tends to produce the most favorable outcomes.
I think when we get into a situation where someone decides the value of another's voice, we are putting ourselves into real trouble. Just keep it simple - every vote has equal value. Let's try things that way for a change, rather than always going by hierarchy and see what ensues.
However the weighting system would work wonderfully well if it were assigned to a ranking system so that then we can all see how wise someone has been historically and this does make life so much simpler so we're not having to ascertain things over and over.
The Egalitarian Proposal System suggests this ranking system, so that each profile has a rank using say, the 5-star system which we see everywhere.
We need to be discussing these subjects so we can get out of the mousetrap.
Thank you for the work you did on it, it really is brilliant.
Life could be a dream, shaboom shaboom, if we went by a system that made sense.
Good commentary. I believe the reason Sapiocracy has an advantage over the system you suggest is because of the mergine with the scientific method - the masses can be wrong and Sapiocracy would bear that out with rigorous testing after-the-fact.
However, it is all moot, IMO because the way the world already runs is actually superior. It is very difficult to understand this and an explanation is well beyond the scope of this comment.
In other words, Sapiocracy or any other direct system is doomed to the dustbin of good ideas that don't quite make it in real life. :)
I am among those who don't think it has the promise you believe. The principal reason is because it limits disruption and disruptive ideas. Many ideas are advanced by single champions that run counter to accepted wisdom. For example, if society self-deluded itself to a degree on one subject, breaking the paradigm could only be done by an alternative society. If your longer document (which I obviously haven't read) addresses this, please let me know. I'm not talking about new ideas that intelligent people would agree on, but ideas that initially seem foolish and radical but may be necessary. As a further exploration of the thought, I suggest the science fiction book "The Player of Games" by Ian Banks, which compares and posits a clash between two different cultures, one of which seems to be governed as you describe.
Well for one thing, it's not like we have any examples for you to be confident in saying you don't think it has promise. That's just putting the kibosh on something first off. That is how we are programmed, to eschew new ideas. The program is very adept at making sure it continues. That is a pattern I've seen incessantly from folks, they just put the kibosh on something the first time they hear about it. It is like a knee jerk reaction to new ideas. Take notice of this, it is almost 100% predictable. I have it in my programming too, we all do. However I know we are programmed and I go out of my way to reprogram things to my way of thinking and not the patrix's way which is what we have been inculcated with.
It doesn't matter if there are no examples of something, the new model will make the first example and that's what we are called to do at this time - create new models. Because the old ones with the old belief systems and foundational concepts, are faulty and thus everything we've built upon them is faulty. Some things may seem correct but it is a too small percentage compared to the probability of having different beliefs and new outlooks. That is really what drives everything - desire.
I appreciate your attention to this, but there are very good reasons why Sapiocracy in the article isn't going to happen.
For more understanding, figure out the meaning of the song "You Can Call Me Al" by Paul Simon means and get back to me. Once you fully understand the song and why the video was done the way it was, you'll understand why Sapiocracy isn't going to happen.
What is this facility and how does it suppress "this"? And what do you mean by "this" eggsactly? Otherwise what's the point of bringing it up? Ones is supposed to convey ideas if you know...they consider themselves knowledgeable.
The “facility” of collective wisdom is usually ignored and that gives thhe most accurate results. It’s a weird phenomenon because it gives the most accurate results despite the condition that nobody knows anything about the subject. The Egalitarian Proposal System is based on this phenomenon. We all know how wrong "experts" can get things. With collective wisdom, the two outer extremes cancel each other out, leaving the vast majority in the middle. I’d say it’s something like an 80% majority. That is why the Egalitarian Proposal System’s voting majority threshold is 80% (of a quorum). A quorum standard has to be decided, and that can be done by the very same system. Not to diss Sapiocracy at all, I think it’s brilliant. However what troubles me more is your attitude. It sounds like you just want to go along with the mob. I have watched your videos and I notice you don’t stand for truth and don't question wrong thinking. When we say nothing it is taken as agreed upon. What I think you stand for is getting along, not making waves, not losing friends, not upsetting anybody.
The minute I read this, I was sold. I actually came up with a very similar system, only simpler. After my initial mulling over Sapiocracy, I was totally for it in favor of my own system. I even promoted it on sites I often comment on. But after someone pointed out the fallacy of having weighting as a criteria for voting, I must say, it changed my mind back to preferring my own system which I call The Egalitarian Proposal System. A simple generic name that conveys all it means.
I can see your reasoning that people who study subjects have more knowledge on those subjects, however it misses on another 2 points - the wisdom of crowds and specialization tends to keep experts closed-minded on other areas, not necessarily of scholarship, but of that layer of humanity that doesn't have a name for it as yet.
I guess it comes right down to our foundational beliefs - do we believe that everyone is equally valuable? Not to the economy, but to life. I believe each of us are, even if we are incapacitated in any way.
The wisdom of crowds is also a phenomenon that we should recognize as it has been shown many times, there is this phenomenon and it tends to produce the most favorable outcomes.
I think when we get into a situation where someone decides the value of another's voice, we are putting ourselves into real trouble. Just keep it simple - every vote has equal value. Let's try things that way for a change, rather than always going by hierarchy and see what ensues.
However the weighting system would work wonderfully well if it were assigned to a ranking system so that then we can all see how wise someone has been historically and this does make life so much simpler so we're not having to ascertain things over and over.
The Egalitarian Proposal System suggests this ranking system, so that each profile has a rank using say, the 5-star system which we see everywhere.
We need to be discussing these subjects so we can get out of the mousetrap.
Thank you for the work you did on it, it really is brilliant.
Life could be a dream, shaboom shaboom, if we went by a system that made sense.
Good commentary. I believe the reason Sapiocracy has an advantage over the system you suggest is because of the mergine with the scientific method - the masses can be wrong and Sapiocracy would bear that out with rigorous testing after-the-fact.
However, it is all moot, IMO because the way the world already runs is actually superior. It is very difficult to understand this and an explanation is well beyond the scope of this comment.
In other words, Sapiocracy or any other direct system is doomed to the dustbin of good ideas that don't quite make it in real life. :)
Alrighty then, just roll over.
I am among those who don't think it has the promise you believe. The principal reason is because it limits disruption and disruptive ideas. Many ideas are advanced by single champions that run counter to accepted wisdom. For example, if society self-deluded itself to a degree on one subject, breaking the paradigm could only be done by an alternative society. If your longer document (which I obviously haven't read) addresses this, please let me know. I'm not talking about new ideas that intelligent people would agree on, but ideas that initially seem foolish and radical but may be necessary. As a further exploration of the thought, I suggest the science fiction book "The Player of Games" by Ian Banks, which compares and posits a clash between two different cultures, one of which seems to be governed as you describe.
Well for one thing, it's not like we have any examples for you to be confident in saying you don't think it has promise. That's just putting the kibosh on something first off. That is how we are programmed, to eschew new ideas. The program is very adept at making sure it continues. That is a pattern I've seen incessantly from folks, they just put the kibosh on something the first time they hear about it. It is like a knee jerk reaction to new ideas. Take notice of this, it is almost 100% predictable. I have it in my programming too, we all do. However I know we are programmed and I go out of my way to reprogram things to my way of thinking and not the patrix's way which is what we have been inculcated with.
It doesn't matter if there are no examples of something, the new model will make the first example and that's what we are called to do at this time - create new models. Because the old ones with the old belief systems and foundational concepts, are faulty and thus everything we've built upon them is faulty. Some things may seem correct but it is a too small percentage compared to the probability of having different beliefs and new outlooks. That is really what drives everything - desire.
I appreciate your attention to this, but there are very good reasons why Sapiocracy in the article isn't going to happen.
For more understanding, figure out the meaning of the song "You Can Call Me Al" by Paul Simon means and get back to me. Once you fully understand the song and why the video was done the way it was, you'll understand why Sapiocracy isn't going to happen.
There is a facility that actively suppresses what you're talking about, but you apparently didn't understand it. That's OK.
You need to know what you’re talking about so you can explain this “facility”.
You should write that in a substack.
What is this facility and how does it suppress "this"? And what do you mean by "this" eggsactly? Otherwise what's the point of bringing it up? Ones is supposed to convey ideas if you know...they consider themselves knowledgeable.
I strongly suggest reading the PDF. The feedback loop for checking the results of the decision prevents what you're talking about.
I want to argue the point about weighting. You can't just dismiss it by saying "go read x, y. or z" that's intellectual laziness.
Oh darn.
The “facility” of collective wisdom is usually ignored and that gives thhe most accurate results. It’s a weird phenomenon because it gives the most accurate results despite the condition that nobody knows anything about the subject. The Egalitarian Proposal System is based on this phenomenon. We all know how wrong "experts" can get things. With collective wisdom, the two outer extremes cancel each other out, leaving the vast majority in the middle. I’d say it’s something like an 80% majority. That is why the Egalitarian Proposal System’s voting majority threshold is 80% (of a quorum). A quorum standard has to be decided, and that can be done by the very same system. Not to diss Sapiocracy at all, I think it’s brilliant. However what troubles me more is your attitude. It sounds like you just want to go along with the mob. I have watched your videos and I notice you don’t stand for truth and don't question wrong thinking. When we say nothing it is taken as agreed upon. What I think you stand for is getting along, not making waves, not losing friends, not upsetting anybody.
Brilliant.👏🏻 I can’t wait to see heads explode on TS if you share it there. 😆😆
If people actually spend the time to fully understand it, yes. Melting heads.