Is this idea any good?

[TheDrake]

My idea is of an organization of people with similar ideals and diverse skill sets. The purpose of the organization is to provide a mechanism for its members to more efficiently serve their ideals and objectives.

The main thing I'm wondering about is the framework I envision this organization to adopt... It will be hierarchical, explicitly. But the hierarchy will be fluid and responsive to the needs/wants of the membership.

Every member gets 1 distribution point to distribute to other members in any way they like: each member could divide it evenly between all the other members in the organization, or conversely s/he could concentrate it entirely in one member, or anything in between.. From there, the distribution points RECEIVED by each member is calculated, and the sum of their points is then used as as a multiplier to their own distribution scheme on their OUTGOING points. The explicit (transparent) hierarchy would be formed according the results of the points received after the multiplier value has been applied. The distribution scheme of each member would be made transparent as well.

Ideally, there would be an automated system in place, a stat machine essentially, which would account for all changes in real time. It wouldn't be practical if the hierarchical structure actually had to shift every time the automated system said there was a change in the hierarchy; but the ability to monitor the systemic changes in real time would add so much to the strength of this idea... it would force the leaders to be representative and responsive to their subjects; and more generally, I think it would encourage the best out of individuals and their purpose.

Intervals could be set at which time a "snap shot" would be taken of the results which would form the official hierarchical structure, until the next interval.

Perhaps a constitution could be drafted to decide things like interval length, responsibilties and limitations of hierarchical positions, etc.

Membership could be inclusive and non-binding; new members can join and old members can leave as they please. The most successful organizations under such a framework would be those that are able to attract and retain members by showing tangible results to their self-directed purposes/objectives.

I'm less interested in the success of any one organization, per se, and more interested in the perceived (in)validity of the idea's overall structure, which is attempting to achieve greater transparency, responsiveness, fluidity, and individual initiative.

 

[Andropov]

no

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Sounds somewhat similar to the machinations of a modern corporation.

 

[a detached retina]

If members can come and go how do you account for net losses or gains in points in the system. Are members' standings based on a percentage of "GDP"?

 

[TheDrake]

Sounds somewhat similar to the machinations of a modern corporation.

If members can come and go how do you account for net losses or gains in points in the system. Are members' standings based on a percentage of "GDP"?

The actual number of points received isn't as important as the hierarchical order those numbers inform. Members' standing are determined by their received points after the second step, applying the multiplier value to each member's distribution scheme. For example:

distribution scheme of:
A: B=0.0 ; C=0.5 ; D=0.5
B: A=1/3 ; C=1/3 ; D=1/3
C: A=0.5 ; B=0.25 ; D=0.25
D; A=0 ; B=0 ; C:1

Multiplier value of (sum of received distribution points):
A: 1/3 (B) + 0.5 (C) + 0 (D) = 0.833
B: 0 (A) + 0.25 (C) + 0 (D) = 0.25
C: 0.5 (C) + 1/3 (B) + 1 (D) = 1.833
D: 0.5 (A) + 1/3 (B) + .25 (C) = 1.083

reapply distribution scheme while incorporating multiplier value:
A: (0.5*0.833)= C/D
B: (1/3)(1/4) = A/C/D
C; (0.5*1.833)=A ; (1/4)*1.833=B/D
D: 1*1.083=C

Calculate sum of values of received values, with multiplier value incorporated
A= (1/3)(1/4) + (0.5*1.833)= 1
B= (1/4)*1.833 = 0.458
C= (0.5*0.833) + (1/3)(1/4) + 1*1.083 = 1.583
D= (0.5*0.833) + (1/3)(1/4) + (1/4)*1.833 = 0.958

Hierarchical order:
1: C
2: A
3: D
4: B
_________

Detached retina, I think your questions are misplaced - they make reference to a system which operates under a different paradigm. ProxyAmenRa, too, makes reference to this idea's similarities to the machinations of a modern corporation. Indeed there are many similarites, as the system I have in mind was heavily influenced by corporate structure; the main difference is that it operates according to different objectives. I see this idea to be representative of a new (uncovered; yet to fulfilled) paradigm. For example, the dominant economic paradigm claims that rational agents (people/corporations) are motivated by the profit motive, and that the profit motive produces goods for people, where what is good is to produce a lot in order to consume a lot..

I see the dominant political-economic paradigm to be exceptionally wasteful, misguided, and suspect to corruption relative to the paradigm I have in mind. I think this is because the current/dominant paradigm limits diverse forms of values from their objective expression according to how well those values are able to find their objectivity in "profit".

Profit is naturally a good thing. The problem with forms of value being limited by their (non)ability to fulfill the profit motive, is that under this paradigm the concept "profit" is under a hegemony which only responds to one form of value: money, which is arguably why renewable sources of energy haven't taken hold - once they have been produced, they no longer produce substantial amounts of abstract value, ie. money, instead they continue to produce concrete forms of value.

Money is an abstraction. Money is metaphysical. I am against the metaphysical; I'm against it because it takes us away from what is concretely true, and it restricts meaningful change in favour of stability in an illusion.

The new paradigm I envision may still utilize the profit motive, but it will not be dominated by monetary profit, instead it will incorporate a more comprehensive conception of profit. Consider: investments whose returns were manifested not in abstract returns, but in real world improvements and authentic responsibility.

....

Since as far back as I can remember, I have been thinking of ways to affect effective, meaningful, positive change in the world. During this time, ideals have been corrupted by reality and replaced with fresh ideals only to have the process repeat itself in countless succession. I ask the thoughtful and respectful among you to help me to bring this, my latest and greatest ideal, back to reality in order that a more comprehensive ideal might take it's place; here it is:

This idea(l) begins with a prototype organization in two parts: the idea, and the concrete result. The idea part is what I am attempting to present with this thread, it is the objective of this thread. The result part, in an ideal situation, might consist of a group of people dedicated to such an idea. so allow me to continue explaining the the idea part:

The idea is to start an organization whose members believe in and share a common objective. The objective I have in mind is to create the idea and the concrete manifestation of the idea, of a new system of value determination, whereby its subjects are given a more efficient mechanism to exercise their intention/freedom/purpose.

The prime objective of this prototype organization is to conduct itself according to the structure of the new system of value determination that the organization has in mind, in the process of creating a finalized template for this new structure for general use, perhaps in the form of a website, or a computer program.

This new structure could prove to make to make traditional banking unnecessary. Instead of being dependent on external sources of investment, the sources of investment might come from within the group itself. Perhaps entry into this organization would require a monetary investment, say $2000 for example. The 2000$ entry fee would grant each member the privileges/rights inherent to the group; the new member would have as much power/control over the direction over this initiative, as I would as the founder. Internally, individual members could propose their plans for moving forward with the organization, and these plans would be the basis for each member's decisions on how to distribute their points/support. Individual members could even attach money to their plans: for example, I could say I have $20 000 to contribute to a certain component/initiative which I have introduced with my plan going forward. The fact that I am willing to contribute $20 000 doesn't inherently give me any more power/control over the organization, UNLESS it gets me voted into the top position, but even then my power/control is mediated by transparency and the expectation that I will deliver on my promise. If another member was voted into the top position, I wouldn't be obligated to follow through with my $20 000 pledge, though I still could, and whether I do or do not might be something for other members to consider, as they might see my promised pledge to be made out of the desire for power, rather than the desire for the success of the organization as a whole.

The top rated member also might be imbued with the power to expel members, or more generally, have top say in who does/n't deserve membership and can act accordingly. If a member is expelled they get their entry fee back.

One problem i can forsee with the prototype idea is that someone really rich might have pay off people to join the organization to control their votes.

Sorry for the long post. I have lots of ideas on this, and they aren't as developed as I might like. I'm looking for help. more later, perhaps. I welcome your questions and comments.

 

[Architectonic]

How about we do away with the hierarchy and organise directly based on a plurality of individual preferences?

Your system is confusing for the participant due to the chaotic nature of the multiplier. You also made a mistake in your example.

But imagine if C gave 0.833 points to (B) and the remainder to (A). Do the results make intuitive sense?

But decision making all comes back to information processing. Past a certain point, it really doesn't matter as to who the leaders are, but rather, how the decisions are actually made.

 

[TheDrake]

How about we do away with the hierarchy and organise directly based on a plurality of individual preferences?

Could you expand on this?

I see the system to be accommodable to a plurality of individual preferences. New organizations utilizing a similar framework could spring up to serve a plurality of particular objectives.

Your system is confusing for the participant due to the chaotic nature of the multiplier. You also made a mistake in your example.

[fixed my mistake, thanks] I think it's sensible though. The reason I included it, and, for now at least, why I see it as integral to this overall idea, is because it provides the member which has the most incoming points (and therefore the highest multiplier value) a better chance to serve their mandate by giving them more power to determine who they might be working with in the upper echelons of the hierarchy. It is essentially a mechanism which facilitates political action. It could be refined, or perhaps even removed if you or anyone could convince me of the merits of its removal.

I would also like to suggest that pehaps it is confusing for the participant because it is not yet automated.

But imagine if C gave 0.833 points to (B) and the remainder to (A). Do the results make intuitive sense?

I'm not sure what context you mean this in? are you referring to my mistake?

But decision making all comes back to information processing. Past a certain point, it really doesn't matter as to who the leaders are, but rather, how the decisions are actually made.

I agree with you that decision making all comes back to information processing. I may be just making things up as I go along, but I think this system is designed to emphasize how the decisions are made rather than who the leaders are.

You have to imagine if this was all automated, and the results were instantaneously transparent and effective.

It could work in two ways: a hard way or a soft way; as a determining mechanism or as an influencing mechanism. The form which works as a determining mechanism would have binding decisions; the influential form would be for general interest- information processing, if you will.

The better educated the internal membership is about the various competing interests within the organization, the more power they will have to realize their objectives, IMO, because system will enable them to. The system utilizes more intelligent forms of manipulation, IFF the will is there.

If I sound like I am responding to your criticisms defensively, that very well may be the case as I am very attached to my ideals, but I'd like to say I very much appreciate criticisms and interaction on this issue.

 

[Da Blob]

Might I recommend reading the Paradox of Group Dynamics? or for that matter just this...

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=2350

One of the most critical developmental processes of a group is the creation of an authority system. Usually authority is thought of as something that flows down from above: a boss derives authority from those higher - up. The authority invested in a person can be understood as the outcome of an authorizing process. If we focus on the dynamics of authorizing rather than on the authority itself, it is clear that authority is something that is built or created. It flows from many places to many people.
Professors derive authority from the university, and students accept this as part of obtaining a degree; the judge in a courtroom derives authority from the relevant branch of government, and those who participate in the judicial process accept this because of the socially authorized sanctioned powers of the court.
In a group, members can authorize an individual to enact certain things on their behalf. The members' willingness to accept the activities undertaken by the authorized individual as an expression of the parts of themselves that they have given over actively creates authority in the group. The acceptance makes it possible for those with authority to be effective in representing group members' collective interests. The process of authorizing creates the conditions in which individual contributions can have an influence on the work of the group and the group can be influential in the larger system to which it belongs. In this regard, authority is closely linked to empowerment. One develops power as one empowers others. Taking the power that is available and using it often creates a vacuum, because it is experienced as depriving others of a scarce commodity. As a result, power taking is resisted. Individuals often refuse to accept or exercise the power that is available to them in a group simply to avoid the accusation of having stolen it from someone else or having gained it at others' expense. Paradoxical authority starts with the link between authorizing others and authorizing oneself and explores the paradoxical nature of resistance to authority, one's own and that of other group members. It is through a mutual authorization process that groups have the potential to be greater than the sum of their parts, and the management of resistance is a key to this process. Resistance or rebellion is also authority and acceptance involves resistance. The link between these two "opposite" phenomena is the heart of the paradoxical authority. Yet the very avoidance of taking and using the available power makes individuals in a group, and ultimately the group as a whole, feel powerless. The feelings of powerlessness create an even greater wish for power, making it even harder for anyone to seize it, because the feeling of deprivation is correspondingly larger, and the resistance grows. On the other hand, if one takes the available power and uses it to empower others, then total amount of group and individual power increases.

 

[Architectonic]

I'm not sure what context you mean this in? are you referring to my mistake?

No, try the math with those figures.

I agree with you that decision making all comes back to information processing. I may be just making things up as I go along, but I think this system is designed to emphasize how the decisions are made rather than who the leaders are.

You have to imagine if this was all automated, and the results were instantaneously transparent and effective.

It could work in two ways: a hard way or a soft way; as a determining mechanism or as an influencing mechanism. The form which works as a determining mechanism would have binding decisions; the influential form would be for general interest- information processing, if you will.

But the way you structured it, it just selects for individuals.

Have you looked at preferential voting systems? The flaw in binary voting is that votes are wasted unless you support the two leading parties. In preferential voting, you have the choice of allocating preferences, or leaving the preferences up to the body you are voting for, if they themselves are not elected. But in reality, people sometimes recognise the reality that power dynamics can change depending on the overall composition. So your preferences of voting in a party system might actually change, depending on the outcome.

Changing from an order of preferences (and in some systems you may give a body the same preference as another), to a system of point allocations doesn't actually resolve this. Secondly, do you think the system of point allocation is going to be rational? How do people actually determine how many points should be allocated to each? A preference order is much more intuitive, though not necessarily mathematically precise.

The point is that the reweighting only comes in if the body that is voted for does not have enough votes to be elected.

Could you expand on this?

Yes, but not yet. I'd like to see what ideas others have..

 

[Zensunni]

Nice, Da Blob.

Did you write that whole link?

 

[BigApplePi]

reapply distribution scheme while incorporating multiplier value:
A: (0.5*0.833)= C/D
B: (1/3)(1/4) = A/C/D
C; (0.5*1.833)=A ; (1/4)*1.833=B/D
D: 1*1.083=C

Calculate sum of values of received values, with multiplier value incorporated
A= (1/3)(1/4) + (0.5*1.833)= 1
B= (1/4)*1.833 = 0.458
C= (0.5*0.833) + (1/3)(1/4) + 1*1.083 = 1.583
D= (0.5*0.833) + (1/3)(1/4) + (1/4)*1.833 = 0.958

TheDrake. I'm a little slow. Can you explain those two paragraphs?

 

[Da Blob]

Nice, Da Blob.

Did you write that whole link?

No, a lot of that was directly quoted from Paradox of Group Dynamics I thought that I had implied that...

 

[Zensunni]

I clicked the link to your post and thought it was you who wrote it. Sorry.

 

[TheDrake]

Sorry for the late reply.

Might I recommend reading the Paradox of Group Dynamics? or for that matter just this...

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=2350

Yes thanks for the rec. Seems highly relevant to my objectives, and many of the points raised in the part you quoted seems to me to substantiate the value of what I'm trying to accomplish with this idea. Such as:

-essentially, this idea proposes a new authorizing system/process.
-emphasizes the dynamic, multifaceted nature of such a process; attempts to make the authorizing process more explicitly recognized as a two way process, challenging the assumption of top-down righteousness of authority.
-attempts to empower individuals through giving them greater ability to empower others.
-in built mechanism to account for the natural tendency to avoid taking power.
-

No, try the math with those figures.

sorry, I still am not receiving your intended meaning (the results with those figures still make intuitive sense to me), I'd appreciate it if you made it more explicit for me.

But the way you structured it, it just selects for individuals.

but the basis on which individuals are selected is one of perspective.

Have you looked at preferential voting systems? The flaw in binary voting is that votes are wasted unless you support the two leading parties. In preferential voting, you have the choice of allocating preferences, or leaving the preferences up to the body you are voting for, if they themselves are not elected. But in reality, people sometimes recognise the reality that power dynamics can change depending on the overall composition. So your preferences of voting in a party system might actually change, depending on the outcome.

Changing from an order of preferences (and in some systems you may give a body the same preference as another), to a system of point allocations doesn't actually resolve this. Secondly, do you think the system of point allocation is going to be rational? How do people actually determine how many points should be allocated to each? A preference order is much more intuitive, though not necessarily mathematically precise.

The point is that the reweighting only comes in if the body that is voted for does not have enough votes to be elected.

I'm aware of preferential voting, I voted in favor of some form of it but the no votes beat out the yes votes. But I think my idea would be even more effective in terms of what preferential voting is attempting to accomplish.

Changing from an order of preference to a system of point allocation, I think, does solve the problem you outlined, the problem of the outcome changing what you would have done in the first place, because it is a much more fluid and transparent system, such that you will be able to see how the results are shaping up as they shape up. (Secondly) I do not assume rationality, and I think it is a mistake for us to operating under a system which assumes itself to be, when it is not; the fact that it allows the possibility for non-rationality means that it is more open to rational criticism. This system is less metaphysical than the one that is currently in place, precisely because it does not assume rationality to the extent that the current system does.

People actually determine how many points should be allocated to each according to the standard each person adopts for themselves. This means that there will be no one hegemonic standard which everyone must adapt to, but a diversity of standards which, according to my thinking, will more authentically serve individual interests and their creative capacity.

Yes, but not yet. I'd like to see what ideas others have..

i'm still interested in hearing more on your idea that said -- "How about we do away with the hierarchy and organise directly based on a plurality of individual preferences?"

TheDrake. I'm a little slow. Can you explain those two paragraphs?

paragraphs in question:

reapply distribution scheme while incorporating multiplier value:
A: (0.5*0.833)= C/D
B: (1/3)(1/4) = A/C/D
C; (0.5*1.833)=A ; (1/4)*1.833=B/D
D: 1*1.083=C

Calculate sum of values of received values, with multiplier value incorporated
A= (1/3)(1/4) + (0.5*1.833)= 1
B= (1/4)*1.833 = 0.458
C= (0.5*0.833) + (1/3)(1/4) + 1*1.083 = 1.583
D= (0.5*0.833) + (1/3)(1/4) + (1/4)*1.833 = 0.958

Yea no prob. let me start at the beginning, which precedes the first paragraph.
Each person has one point to divide and distribute as they see fit. The first step is to calculate the incoming points granted by each individual member's outgoing point distribution. Now we arrive at the step indicated by the first paragraph quoted above; the summation of incoming points for each individual member now serves as their own unique multiplier value, which is then re-applied to their original distribution scheme. The second paragraph which was quoted calculates the new value of incoming points, which incorporates the multiplier values; the results form the hierarchical structure of the group.

Hopefully this is clear. If there is anything else I can clear up for you or anyone else, please don't hesitate.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

It seems like it would be best suited to organized crime, rather than a legit buisness.

 

[The Habitat Doctor]

I've mentally been here before, except the concept (minus the distribution scheme you've come up with) was applied to a government/economy vs a company. I haven't actively thought about this stuff for several years now though, so I'll come back to this thread when I have time to read and understand it fully, and after I dredge up some of my old writings and ramblings.

 

[TheDrake]

It seems like it would be best suited to organized crime, rather than a legit buisness.

How so?

I've mentally been here before, except the concept (minus the distribution scheme you've come up with) was applied to a government/economy vs a company. I haven't actively thought about this stuff for several years now though, so I'll come back to this thread when I have time to read and understand it fully, and after I dredge up some of my old writings and ramblings.

My (essential) intention for this idea is not to have it applied to a company, but to a government/economy, and not necessarily a monetary economy, but an economy of perspectives.

I hope you do come back to this thread, I'd be interested in hearing of other perspectives that are concerned with similar issues; thanks anyhow for stopping in.


___________________


I feel that this IS the best idea I have ever come up with. It seems to me to be one of the only original things i've come up with. It is the culmination of all my learning in a diverse range of fields of learning (philosophy, sociology, political science, psychology, economics), and as a cultural creative. I could never resign myself to being an expert in a specific field; to do so, it seems to me, is to not broach subjects which is not in one's field of expertise -- the fragmentation of modern man. I have always loved learning according to my internal interests, and I have been lucky/willful to not have my love of learning be corrupted by external necessities, though there have been times where things seemed to be worse than they are now.

I crave the ability to affect meaningful change. So many of the ready-made paths that were available to me, while they seem to provide stability and security for myself, do not seem to me to provide and satisfy that strong desire to affect meaningful change. At one time my dream job was to become the Prime Minister of Canada, but as I grew up and matured I came to see that even with that Job, my ability to affect meaningful change would be seriously limited through the necessity of conforming to an already established standard. I see this idea to be the answer, to represent a new way of individual empowerment.

I am going to dedicate myself to this idea. I have money to invest in it, and more importantly I have the time, energy, and will. For a long time (actually, i guess not that long), it was merely an idea which I shared with people and encouraged them to steal it/ make use of it if they could; I left it up to external forces. But now, finally, it is something I can see myself committing to, the first thing ever I can see myself committing to.

I have options (the specifics, I do not feel like sharing at this time) that I can take advantage of in this endeavor, which may not rob me of the essential objectives I seek to employ, and which may not make me dependent on the objectives of others, but I'm not sure... other options may turn out to better serve this objective better. I guess if it is primarily me working on this endeavor, the option I now have in mind will suffice, but if it takes the form of a more collaborative effort, other options will have to be considered.

The first step is to recruit people who have skills which are necessary in this endeavor. I have no knowledge of computer programming, so I either may either educate myself in that field, or recruit someone who has that knowledge and who also shares similar ideals which are embodied in this idea. I may also need someone with business knowledge so that i could put this idea in the form of a business proposal. I need to find a business model that does not put the essential objectives which this idea serves in jeopardy.

In the early stages, it would be people working towards a goal without the assurance of monetary reward, but simply as project that would serve their internal interests. If successful, and if the idea was able to establish a foothold in such a way that it would allow me/us to take advantage of the options available so that we could be externally funded while still maintaining our essential objectives, such a project may then become a paying endeavor.

This endeavor, I envision, has the potential to be a paying endeavor, but not indefinitely paying. Sooner or later its' utility would be transferred from monetary reward of its developers to the internal interests of those who find utility in it; its' utility would be expressed according to the internal interests, rather than the abstract external interests represented by monetary profit.

I am willing to invest ALL my disposable income in this endeavor, so long as my internal interests are not compromised. That is not to say that my internal interests should/will be the hegemonic standard by which this idea is to realize itself. My interests are subject to influence and change; I encourage it.

It seems to me to be most sensible to be able to maintain direct contact with my collaborators. So while I appreciate input via people from all over the world through the internet, such as is taking place here, I am going to need to be more active on a local level. I am going to make some bulletin board posting at my university, and perhaps some craigslists postings locally. But if someone is particularly interested in this idea and holds the skills which are requisite to the fruition of this idea, I would be silly to turn them away as a collaborator.

____

there is a divide in this plan. at first, it must find a way to have substance to the current system, it must adapt in such a way that it fulfills the objectives of the system which requires proof of the likelihood of profit, or at least returns to cover the investment. At this point, (even though earlier in this post I said it was applicable as a new form of government/economy rather than a company) it will take the form of a company. But this company will not operate under the conventional standards of other companies, which requires it to grow or perish; once it serves it purpose, the growth of profit margins will no longer be an issue, so long as it can be sustained. The essential objective of it being applicable to governments and economies will then be a possibility.

At least that's how I see it at this point.

_____

I feel the potential that I feel this idea holds is not easily envisioned or communicated. Once the system has been established in working order, I feel from there the merits and potential of it will be able to be more accurately judged by others. At the very least, at this point (of the idea being realized an actuality), I will be able to for myself that this idea is not workable; and if it does prove to have utility, all the better! either way it seems worth it to me. even if along the way it proves unworkable even before the system has been realized in actuality, I must try.

 

[digital angel]

When I quickly read this thread yesterday, my first thought was that your idea is a like a modified corporate structure.

By the way, I understand the desire to make a meaningful contribution. Good luck.