babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Syndicate
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Comment policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001- the authors
Seems that advice was in stereo.
Magoo - my kindred spirit!
..here's another upload site where you don't have to go through the song and dance like tinypic.
https://postimage.org/
Cool! Didn't know that one. Thx!
Thank you very much for your assistance with uploading the figures.
The discussion format is Figure 1:
And Figure 2 shows a point detail box:
Someone told me they liked Figure 1 (post #) because it reminded them of a diagnostic screen. That's what it is I guess, a diagnostic screen for discussions.
Please keep in mind that the main purpose is to convey sufficient information according to consistent logical principles, and it addresses one of the greatest barriers to public discussion, which is the personal management of the potentially large volume of diverse information.
Also, there are 2 general ways we need to talk, the simple listing of information and an actual decision tree. Figure 1 illustrates a decision tree, and Figure 2 illustrates one style of listing information.
Since the format has to accommodate all input, mine is as good as anyone's to use as an example. So Figure 1 is what I'd put forward as a start. The next step is to add information, but before that, since this is still the early development phase, I wanted to look at the picture itself for a minute.
A main assertion as to the viability of a realistic public discussion system is that graphics and text need to be integrated in order to be able to convey enough information so each person can suitably follow and interact in any discussions.
"Enough information" is the elephant in the room. It refers to both volume and type, and needs to be discussed and specific points defined.
Only through text can we communicate sufficiently to be able to run our country.
But it's only through graphics that we'll be able to manage that text.
Representing discussions as linked, single points (as text) is a core requirement for classification and universal comparison, and the entire page(s) is then for framing that text. This is akin to separating sentences in to parts of speech, where each part; adjective, conjunction, subject, etc., is a point detail.
The sentence provides the physical structure (ie. flowchart format) for the point details related to it, but we have to create a structure for a discussion.
You'd likely be surprised, as I was, how many nuances there are in discussion, potentially leading to different open text box arrays, that can be defined as distinct "philosophies", once you really start looking.
Not only that, but there are important differences in face to face vs computer oriented interaction, and individuals vs groups, etc.
I've stated (my opinion) before that any viable public discussion system has to be indendent of any application in order to be effective for every application. That, given the blinding array of potential styles, requires reduction to the fundamentals.
And there it is again. Little words, etc. slipped in to discourse that have a profound effect. "Fundamentals" this time. Gives me the shivers every time, even though I'm doing it. (How many of those kinds of things have been traitorously incorporated in to our laws.)
One main fundamental I use is the reduction to point details, so each can be uniquely classified. What's the right classification system is the question, of course, and that's why I mentioned Toulmin's work regarding how "normals" actually discuss.
Toulmin wished to find the everyday equivalent of the "all A are B; C is A; therefore C is B" classical syllogism. He recognized that people normally present an opinion or Claim, and then provide specific points to support that Claim, which he called "Grounds/Data".
Subsequent information; Qualifier, Rebuttal, Warrant, Backing; is then framed around these 2 core elements.
We have to considerably expand Toulmin's work, including adding a fairly extensive supporting information system for political application, but the idea of the general classification hierarchy and linearity of details (reflecting real discussion) is a common thread.
We also have to incorporate elements meant to progress the discussion (another fundamental). Large scale public discussions could easily (or would normally, given reality) become mired in endless interaction. Besides the nature of the beast itself, potential sabotage is an ever present threat.
The "Actionable Objective (AO)" is a standard information category specifically meant to provide a defined end-point to a discussion; and the position of it in Figure 1, on the same level and to the left of the Claim, also implies it's basic relevance. The AO also provides a better focus as to what Data points have to be discussed, potentially limiting the number required.
The "Qualifier (Q)" is another important standard category that potentially limits the number of Data points needed by limiting the Claim. In Fig.1 the Q arrow is not attached since there isn't one (yet) for this question, and the empty box wouldn't be shown unless desired. There also wouldn't be a Q icon on the Claim box, as there is for the AO.
Figure 1 shows 3 expanded Caveats (CV) linked to D1. These text boxes are expanded because they show potential decision points. If a person votes for D1, the 3CV also would have to be voted on. When you look at these 3 CV, it may strike you that one (or more) is missing.
And, you may have ideas as to required Qualifiers.
Ibid.
Single point details are the backbone of all discussion. Decisions about single point details come together in the decision about whatever's being decided on. You know, like "a proof is a proof".
So, before continuing with Figure 1, let me comment generally and on Figure 2, which is the gateway for a single point detail. Figure 2 could become an important structure in the analysis of public discussion. It's an integral part of Figure 1, but also independent.
A main orienting concept is that, again, literally all discussions are made up of linked, single point details. Any discussion, anywhere and by anyone, can be taken and dissected, just like a sentence.
We may well not yet agree how every single part should be categorized, but visualize 2 people discussing, and before each is a transparent HUD. Every word they say is written verbatim.
Theoretically we could then push a button and have every word collapsed in to single point details, each represented by a unique label such as W2-D3-C2, etc. So the text changes to a grid (ie. lines) of icons.
There's no more text, just lines of icons (boxed acronym links). Naturally, no one could look at that and make sense of it. We have to read text.
But, now we can expand different sets of text, highlighting their relationships. We could expand the text for all the Claims, leaving everything else as icons. We could expand all the AO's, or all text boxes linked to C3, for eg.
Also, visualize an article ( ie. text block) about anything. Display it on the left on a 3 column page. In the center column reduce the text to lines of icons (let's say we've agreed on how to label each). In the right column extract the icons, as text, you want to evaluate, and build a Figure 2 style representation of that single point.
We can then label the original text as green or red, whether we agree or not, resp., etc., based on the right column evaluation.
When the color is incorporated in to the original text, the result is the main block of text with different words shown in either red, green or plain black (ie. neutral or not yet evaluated).
It's the Figure 2 style representation that allows that kind of graphic augment to have real meaning. Even this very simple thing can make a big difference.
But, this first approximation, using red, green and plain text, isn't quite enough. They can't show the conditions where a single point has been evaluated but there hasn't been a decision or the decision is tentative.
However, adding "bold" to represent that rounds out the picture. That gives 6 potential conditions represented by different text styles, green plain (agree or true), red plain (disagree or false), green bold (tentative agree), red bold (tentative disagree), black bold (examined but no decision), and black plain (not yet evaluated).
A person can do their own evaluations, and label the text themselves, and/or they can access the evaluations done by others.
There's a good deal more to that, and it's an important part, but I want to end this post with a few comments about Figure 2, then go back to Figure 1 next post.
I think most everyone probably has read an article or something and saw a point detail that they strongly approved or dissaproved of. Some people might be moved to interact on that point specifically and only, if they could, for one reason or another. The Figure 2 style provides that framework.
Figure 2 is only one style of information display, but it's the one that links current information exchange methods with the new standardized discussion record format. Such a bland statement belies the profound importance of the idea.
You can see that Figure 1 is an array of Figure 2's. Assuming we have the above mentioned program for analysing articles and other blocks of text, Figure 2, the rightmost column, is the perfect link.
As new formal discussions/decisions are created, there's already a reservoir of easily referenced point details in the proper format. We don't need a current formal discussion to be able to look at an article, or any block of text; and define, extract, store and evaluate individual points like that.
And people don't have to be involved in any discussions to comment on individual points that might be used in those discussions. Of course, that kind of augment has a fair bit of intrinsic value, but it's real power is as the link to the formal discussion/decision format.
The arrangement of icons in Figure 2 is to help with understanding the info, and there are many other kinds of potential augments, like changing text characteristics (bold, italic, size, color, etc.), external text highlights (asterisk, exclamation mark, question mark, etc.), backgrounds, etc. I'll go in to the graphics part during the description of Figure 1.
Ibid.
Figured it out, I used the wrong URL initially.
mmphosis said:
New Systems mean new problems.
(John Gall (1978). Systemantics. Pocket Books. p. 29. ISBN 0-671-81910-0)
Thank you very much, mmphosis, for the post and reference. I hadn't seen that treatment.
Along with that axiom, in the same book the corollary of Axiom 27 may be very important in our context:
27. "SUCCESS" OR "FUNCTION" IN ANY SYSTEM MAY BE FAILURE IN THE LARGER OR SMALLER SYSTEMS TO WHICH THE SYSTEM IS CONNECTED.
Corollary:
IN SETTING UP A NEW SYSTEM, TREAD SOFTLY, YOU MAY BE DISTURBING ANOTHER SYSTEM THAT IS ACTUALLY WORKING.
After the comments about Figure 1, I'll use Gall's original list to help recognize and evaluate the systems aspect of this work. Rather than list all the points, I'll briefly address 4 of the main concepts (as I see them): 1) complexity, 2) interaction (internal and external), 3) growth, 4) monitoring and evaluation.
Ibid.
PS - The text analysis (red, green, etc.) mentioned previously is an external application, and not part of the core system.
Figure 1 (post#35) shows the discussion/decision format.
Before describing the structure, to help visualize how it's used, let's say a person wondered if C-51 should be examined to see if there are problems with it, they'd use a Figure 1 to post a Claim/Topic like, "What are the problems with Bill C-51", and an Actionable Objective (AO) like, "vote on starting a full public evaluation". Others add Data (D) points, etc. and ultimately the decision is made to start an evaluation.
To evaluate C-51, we start with the table of contents, each heading (a Figure 2) is a link, or expands, to show each sub-heading (also Figure 2's). Just like is done all the time now, nothing new.
Let's say there's a page big enough to see the whole expanded flowchart of headings only. Now we apply the color augment mentioned previously for blocks of text (red, green, etc.) to indicate current state with respect to discussion. The augmented heading flowchart now shows up to 6 relevant conditions that are very easily discernible. Just visualize that. Click one of the headings shown in plain black text (hasn't been examined yet) and go to the text.
Remember that we always have to get to text. Everything up to that is a function of graphics. Good graphics means easy navigation, which will be a critical aspect for success of the global system. That's something web designers, etc. have known for a very long time, so again, nothing new.
Once at the text, we'd start by identifying the points and put an initial color code to them or look at someone else's. Extracting single points gives a Figure 2, which can then be used as a point in a current discussion as is, or be the basis for a Claim/Topic using Figure 1 style.
For eg., Part 1, section 2, sub-section 2 of Bill C-51 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/412/Government/C-51/C-51_1/C-51_...) (bold is my highlight, and pretend it's red too) is:
“activity that undermines the security of Canada” means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada
or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:
(a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;
(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreigninfluenced activities;
(d) terrorism;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;
(f) interference with critical infrastructure;
(g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;
(h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and
(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.
For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.
I don't know even a fraction of the vile perversions the traitor regime of harper slipped in to our laws, but if this section of C-51 isn't the most despicable, I shudder to think what else is out there. But I don't want to debate the content here, rather the structure of our evaluation.
Each letter is a point detail, as is the first and last text blocks, so each is a Figure 2. I'd start by highlighting as bold (tentative) and red (disagree) the text of letters (a) and (i). I use bold because that's an initial opinion. A person can label and personalize in any way they want, but I would always label the first look as bold.
You can see that when I finish highlighting, whether or not I do any more even, or any, I can upload it for direct comparison. What would that give?...a poll.
I think it would be a particularly good and relevant one, but it's nothing that can't be done now. And, once it's put out there, even if popular at the beginning, it's only a matter of time for it to be judged too laborous for little gain, and forgotten.
Without my work, we can improve things a bit, such as when a point is clicked it goes to an information page for that point. That's an improvement, but nowhere near enough.
With my work, when you click on a point detail, you go to a discussion page. The discussion page has information (as Figure 2's and not), so it incorporates what we can already do; but it also now has Figure 1 style discussions/decisions.
With Figure 1 and 2 styles, we can not only organize the static info more easily and better, but also make decisions about different aspects, ultimately deciding if we should change the wording of the point detail, since it's part of a law, or leave it as is.
So there'd be a list of Figure 1's related to whatever is relevant. For laws, etc., one of the Figure 1's would be a decision if the text of the law should be changed. If the decision is to change the text, another Figure 1 would decide what the new text should be.
When you incorporate my work, the end-point isn't just information, but also interaction and decision. By using the actual Table of Contents grid as the gateway, when the color coding system is incorporated it would be a dynamic poll, so as discussions and decisions continue, there'd be a running poll and the effects of the changes would be seen directly as people react.
Note that this is an application, and not part of the core system. I wanted to outline this one particularly, though, because it's a general framework for analysis and it shows how large numbers of people can interact right down to the actual wording of laws. I know our decisions are meaningless right now, but that's another problem. I also wanted to show that I do have an endgame, and there are others. But, from now on please keep in mind an idea articulated at the end of Star Trek VI, that just because we can do a thing, it doesn't mean we must do that thing.
Next post I'll continue with explanation of the structure of the Figure 1 page.
Ibid.
The purpose of Figure 2 (post#35) is to develop an information grid around a single point detail, without the discussion aspect.
Figure 1 (post#35) provides the discussion aspect. What needs to be discussed is another matter, but no matter what it is, literally, Figure 1 is the framework for it.
Since this whole thing is meant to efficiently present information, it pays to briefly consider first just how information can be presented in this medium (a computer screen).
Text (including audio, which is equivalent to text in this context) and graphics are the only 2 options. If anyone can convey information on a computer screen that isn't through text and/or graphics, please let me know.
The text is the words, of course, and graphics refers to both the thing itself, an icon or color change, etc., as well as absolute and relative positioning. Much of the info relevant during a discussion will be shown, or reflected, through graphics.
Looking now only at Figure 1, not the whole page, there are 3 main issues related to the text itself, the rest is about graphics.
The first issue with the text is the amount of open text for each box. This is the minumum required to define a single point detail. The less text to read the better, as long as the concept is whole.
The next issue is which boxes would be open on the default layout. A person could collapse everything so there's only the Claim (C) box (and so would be a Figure 2), but default would also show an empty box for AO, Q and one D, arranged as shown in Figure 1.
When a person goes to a discussion page for the first time, those 4 categories would allow them to get a decent initial grip on what's going on. After that, they can open and close to taste, except the Claim box always has to be open.
The third issue is deciding what text to have available on the page, in whatever way, and I think that's been mainly explained already, and will be more later, especially for specific applications; except I haven't mentioned there's also text outside the text boxes, such as user notes, etc., which could be anything and placed anywhere, and are only labelled as a Personal Note (PN).
The layout of Figure 1 is meant to help with following the discussion. The Claim box is the initial reference, and the other open text boxes are arranged according to specific horizontal and vertical relationships, as well as proximity.
Adjacent at the same level and to the left and right are details (eg. AO, Q) related to framing the Claim itself, in order to help limit the number of Data (D) points that are relevant. The Claim is the only one absolutely necessary, but ideally the AO and Q would also be there, along with some D.
Below the Claim and to the right is the vertical list of Data (D) boxes, which are the support for the Claim. They're the main things that have to be discussed in order to make a decision about the AO, with respect to the Claim.
For the Claim in Figure 1, "how should we choose senators", the natural set of Data points is the possible ways we can choose them.
Note that this shows how the Qualifier (Q) changes the number of Data points needed. We can have Q as, "only choices that don't require a change in the constitution", "only choices that require a change in the constitution", or as now where there isn't a Q, so D for both Q would be listed.
Here's also a stunning example of how graphics can greatly reduce volume, simplify and improve things. Most people, including myself, would likely consider whether we have to change the constitution as a central point in this decision.
Instead of having 2 Figure 1's with different Q, if we don't have a Q, whether the constitution has to be changed can still be indicated by having the Law (L) icon, which would link (at least) to the relevant laws saying the constitution would have to be changed for this choice, red instead of blue. A Personal Note (PN) in the open space under the Claim would indicate that red meant a constitution change. You probably wouldn't even need a PN.
That would mean one Figure 1, but also incorporating that one extra piece of critical secondary information at a glance. Visualize the Law (L) icons in post#35 having red background for those requiring a constitution change. Would that make it better for the comparison? I think it would.
At the same vertical place but on the left of the D boxes is a space meant for different open text boxes, if necessary. If there was an Establishment of Principle (EP), for eg., linked to the Claim, a person could have that box open on the left, just under the Claim. The EP doesn't technically limit the Claim, but it may help clarify it. Regardless, it's the place for other open text.
That gives 2 vertical lines of boxes, with the area between them open for notes, icons, etc. (none shown on Figure 1). On the outside, the right for Data and left for misc. text blocks, is for expanding text boxes linked to those point details.
Figure 1 not only has the arrangement of text boxes to help understand the info, but there are also lines and arrows that can be modified, and open space for other graphics.
The flowchart of open text frames an independent graphic space. This would be a unit that could be dragged and dropped like Figure 2 (important for comparison). It's home page, though, is another important graphic space for containing supporting information and other interaction.
Ibid.
Fig1 organizes information, it's not a discussion. Once the Fig1 grid is created, the discussion occurs within the point details. Ultimately it's decisions about the individual points, particularly the Data (D) points, that follow through to a decision about the Actionable Objective (AO).
That's why the static area outside the mobile Fig1 on it's home webpage can't have unique elements essential to it's content. That has to be attached directly somewhere, so it could be drag/dropped as a unit with Fig1.
Interaction in public discussion isn't just the Fig1. For eg., if a person was part of a political comment board, quick access would be outside Fig1, most likely on the far right or left, but it could be anywhere outside the space of Fig1.
Notifications of any kind, note boards and specific chat links, etc. would also be there, as would text/info a person has chosen for any reason not to add to Fig1, but still wants in a prominent place. For analysis, only Fig1's would be used, so any info a person wants others to see would have to be attached to it.
Having 2 distinct spaces like that, one publicly uploadable (and so comparable on a large scale) and the other private, reflects (I believe) an important aspect of discussion; that everyone shares some info while keeping other info secret. This provides the structure for that part of it.
I think that's enough about Fig1 and 2 for now. More will come out, but you likely get the general picture. Let me continue with the potential for analysis and the universality aspect, then the systems aspect, using Gall's list (ref. post#39) for orientation.
Just generally, anyone in to social analysis of public discussions, etc. should be drooling over this. I'm not an expert in that area, but I doubt there's anything anywhere near this. Once the standard record format is defined, meaningful user personalizations can be directly and consistently compared. Since those personalizations are based on personal opinion of point details, a single comparison could reveal many subtleties of public opinion.
When a person starts or enters a discussion, information is at the default location (still to be determined exactly what that is). After initial, the person can move and/or highlight anything.
The icons are drag and drop, so if we arbitrarily defined the top of a text box as important, and the bottom as less important, no matter where it is to start, when uploaded to the public page and numbers are tallied, it's a running poll of the importance of that particular icon's text (wrt (with respect to) the relevant "higher" point detail). We can add: a person is indifferent for a detached icon (but near). Let's add the red/green highlight system, etc., etc.
Also, analysis of subtleties of opinion is possible by comparing how different people word Claims for the same issue, etc., and which Data points are used for each, etc., etc.
If those aspects could be effectively developed it would be extraordinary. There are many, many possibilities for that kind of thing. There are other aspects of analysis related to specific applications, but I just wanted to show that the potential for analysis is mind-boggling. I have many ideas to expand on later, when dealing with that part in detail.
I also wanted to comment on why this is a universal format for public discussions (information exchange). There are 2 main reasons.
1) The truism that all discourse (incl. public discussions, but not only) is composed of linked, single details.
2) My opinion that all discussions have basically the same information structure.
By now, anyone following this is likely sick of hearing that "single point detail" statement. But, before I stop mentioning it so much, it has to be explained more, since it may not mean exactly what you think.
"Single point detail" can be defined as anything from a single character to the whole block of text, even if it's an entire book...and that's the greatest power of the concept.
Literally, all people speak by linking together single characters. Individual letters for english, more complex characters for other groups (like chinese, etc.). No matter what language, you come down to the smallest units, it doesn't matter if they're equivalent or not.
Then, those smallest units (point details) are linked together to form "higher" point details, and ultimately link to become discourse. Once you see that, the main question (which is now answered) goes from, "what is universal to all discourse" to "how do single details link to produce discourse."
There are 2 parts to the new question. The more fundamental is, "how do the single details go together to produce concept," then there's, "how do those concepts link to produce discourse."
There are mountains of information and discussion about language, etc, but it's not necessary to go in to that great of detail. It's sufficient to see, for English for eg., that the minimum point details, letters (ie. characters), go together in specifically and consistently definable ways to make groups that are "higher" point details. Those details go together in strictly definable ways to make parts of speech and ultimately sentences, paragraphs, etc., each of which are progressively higher point details.
Point details incorporate in to higher associations in order to impart more information, which affects comprehension. Minimum point details for different languages may not be the same, but ultimately concepts have to coincide. Fig1 can't make them coincide, it can only show if they do or don't, and exactly how.
(cont'd next post)
(cont'd from last post)
If concepts don't coincide (equivalent representations of concept as text), it can't be mutually understood, since there isn't a common way to say it (yet).
If I'm talking to my Martian friend and say, "please go in the other room and bring me the blue flower", and they came back with a red flower, it would appear there wasn't mutual understanding of "blue", since the other details were acted upon correctly, although they could have just guessed right. Observation is sufficient to see there's some kind of misunderstanding there, though.
If my friend doesn't understand "blue", it's because they don't know the reference I'm using. We go in the other room and I point to the blue flower. It could be they just have a different single word for that, so if I used that word instead of blue, they'd understand next time. Or, it could be they represent the concept of "blue" using one or more other concepts, or in some other way.
Say we found out through investigation that they didn't have a word for blue or flower as individual concepts. They knew most of our language and understood our reference for flower, and so to get a flower.
But when I pointed to the one I wanted, they said, "you should have asked for the glarb flower, then". Does glarb mean blue, no, it means "of the emperor". So, blue correlates with a relationship an emperor had to flowers that I don't know. So when I try to get my friend to understand next time, I either have to use their term, which may not fit with how I roll, or express in my terms so they can correlate, which I have to find out how.
Fortunately they know "flower" and "emperor", so all I have to do is say, "please go in the other room and bring me the flower of the emperor," and they'd bring the right one. So I expressed their reference in my terms.
Then I say, "would you go upstairs and bring me the blue shirt." Before going, my friend says they know to get a shirt, but don't understand which one. A bit puzzled, I say, "please go upstairs and bring me the glarb shirt." They smile knowingly, go upstairs and return with a yellow shirt.
Universality follows from my work because everything (can) goes to point details, which can be correlated back to fundamental information units (morphemes; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme)), which can then be correlated to basic references.
Once we mutually understand the most basic references, each participant can accurately build the other's viewpoint within their own reference system, so at least there can be mutual understanding of the info, notwithstanding any personal opinions/decisions about the info.
The example deals with language, and a translator obviates the need for us to do anything because they've already created a point detail correlation system.
But, what about when we discuss, for eg., whether to approve pipelines. There are no translators. We have to find any correlations ourselves, and it's through Fig1's and 2's it can be done.
Of course, as with all discussions, the details can be understood exactly the same by all parties, but there's still disagreement. So, it's not about misunderstanding the info, it's difference of opinion on the priority of different points. And, there'll always be people on all possible sides for arbitrary reasons, there'll always be some who try to lie, and true opinions may never actually come out; even a perfect system won't change that.
"Discussion" is a system(s) for purposeful information exchange. The static format(s), including info categories, has to reflect how it's actually done, or it won't be used.
Fortunately, all people discuss in basically the same way. Hover above any discussion, and you'll hear 2 general processes, a person lectures or listens part of the time and interacts (responds) part of the time.
When a person lectures, they're providing a list of point details that could be posted verbatim on a board as easily. Any lecture, ipso facto, is linear.
When a person responds, what do they do? They add another list of details on the end of the other's list. When it's two (or a few) people, that can work fine. They know what they're talking about.
But what about millions undertaking potentially extended and complex discussions, coming in at different times and places, with different backgrounds, individually interested in different aspects, etc. It just can't be done that way. The listing is an important part of it, but the interaction has to be better than just adding one list to another.
When not just listing info, you're trying to come to some decision. People believe things for specific reasons. They may never say what the real reasons are, but any point that someone wants others to believe or agree with has to be "supported" by other points.
And that's the basis for the structure in Fig1, I say this(C1) because of this(D1) and this(D2) and this(D3), etc. That doesn't mean the D's are the only possible decision points.
With our example, "how do we choose senators (C)," the natural points of support are the possible choices (D). The Claim isn't a point of decision there, the decisions are with the Data. Within the same structure, though, someone could make the Claim another point of decision, just a different kind.
(cont'd next post)
(cont'd from last post)
A person might say that the Claim is moot, since the senate should be abolished. That's a Counterclaim(CC), and if you agree with the CC, it's pointless to discuss the current 4 D's because the C would be irrelevant. On Fig1, a CC icon would be attached to the Claim box.
A person coming in at any time, and from anywhere, can see there's a CC, and that it's specifically relevant to the C. They can look at it, and mark it as important or not for themselves, without having to wade through reams of text to find it. As other info is added, it's attached to the point detail box it's referring to, and labelled with a descriptive icon.
So Fig1 shows a grid of point details, where the open boxes and layout reflect how people actually discuss. On the one hand, a point is put out there and then other points are listed to support that point. On the other is the ability to evaluate each individual point detail, both within and out of context (through Fig2).
I don't know if the preceding discourse clarifies anything, but the utility and universality of this approach will ultimately be shown through application.
And, it may not be obvious how this kind of info format will help, since probably the most significant and pervasive problem we have is that it doesn't matter what we say or decide, we have no power to do anything but complain. Right now that is.
But if the time ever does come when we, the people, can exert real authority, especially between elections, there has to be a better way to do it than just trying to create a "better" or "more inclusive" political party, or vainly hoping to hire "honest" managers.
Big decisions are the sum of small ones. When we find a way to make small ones with confidence, it's only a matter of time before we can make the big ones.
Next post I wanted to look at the "system" aspect. Then the NDP's "Leap Manifesto", with respect to the information exchange process only (a bit boring), not decision making about the point details.
Ibid.
John Gall's work (John Gall (1977). Systemantics. ISBN 0-8129-0674-8; http://wtf.tw/ref/gall.pdf) provides a good general framework to consider the systems aspects. For background: Gall looked at "failures" at institutions and other large systems, and compiled a list of 32 axioms and other sub-statements related to the causes, etc. of those failures, based on what he saw as fundamental properties of systems themselves, independent of the purpose of that system.
The result, termed "systemantics" (from "systems display antics" and a play on "semantics") deals mainly with the potential pitfalls of complexity. Although Gall's treatment may be a bit tongue in cheek, it still identifies some good points. There's no need to address each axiom, etc., but rather to consider 4 of the main concepts they deal with (as I see it): 1) complexity, 2) interaction (internal and external), 3) growth, 4) monitoring and evaluation.
The most important things being introduced are the Fig1 and Fig2 styles of info display, which are basically briefing reports that double as diagnostic screens, and formatted to facilitate detailed record-keeping.
They were created from the most basic principles, literally square 1, and provide the core system. As far as systems go, you can't get much simpler. "Complexity" is added with the ability to take public input and also to have a consistent permanent record.
Taking public input means managing a web-site and creating a process for vetting info to have as open for the public standard display. Note that the process of vetting is only to decide what info to have as open on default, and users can modify their own, and all original input would always be accessible at the point of display. The website would have all the same details as any other website, with special attention being paid to volume and security.
The permanent record is a standard database, and would have similar details to those existing now. The classification and point separation systems are the biggest things there, and I believe using unique, descriptive acronyms for points of discussion will work very well. Even if you don't agree with the exact names, the idea is sound.
Internal interaction is between the Fig1 and Fig2 styles with the public input and database structures. So, complexity is built, as apps, on the most basic concepts. This relates to Gall's observations that it's better when larger systems are built from successful smaller ones. Of course the smaller ones still have to be shown to be successful, but they will.
External interaction is how it relates to current systems, like meetings, tv, lectures, etc. If meetings can benefit from a better info report, more power to them. It doesn't matter if they use them during the meeting, they can be applied after the fact by anyone, from a transcript.
What you get is a series of dynamic briefing reports for point details, which can be updated during use. Is that going to help? That depends. If solutions are created by deciding on appropriate actions related to specific questions and problems, my discussion framework will help a user to see where disagreement exactly lies, and point to what appropriate actions might be relevant, by spreading the discussion details out. But, solutions aren't created by the info display, someone has to input them as text, ideally after considering the current info. Once a suitable series of discussion Claims are determined, leading to decisions about relevant AO's, those results are incorporated in to "higher" decision trees. All decisions are the sum of smaller ones, whether recorded or not.
Better briefing reports should greatly improve public discussions, but it wouldn't change the nature of the essential interactions. Decisions still have to be made, and that's done using personal opinion about each of the "factual" points. All this part of the work provides is an information grid.
It may not make any difference for many, if not most, meetings that go on now, since selective personal bias seems to be the primary motivator. But it will allow others to follow discussions and interact with the info grid with as little time and effort requirement as possible.
So I'm introducing a new system to allow large scale public interaction, and when established we'll have to figure out what needs to be talked about. That introduces "new problems", but if the process isn't started, it will never be finished. Fortunately, we can apply the info system and learn without having it affect anything. When more confident, it can be applied as much or little as desired.
Another aspect of systems is "growth." Growth means 2 general things, an increase in the number of entries and expansion through application. Once developed fully, the Fig1 and Fig2 styles will be relatively static. So, they'll be applied as is, over and over. With the increase in entries, searching methods for the database would have to evolve to handle it, but that shouldn't be difficult.
Real growth comes from specific applications, and that's where the essential utility will be shown clearly. Political application is my motivation, but it's relevant for any info exchange process.
Monitoring and evaluation are the last main aspects of systems, and I also want to go in to that during the discourse about the applications. It suffices to say right now that those aspects are integral to all parts. Next post I want to have a quick look at the Leap Manifesto, mainly for how the info is presented, but also a bit about the points themselves.
Ibid.
Many (most) likely won't bother to read the "Leap Manifesto" (LM)(https://leapmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Manifesto-en.pdf), because they don't like (trust) the NDP.
The information in it is politically motivated, of course, but that makes no difference to the identification of the idea structure. It's like any other block of text, from an analysis point of view, and could as easily be a recipe, "news" article, free trade agreement, or even the constitution.
The LM is a good example for 2 reasons. It's meant for political persuasion and is also a formal document for an organization, so exact wording is important, just like for laws.
Since this is dealing with a real, current document (ie. block of text), and since it's a political "manifesto", I might as well start in to political application as well. Of course, that means there'll be much more explanation. I just want to apologize in advance.
Political application has to deal with a number of specific big issues, but a ubiquitous aspect for all applications is text analysis. Only through text can we communicate sufficiently to be able to run our country.
Two of Gall's axioms(http://wtf.tw/ref/gall.pdf) are particularly relevant here:
"31. The Vector Theory of Systems: Systems run better when designed to run downhill.
Corollary: Systems aligned with human motivational vectors will sometimes work. Systems opposing such vectors work poorly or not at all." and,
"32. Loose systems last longer and work better."
When a person reads a block of text, they're doing it for a reason, there's always an expectation of some kind. That expectation could stem from something like, "I want to see just what kind of wackos the NDP are," "I want to evaluate this with a view to improving it," "there's nothing to read so I'll read this," or anything else.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter why, everyone has to evaluate (ie. make decisions about) text by reading single point details, there's simply no other way. So, differences related to expectation (ie. motivation) can't be in the process itself.
Differences in expectation are reflected in the extent of analysis. (Keep in mind this deals only with how a person interacts, not whether that interaction will ultimately mean anything, which is another issue.)
The possible range is from nothing, meaning reading all or part of it without subsequent interaction; to full analysis, meaning separating, highlighting, labelling and arranging all point details in the appropriate Fig1, Fig2 and list style detail hierarchies, incorporating that in to the common info system (or finding them in it), and looking at the analyses of others.
The entire range would be easy on a computer, but media units with small screens would likely be a bit harder for some aspects. For many (most) people phone apps will be essential to interact, though, so it's necessary to consider that right from the start. Management based on rearranging text blocks wouldn't work well, but what I call the 6 point text highlight system could.
Before continuing, I want to clarify exactly what's going on here.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss details related to large scale public discussions, and how to make them meaningful and dynamic through format.
All I've done so far is define essential missing general structure, Fig 1 and Fig2, which are visualizations of a database. Once we have the missing structure, it still has to be integrated in to the current information system to produce the application, which is the conceptual basis for the discussion/decision (network).
I'm using political (a big one), since it's a pressing issue, but it's the same for any app.
All applications ideally do at least 4 main things, define down to decision points the detail hierarchies that are relevant for the info, highlight the most relevant decisions necessary to express the relevant will, ensure sufficient supporting info, and dynamically correlate current info to the formal decision network.
One of the most important issues for political application is the last one. While we can literally follow a flowchart of single points to any detail/decision, it's not the natural way we exchange and evaluate info, so (large scale) interaction based only on that would surely fail.
The natural thing is to read articles (ie. block text) and listen to speakers (ie. verbal text with extra non-text cues). Serf and owner alike do it that way.
(cont'd next)
(cont'd from previous)
The following link shows the Leap Manifesto (LM) text with the 6 point text highlight system applied.
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=06976317526291191142
I absolutely don't want to discuss the substance of the points themselves, but would very, very much appreciate feedback for evaluating and developing the process. The 6 point text highlight system could be a very useful primary public interaction mechanism, but it has to be well discussed first.
To help with development, I ask anyone interested to follow a process. Everyone reading this has probably already read the original document for the LM, and that would always ideally be the first step.
All I've done is copy straight from the pdf and put each sentence on it's own line, regardless how many details it contains, to make it easier to see. You can add any linear spaces, you just can't change linear order or any words, punctuation, etc.
Please look at it from 2 different mindsets, as any person with any possible motivation (including sabotage) vs. as one of a thousand NDP members at a closed conference with a genuine desire to interact honestly.
Please scan my highlights.
Please create your own version, without looking at mine again, and you can change each at any time so don't worry whether it's exactly what you (think you) mean initially. First impression is what I want right now, with as little prior instruction as possible. Any time you change a highlight, just record at the end of the line, in brackets, going from what to what for each change.
Please put your and my versions side by side and compare highlights for each line. What first impression does that give you about similarities and differences in what we think.
Please record (point form preferably) comments but don't post any yet. In a couple of weeks I'll post a few comments before seeing yours, and then ask for before and after comments.
I know it may be difficult to decide which highlight might represent what you mean at first. Remember that this is front-line research, and is very much a trial and error iterative process. The point right now isn't to make decisions about the points, it's only to understand how we can interact in that way, and how that can facilitate realistic "public" gov't.
At this point, don't use more than just these 6 highlights, but jot down any other highlights and (graphic) details you think might enhance interpretation and interaction (these can be incorporated in different ways later, for more specific interaction).
Also, given only these 6 highlights please generally consider:
1)what kind of info do you think that allows us to exchange, how do #'s matter;
2)how does that fit in to the public discussion/decision process;
3)how do you personally frame what thoughts in those highlights;
4)do you believe a person might change how they presented the details/document if they'd known beforehand people would interact using the 6 point highlight system (and so having the system affect/control the input/output-is that good or bad);
5)how would you like others to use those highlights in order to make it easier for you to understand their opinion, given you respect that others may hold any range of opinion and the requirement is to have it represented to their satisfaction as well, not just yours
6)does the same highlight mean different things for different specific details
Here's where I'd really appreciate some feedback, but again please don't comment until after my next post, in a couple of weeks. And remember this is only the first step in creating formats to apply large scale public discussion to political control. It's not a formal decision mechanism, which requires full context and linearity to a vote, but is only meant as a broad indicator that will have different utility in different contexts (applications).
You'll form an initial opinion regarding how you'd highlight, and if you can please jot down (point form) about why you use that highlight, what you're trying to say, etc., then next post I'll give a few of mine and we can compare. If after a while you change your mind about a highlight, please record the change and why you did it (new info, arbitrary change of opinion, etc.).
I don't ask anyone to do the whole document. Just choose 2 or 3 details (or however many matter to you) and do only those. The process is exactly the same whether all or one, and it's only the process I'm interested in now.
Ibid.
Last post gave a link to the Leap Manifesto text with my 6 point text highlight system applied. I asked anyone interested to hold off commenting because I want individuals to teach the system, rather than vice versa.
It occurs to me I should point out a couple of things about apps in general before going in to that, though, because that goes directly in to political application.
I've mentioned there are different potential apps, but haven't explained exactly what I mean by that yet. For an information system, political application may be the giant in the crowd, but although application to something like recipe development is a great deal easier, it's because of context, not structure.
Say I want an info system to develop and keep recipes. I want people to interact easily, so have posted a list of recipe titles and a click on a title brings up a single interactive page for each.
At the top of the page is the name, "Jello Surprise", or whatever. Below it there's a column of numbers and beside that another column with associated specific ingredients. Below those is cooking instructions as block text across the whole bottom.
I doubt there's a single person that couldn't look at that and understand the meaning and specific relationships for each point detail. The instructions is a single point detail (ie. irreducable in the given context) that contains is own linked single point details, and the others are single point details themselves, but that doesn't ever matter.
Instead of just reading, a person wants to interact in order to create the "best" recipe, and that's what I want too. There are only so many ways a person can interact that are relevant for the concept. All require something specific to be identified first, ie. a specific point detail, and that's the same for all app's.
If a person disagreed with the amount of white sugar, using 2/3 cup instead of 1/2, they could indicate by highlighting the 1/2 in plain red. If the change had significant potential impact on the desired outcome, meaning a "good" dish, they could bold it. I think all 6 text highlights are general enough to be relevant for all apps.
An assumption is that the "1/2" the person highlights red refers to white sugar, and that's based purely on physical relationship of the text on the page. All apps are the same that way.
When I see the red 1/2, I know someone disagrees but not why, and would click on it. If it's bold I know it's important to someone, and are more motivated to check, etc. A click on the red 1/2 brings an interaction screen where you can see the information someone added. All apps are the same that way.
Now there's one subtlety to distinguish different apps, standard prompts for info. Every app has the same technical format for the interaction screen, but the initial open text displays are going to differ. "1/2" (or 1/2 cup) is a number, and when it's highlighted red it means someone disagrees somehow. When you think about how someone could disagree with a number in this context (app), whatever the reason why, it must be associated with a suggested new number, regardless whether they input it at the time.
Also, there has to be a reason for the change, so a comment of some kind. The standard display would show the original number, 1/2, an arrow and an empty open text box with the label "New Measure" or something, and beside that an empty text box with the label "Comments" which would be for how that person thinks that change affects the dish, why they're suggesting it.
There'd always be the 1/2, but none or all of the open boxes could be filled. If a cook clicked on a red 1/2, but saw none of the open input boxes were filled, they'd probably click off right away without a second thought, or add the details themselves. When blank, experience tells them the extra info they need to evaluate the interaction isn't there.
But if someone not so sure checks, they still see that those pieces (categories) of info are particularly relevant, even with no values, and it may help them in further analysis. So application is basically finding good prompts, and every app w(c)ould have a unique default info display in both what's initially open and how they're arranged, but all are just rearrangements of the universal format, and so can be fully correlated anytime, internally and externally. It's all the same market.
(cont'd next)
(cont'd from previous)
Another aspect of all apps relates to details like, "1/2 cup white sugar." That's a single point detail in the context of recipe, but it's also made up of 4 independent single point details in the context of ingredient, and one of those details is 3 details in the context of fraction. That technically never matters (in a given context a point detail is a point detail regardless of internal structure), but potentially could significantly affect user interaction in at least one way for more complex applications, like political.
For political, putting point details together is virtually certainly going to be the norm, not exception, and they aren't usually going to be single words or characters. For recipes, I can look at each "sub" detail and understand what it means, and especially how changing one would affect the others in the given context.
Say I want to develop the recipe, I have to define why, so I say it's to make it sweeter. To accomplish that I have to look at the details, and decide to look at the cooking instructions first. I look at each and decide none have an effect on sweetness. Then I look at the ingredients.
In order to evaluate, I first have to understand what each ingredient does in that context (ie. it's purpose, why it's there), meaning as an ingredient in this specific recipe (adding sweetness, masking other flavours, etc.), as well as general info, when relevant.
Once I understand the ingredient as subordinate, meaning having a superior reference to give it unique relevance in the global context (as part of this recipe related to sweetness), I can look at the ingredient itself, within it's own technically independent context (as something that affects taste of a recipe, as opposed to as something granular, for eg.), as to what of it's details relate to sweetness, for eg., or calorie count, etc.
When a single user looks at the amount of sugar, they could look at the fact it's sugar, and if the goal is to decrease calories, might suggest using an artificial sweetener instead of sugar. They tell a friend to use sweetener instead of sugar, and they go and use 1/2 cup of white sweetener.
Of course, the vast majority of us would know not to do that, but it's only because of our specific experience. Each detail has a unique relevance, which for that ingredient is dependent on 6 other details. Changing only one of the 6 details has an effect related to it's global context, to add a flavour to a dish, and may or may not affect local context, meaning having an effect on other details in the group.
Changing sugar to sweetener obviates all the 5 other details, but changing 1 to 1.1 has no effect on any others, if the goal is increased sweetness. If the goal is to decrease calories, increasing to 1.1 would require a change in at least one other detail in order to satisfy it. If I changed cup to tbsp, I'd have to change at least one detail in the set of 3 for the number.
Another thing about recipes is that "taste" is always relevant, literally always. Not only that, it's always as a theoretical component of decision, regardless whether it's relevant in the individual info discovery process (whether it matters to a specific person).
Taste (and #calories, texture, etc.) is a universal decision detail for recipes, and even a detail like "Bake" could affect it, so every interaction screen could have a prompt for how it changes taste, and it would always be relevant. The constitution when talking about laws is one like that too.
There are several other things, and recipe development is an excellent example where subtleties in info management are very easily seen, but I'll go in to those when relevant later. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the relationships and interactions between those details are reflected in all apps similarly, regardless whether single numbers or books worth of info for each detail.
Sorry for the mass of text, but when I start in to the political application, I'd rather refer back to this if necessary. It's important to see what differs one app from another, but also how they're similar.
If there's anyone reading this who are with the NDP, and specifically interested in progressing the discussions related to the Leap Manifesto (LM), after the general discussion about the 6 point text highlight system, which was bumped for the apps difference thing earlier, I'm going to look at how they handle the info exchange aspect for the LM. This is purely from the perspective of idea development, not judgement, and is obviously only my opinion, but there's at least a chance it may ultimately help you.
Since it's political application, one thing to get out of the way right away is that this isn't a "non-partisan" discussion process, which isn't possible, desirable, or even relevant. That would be like saying the rules of grammar is a commie.
Next post I'd like to look briefly at the 6 point text highlight system in this context, and then start details related to the application to political.
Ibid.
Last post gave a link to the Leap Manifesto text with my 6 point text highlight system applied. I asked anyone interested to hold off commenting because I want individuals to teach the system, rather than vice versa.
It occurs to me I should point out a couple of things about apps in general before going in to that, though, because that goes directly in to political application.
I've mentioned there are different potential apps, but haven't explained exactly what I mean by that yet. For an information system, political application may be the giant in the crowd, but although application to something like recipe development is a great deal easier, it's because of context, not structure.
Say I want an info system to develop and keep recipes. I want people to interact easily, so have posted a list of recipe titles and a click on a title brings up a single interactive page for each.
At the top of the page is the name, "Jello Surprise", or whatever. Below it there's a column of numbers and beside that another column with associated specific ingredients. Below those is cooking instructions as block text across the whole bottom.
I doubt there's a single person that couldn't look at that and understand the meaning and specific relationships for each point detail. The instructions is a single point detail (ie. irreducable in the given context) that contains is own linked single point details, and the others are single point details themselves, but that doesn't ever matter.
Instead of just reading, a person wants to interact in order to create the "best" recipe, and that's what I want too. There are only so many ways a person can interact that are relevant for the concept. All require something specific to be identified first, ie. a specific point detail, and that's the same for all app's.
If a person disagreed with the amount of white sugar, using 2/3 cup instead of 1/2, they could indicate by highlighting the 1/2 in plain red. If the change had significant potential impact on the desired outcome, meaning a "good" dish, they could bold it. I think all 6 text highlights are general enough to be relevant for all apps.
An assumption is that the "1/2" the person highlights red refers to white sugar, and that's based purely on physical relationship of the text on the page. All apps are the same that way.
When I see the red 1/2, I know someone disagrees but not why, and would click on it. If it's bold I know it's important to someone, and are more motivated to check, etc. A click on the red 1/2 brings an interaction screen where you can see the information someone added. All apps are the same that way.
Now there's one subtlety to distinguish different apps, standard prompts for info. Every app has the same technical format for the interaction screen, but the initial open text displays are going to differ. "1/2" (or 1/2 cup) is a number, and when it's highlighted red it means someone disagrees somehow. When you think about how someone could disagree with a number in this context (app), whatever the reason why, it must be associated with a suggested new number, regardless whether they input it at the time.
Also, there has to be a reason for the change, so a comment of some kind. The standard display would show the original number, 1/2, an arrow and an empty open text box with the label "New Measure" or something, and beside that an empty text box with the label "Comments" which would be for how that person thinks that change affects the dish, why they're suggesting it.
There'd always be the 1/2, but none or all of the open boxes could be filled. If a cook clicked on a red 1/2, but saw none of the open input boxes were filled, they'd probably click off right away without a second thought, or add the details themselves. When blank, experience tells them the extra info they need to evaluate the interaction isn't there.
But if someone not so sure checks, they still see that those pieces (categories) of info are particularly relevant, even with no values, and it may help them in further analysis. So application is basically finding good prompts, and every app w(c)ould have a unique default info display in both what's initially open and how they're arranged, but all are just rearrangements of the universal format, and so can be fully correlated anytime, internally and externally. It's all the same market.
(cont'd next)
(cont'd from previous)
Another aspect of all apps relates to details like, "1/2 cup white sugar." That's a single point detail in the context of recipe, but it's also made up of 4 independent single point details in the context of ingredient, and one of those details is 3 details in the context of fraction. That technically never matters (in a given context a point detail is a point detail regardless of internal structure), but potentially could significantly affect user interaction in at least one way for more complex applications, like political.
For political, putting point details together is virtually certainly going to be the norm, not exception, and they aren't usually going to be single words or characters. For recipes, I can look at each "sub" detail and understand what it means, and especially how changing one would affect the others in the given context.
Say I want to develop the recipe, I have to define why, so I say it's to make it sweeter. To accomplish that I have to look at the details, and decide to look at the cooking instructions first. I look at each and decide none have an effect on sweetness. Then I look at the ingredients.
In order to evaluate, I first have to understand what each ingredient does in that context (ie. it's purpose, why it's there), meaning as an ingredient in this specific recipe (adding sweetness, masking other flavours, etc.), as well as general info, when relevant.
Once I understand the ingredient as subordinate, meaning having a superior reference to give it unique relevance in the global context (as part of this recipe related to sweetness), I can look at the ingredient itself, within it's own technically independent context (as something that affects taste of a recipe, as opposed to as something granular, for eg.), as to what of it's details relate to sweetness, for eg., or calorie count, etc.
When a single user looks at the amount of sugar, they could look at the fact it's sugar, and if the goal is to decrease calories, might suggest using an artificial sweetener instead of sugar. They tell a friend to use sweetener instead of sugar, and they go and use 1/2 cup of white sweetener.
Of course, the vast majority of us would know not to do that, but it's only because of our specific experience. Each detail has a unique relevance, which for that ingredient is dependent on 6 other details. Changing only one of the 6 details has an effect related to it's global context, to add a flavour to a dish, and may or may not affect local context, meaning having an effect on other details in the group.
Changing sugar to sweetener obviates all the 5 other details, but changing 1 to 1.1 has no effect on any others, if the goal is increased sweetness. If the goal is to decrease calories, increasing to 1.1 would require a change in at least one other detail in order to satisfy it. If I changed cup to tbsp, I'd have to change at least one detail in the set of 3 for the number.
Another thing about recipes is that "taste" is always relevant, literally always. Not only that, it's always as a theoretical component of decision, regardless whether it's relevant in the individual info discovery process (whether it matters to a specific person).
Taste (and #calories, texture, etc.) is a universal decision detail for recipes, and even a detail like "Bake" could affect it, so every interaction screen could have a prompt for how it changes taste, and it would always be relevant. The constitution when talking about laws is one like that too.
There are several other things, and recipe development is an excellent example where subtleties in info management are very easily seen, but I'll go in to those when relevant later. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the relationships and interactions between those details are reflected in all apps similarly, regardless whether single numbers or books worth of info for each detail.
Sorry for the mass of text, but when I start in to the political application, I'd rather refer back to this if necessary. It's important to see what differs one app from another, but also how they're similar.
If there's anyone reading this who are with the NDP, and specifically interested in progressing the discussions related to the Leap Manifesto (LM), after the general discussion about the 6 point text highlight system, which was bumped for the apps difference thing earlier, I'm going to look at how they handle the info exchange aspect for the LM. This is purely from the perspective of idea development, not judgement, and is obviously only my opinion, but there's at least a chance it may ultimately help you.
Since it's political application, one thing to get out of the way right away is that this isn't a "non-partisan" discussion process, which isn't possible, desirable, or even relevant. That would be like saying the rules of grammar is a commie.
Next post I'd like to look briefly at the 6 point text highlight system in this context, and then start details related to the application to political.
Ibid.
Assume there's already a system where we can personally find and vote on literally every single decision necessary to run our country, and are technically successful doing it. Now, after the reality sets in about what it means to have to do that, we're desperately looking for ways so we don't have to do that.
Easily the most difficult aspect of large scale discussions (ie. decision making) is individual influence. Any discussion system that doesn't allow for individual reaction/direction is doomed to fail. The problem is how to generalize the interaction enough so it's relevant for literally everyone under all conditions, but above all, still have it meaningful. The 6 point text highlight system is one step in achieving that.
"Discussion" can have as many subjects as there are ideas, but the process of discussion has relatively few (very specifically definable) details. The first and most important is that in order to consider any info, we have to be made aware of it. In that context, there are 2 general ways to look at how we're going to need to discuss things as a country; direction and reaction, and each could have different mechanisms.
Direction refers to creating laws, treaties, policies and other things that would be longer term with higher detail volumes and range, etc. That's where experts and our hired managers would come in handy, if they could be trusted. Not (necessarily) to make our decisions, but to help properly construct the info grid, point out the most relevant decision points, and ensure we're properly aware of other info.
That's also where exact wording can be relevant, so a formal vote mechanism is needed, and simple red/green can be used. Leading up to the end-point, all 6 text highlights (etc.) could be useful in developing the text block and ensuring suitable expression of public will through relevant general moral, ethical, etc. interactive question and info streams.
That would have a standard interaction page, as well as directed interactions when necessary, and could be managed (including notifications) by a trusted few for the benefit of everyone. This is where we would have stopped the despicable perversion of C-51 (a vile, traitorous, covert poison pill), among many others, while still being able to retain the "legitimate" elements, before it was established. That's the kind of thing the senate was supposed to do, but that's another issue that has to be discussed later.
Reaction refers to shorter term and would likely be the usual mindset for interaction. It would probably be through reactive media, especially news, discussion groups, etc., but also could use managed posts of individual interest, etc. Since the vast majority of people are already being made aware through those means, the only thing needed are computer and phone apps to apply the 6 highlights.
The 6 point text highlight system can be used as a running poll (assuming the highlighted text can be stored and changed) linked to relevant current events, and for several other handy things.
Through reaction we could have demanded and controlled real investigation in to the stupidly blatant criminal corruption of the police and judicial processes related to the duffy bribe (blatant, and even with the actual document, bribery of a public official in order to sabotage a current judicial process). What happened there was yet another assault on the integrity of our country, but at least it's only criminality and not treason like C-51. Would that be a whole or half a blessing...if we were keeping count.
There's more to the highlight thing, but it's better developed through application.
Next post I want to make a few general comments about idea development and problem solving in this context (ie. large scale discussions, esp. related to political), and then next one look at and expand one detail in the Leap Manifesto, as an example. Again, this is purely my opinion, and I claim no "authority" as to why anyone should listen.
Ibid.
Idea development, in the context of political control for very large numbers of people, is a mind-boggling undertaking. I have limited time and just the internet for research, but haven't seen any system anywhere near suitable to do it decently. That doesn't mean there aren't many many very good things being done in a lot of places around the world, but nothing near what's necessary to run a country.
It's quite apparent that those who created the Leap Manifesto had no idea how to proceed. I don't fault them for that, since no one does (yet), but do for how they introduced it. There was no need to vote on anything. If the vote was no, would people talking about it be arrested? All they had to do was distribute it by computer and anyone interested could have worked on it.
I only mention that because what's coming from now on may help the NDP, and that's a bit disturbing. Don't take that to mean I hate the NDP or anything like that, I couldn't care less. But right now all political parties are nothing more than little mafias that lie and steal whenever it suits them. All of them quite frankly disgust me.
It's purely because the subject matter could materially help my country that I'd ever consider interacting with any political party's agenda, and it's purely for we, the people, who are this country, that I continue.
Idea development is primarily about information discovery and problem solving. Since we have to interact and take input from many people, it helps to have a way to visualize how to accomplish that.
Try this:
All knowledge can be considered to exist as an infinite network of pools and streams, and every detail is a puddle. Information discovery is filling those, and problem solving is navigating them.
Whenever a relevant detail is thought up by anyone anywhere, a puddle is created. When people get together they bring them out and discuss by arranging them in to pools, rivulets and streams. Specific puddles are going to be decisions (visualize as red instead of blue), where outcome of a vote would control subsequent direction for navigation of the stream.
I could go on with that analogy, but you probably get the idea. Now add to that the "single point detail" truism, which means it doesn't matter how a person arranges their own details (which is very important also), each one can be added, or not, to the common network independently.
Logical connection is universal, regardless whether the detail is even relevant. If you want trivial proof of that, for any detail I can add a new linked subordinate detail, "New detail created specifically to make what I just said true." How can that be linked to any detail? In the category, Irrelevant (IR). That's as valid a detail as any other, it just isn't useful.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the information network is going to have a purely technical element, meaning agreed upon individual and common standard detail grids, but also one or more sets of personal lines of reasoning, which are a bit of a different animal.
Another thing is when looking at diverse groups of details, a first simplification should always be to look at it in terms of equivalence and subordinance. This is particularly relevant for political. In a nutshell, one detail is equivalent to another when it doesn't depend on it for relevance, and is subordinate when it does. Initially it matters quite a bit to keep the subordinate details strictly associated with their superior reference, because those are the building blocks of lines of reasoning. When you move one, move all that are linked with it.
The info network seeks conceptual equivalence, not agreement, which means everyone understands the info in exactly the same way, and are satisfied the info they think is relevant is properly presented.
My approach requires no standard input format, and can literally take any info from anyone, anywhere, from any time, under any conditions, and incorporate it in to the same standard detail network in exactly the same way.
One point I want to make perfectly clear. I'm not in any way, shape or form saying it's the best thing to have large scale public input on any/every issue. What I want to do at this point is just have a way to do it when we want to, and start thinking about how it might work.
Next post I want to start looking at the "universal basic annual income" detail from the Leap Manifesto. They call for "vigorous debate" , but as far as I've seen don't have any kind of an info network to be able to make that have meaning. It's got to be more than just getting together to agree with each other, especially for that subject, which also correlates to various, very important current social programs and fundamentally to our way of life.
I'm not going to judge the info, and it isn't a discussion about it (per se), my purpose is to evolve an information network, from square 1, starting with that single detail. I think the basic income issue is a good example for a few reasons I'll outline quickly first thing next post.
Ibid.
"Universal basic annual income"........oh happy days.
This is an example of one of the biggest problems we have as a country, there's a truckload of details, we don't know (or trust) the vast majority of them, and even the ones we do are like a fart in a tempest, so how could anyone possibly make rational decisions or predictions. Pretty much everything is like that right now.
It's a good example because it's not a pressing issue, fairly small (cough, cough), and has important characteristics that are common for most, if not all, (major) issues we'll have to tackle as a country. That's why during the creation of this particular network, I want to keep an eye out for universal details related to gov't function, etc.
One of the goals is to see if consistent standard categories (eg. Cost Analysis(CA) for sure) can be automatically correlated across issues, and that could give a method to have a dynamic effect analysis when various changes are proposed. That's obviously well in to the future, but now's the time to start, from square 1. That could be extremely useful for the climate change set of issues especially, and at least relevant for all.
So, since I want to look at it as a potential template as well, a few more general points might be particularly relevant before getting in to the meat of it.
Up to now it might seem like I'm trying to save us from the bad, and that's true, but this kind of thing can develop the good in the same way.
You may think I'm saying it's going to be easy to create an info grid for any issue. It's not, and there are a few hard realities, but there are also many significant simplifications.
There's a very, very large pool of details already listed in many places and ways for virtually every issue. We're not just going to throw ours in, we're going to create our own ecosystem and expand it with those drops and puddles. The information is there for us to use, and we'll integrate it in to our process, not vice versa.
Ultimately, when relevant it has to be possible to come down to majority vote about a single detail, which is 50%+1. The hardest thing to accept about real democracy might be...real democracy.
I very much believe in getting maximum value whenever anything is done. That's why during the development I'm going to continuously look for "secondary" elements, in order to enhance the information and interaction power, as well as have an eye toward building global predictive and diagnostic modules. That means a lot more text, obviously. Such is the price of research, and I don't apologize.
There's no one right info grid. A person's own info grid and lines of reasoning show the points they consider important. When we put the info together, the common grid shows the technical details as well as individual lines of reasoning, with missing and other details added. The essential thing is that logical connection is maintained. From those, decisions are made.
My work isn't the only info organization procedure, and fish-bone diagrams in particular could be very useful in the right situations. All other procedures are just as valuable as they ever were, and possibly moreso now. If it makes it easier to see something, use it. I can easily incorporate any systems that exist now, and any others that could be created in future, so look at things however you want.
There's a big difference to how we discuss and the look of the info grid. The info grid is factual relevance and discussion is lines of reasoning, but the individual interaction is 2 or more people talking, and that's all we have to keep doing.
A hard truth is that it won't matter how much info is available, or how good it is, for many people. Information isn't going to make people agree with you, unless information is a part of their decision process. You tell me how often that's true.
The conditions to stimulate creativity are unique and elusive, but the result is always the same, expansion of the detail network.
This is very hard-core idea and process development. It may not be easy to provide feedback, but if there's something "crazy", or for some other reason a problem, I hope someone will at least point it out. As with everything, the only way things can be dealt with is after they've been identified.
I never know when to stop, so I'll end with a few points, and next post expand the basic income detail, right from 2 people talking on the street for the first time.
Relevant one-liners:
We're going to have to attend to every detail at least once.
No system is going to turn 1000 details in to 1.
Having your say doesn't mean having your way.
Everything you demand for yourself has to be given to everyone else equally.
Poison idea for humanity: It doesn't matter what it is, it only matters how it looks.
Ibid.
2 people talking anywhere in canada:
""Hey, did you hear, the NDP want to give everyone money for nothing. "Universal basic annual income" they call it, or something like that. Are they ever going to stop spending our money like a drunken sailor."
"Yeah, but it's not so crazy an idea. Imagine you didn't have to worry about food or rent, you could go to university, do more volunteering, spend more time with the kids and encourage them to pursue higher learning. I'm not sure how it'd be paid for, but we already have a lot of social programs, and some of them wouldn't be needed, so that's some money there."
"But, who's going to want to work when you're just given money, if there was a problem with productivity before, it would go through the roof with that. Then, it's going to be more foreign workers to do the work, who take more money out of our country. And, like you say, we already have programs, why not just make sure they work properly.""
+++++++++++++
It's not that we don't talk about things, it's of course that what we say is less than irrelevant to the hired managers. Fortunately, we don't need them in order to develop our info system and make decisions. We need some kind of transcript to make sure the details are exact, and to provide original references when relevant. If verbal can be remembered, fine, but sooner or later it has to be written down somewhere, so it can be shared.
I guess another half blessing could be because of the filthy, traitorous perversion of C-51, the listening device our own secret police planted on one of them (because they had attended a meeting to oppose the destruction of a local historic natural monument for the benefit of a foreign corporation) mistakenly sent a recording of the whole conversation to all active computers in the area.
That evening, horrified and disgusted to find it on the computer, they realized what an utterly hideous state our country is in. And, pretty boy's photo ops and "generosity" (ie. spending money we don't have trying to buy friends) don't change anything. But to do that, we have to be able to talk as a country, and that's a lot harder than it sounds.
"The "universal basic annual income" thing will be good practice. Then we can look at that traitor perversion of C-51, money in politics, our election process, start on the constitution (yes, we can write it), real ethics laws for the parasites, climate change, and many, many more. Let's make a transcript (top) of what we said this afternoon and start. Easy peasy.
I'll only list the steps since there's limited room here: 1) talk; 2) transcript; 3) using only "enter", put one sentence on each line (maintaining linearity); 4) using only "enter", separate each sentence in to details, one (which could include more than one detail) on each line (maintaining linearity); 5) group linked details (as lines) and use indent to show subordinance; 6) remove irrelevant words if desired (makes it cleaner but not required); 7) label each detail (ultimately, but not necessarily right away unless you want to). This is the "listing" phase, not discussion per se, we're just collecting the puddles and making some rivulets.
+++++++++++++(from transcript)
1)Hey, did you hear, the NDP want to give everyone money for nothing.
2)"Universal basic annual income" they call it, or something like that.
3)Are they ever going to stop spending our money like a drunken sailor.
4)Yeah, but it's not so crazy an idea.
5)Imagine you
-didn't have to worry
-about food
-or rent,
-you could go to university,
-do more volunteering,
-spend more time with the kids
-and encourage them
-to pursue higher learning.
6)I'm not sure how it'd be paid for, but
7)we already have a lot of social programs, and
-some of them wouldn't be needed,
-so that's some money there.
8)But, who's going to want to work when you're just given money,
-if there was a problem with productivity before,
-it would go through the roof with that.
9)Then, it's going to be more foreign workers to do the work,
-who take more money out of our country.
10)And, like you say, we already have programs,
-why not just make sure they work properly.
++++
After this initial quick organization, the next step is to expand the details. They decide to talk to friends tomorrow and scan the internet, then look at the new detail network, next post.
Ibid.
If you can't pitch it this fast you have lost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/julie-blais-comeau/sticky-situation-craftin...
Thank you for your comment and the link, Pondering.
I've already established many new essential details in building the conceptual and structural foundation for meaningful and dynamic large scale public discussion (information development and exchange) suitable for real political control; and now am going to build an info network ultimately suitable to support large scale public input and direction, idea development, investigation, technical and conceptual evaluation, and decision-making for a relatively representative but non-pressing issue related to the kinds of things we'll have to deal with in running our country; and which is based on public discussion, not gov't decree.
If that doesn't help, you'll have to be more specific about what you don't understand.
Ibid.
Our 2 citizens talked to friends and scanned the internet, and accumulated the following lists of Positives(P) and Negatives(N), with theirs shown in square brackets. Each line is a link to it's own page and this list serves as the initial gateway. There are no reference links since I'm looking only at data structure, but each detail could have refs. right now, if desired.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Universal Basic Annual Income [C1]:
Positives [P(29)]:
P1) [gain more access to higher education]
P2) escape route from oppressive jobs and relationships
P3) more time for artistic and other nonpaying endeavors
P4) [greater opportunity to invest in children's]
-[well being]
-[education]
P5) societal ties now rooted in work might be replaced by new ones
-cultural revolution around the meaning of life
P6) given to everyone makes it more fair
P7) local economic growth
P8) individuals can invest in their own training
P9) reduce crime
P10) [can spend more time with kids]
-save on babysitting costs
-decreases jobs
-[help encourage them]
-[to pursue higher learning]
P11) [increase volunteerism]
P12) alleviate poverty
-increase dignity of the poor
P13) help in building vibrant rural communities
P14) don't have to be workaholic
P15) more people might take part-time to spread out the workload
P16) wages climb
P17) more time for
-innovation
-entrepreneurship
P18) generally increase quality of life
-higher happiness
-[don't have to worry]
-[about food]
-[or rent]
P19) shrink gov't beaurocracy
-[replace current welfare, etc. systems]
-[reduce administrative]
-complexity and [costs]
P20) greater economic equality
P21) improving health
P22) will promote adult education
P23) increase viability of co-operatives
P24) liberate people struggling to find suitable work
-no requirement to take
-low pay, no benefits, poor conditions
-time to find
-higher pay, benefits, better working conditions
-more meaningful work
-even if lower or non-paying
P25) have to prepare for when robots take over more jobs
-better AI could accelerate that
-no where near to running out of jobs
-advances changing types of tasks and skills in demand
-displacing many workers from jobs
-that have become obsolete
-creating jobs in new areas
P26) better chance of learning to manage money more wisely
(D1) not having enough money can cause people to make poor financial decisions
P27) better than welfare
-gives everyone the freedom to work if they wish
-welfare takes money away from people who work
-encourages people to do nothing
P28) decrease inter-regional economic inequalities
P29) increase flexibility of the labour market
(cont'd next post)
(cont'd from previous post)
Negatives [N(12)]:
N1) very costly
-have to fund with real wealth
-payout levels, etc.
-loss in tax revenue
N2) disconnect people from the positive aspects of working for a living
N3) easier to avoid developing directed programs
-to alleviate income inequality
-reverse wage stagnation
-wide access to good jobs
-an essential element of a healthy society
N4) easier to avoid developing services
-education
-training
N5) children would grow to adults who don't respect
-value of work
-providing for yourself and family
N6) poor people can’t handle money
-could ultimately feed negative and destructive habits
N7) many may move to different countries so they can live better
-do citizens living outside our country get the money
N8) [people will lose the incentive to work]
-payout likely to be far from generous
-most would probably supplement with work
-significant decrease in skill pools
-[more foreign workers]
-[more money taken out of our country]
N9) people will just be lazy
-[productivity]
-[will decrease significantly]
-of a few might outweigh the inactivity of everyone else
-how much does one person have to make in order to pay for how many
-creativity won't change
N10) unnecessary
-[can work through existing programs]
-compare to what people currently get under welfare, etc.
-expand
-[ensure and improve efficiency]
-cheaper and as good
-means can continue focus on job
-creation
-incentives
N11) risky
-based on murky test data
-test data and interpretation isn't broad enough to determine potential success
N12) can't allow response to extraordinary circumstances when everyone relies on gov't for money
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The "NDP" should have produced and distributed something like this before they called for a national discussion on it (perhaps they did, but I didn't see it, and if so I apologize for how hard I've been on you; otherwise, shame shame on you again). Please look at each point and consider if what you would say is included somewhere, and if not, what would you add and where (point form or transcript). You can't take any points off unless you can clearly show it to not be relevant, but even then it would only be moved to an indendent category, Irrelevant (IR), attached to the superior reference. Once details are put in, they can't be removed, only moved. There are more subtle details to that to expand on later because it's a very important aspect of trust in the system.
Note that in each P# or N# detail, only the main point is in the category, the subordinates are in independent categories associated strictly with their superior reference. While subordinates may be important in the decisions for many people, that doesn't change the strict logical connection. Personal decisions, etc. would be shown by highlight and/or specific graphic re-arrangement on personal pages (then compared independently), not distortion of logical relationships in the common grid. That's required for universality, and very very useful for analysis.
I only labelled one subordinate detail, D1-P26-C1, because this is still right at the start. Each subordinate has a unique acronym, and note that D1 refers specifically to P26, not C1.
This is only an initial orientation/gateway page, not discussion, and next post I'll make a few comments about how to integrate large scale input, etc., and then continue with the information discovery and development process for this issue, including starting to set up a standard frame to correlate cost analyses across issues.
Ibid.