Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 431
Netizens-Digest Monday, March 10 2003 Volume 01 : Number 431
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access
Re: [netz] Democracy and Persuasive Metric Design
Re: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:34:24 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access
>Howard,
>
>You lost me when you went into pneumothorax (hmm, that doesn't sound
>quite right...), but I think you're onto something here.
Perhaps not the best example, but I was trying to make the point that
there can be people without relevant knowledge, with credentialed
relevant knowledge, and with real but not credentialed knowledge. For
example, some of you may know of Carey Sublette, one of the
net-authorities on nuclear weapons. He's a programmer by trade (with
obvious deep understanding of physics), but has not been involved in
weapons programs.
>
>>The matter of accessibility to experts, and their appropriate use,
>>might also lead to thinking about something about which I don't
>>have a good name -- indepenent review, democracy-by-proxy, etc.
>>
>>Here's the underlying issue. Getting deeply into some issues
>>simply requires substantial background. Even if large numbers of
>>people disagree with some position, in the words of Scotty from the
>>original Star Trek, "Ye canna ignore the laws of physics."
>
>This reminds me of a broad discourse on the politics of science and
>technology which basically poses the question, How can we have
>democratic control of science and technology when the vast majority
>of people don't understand the facts -- and never will? This isn't
>just a rant about scientific illiteracy, although the extent of that
>is disturbing. Even the best informed among us have enormous zones
>of absolute ignorance, and areas of dangerously little knowledge.
>[It's debatable whether science and technology issues are actually
>distinctive in these respects, but to me that debate seems moot.]
>
>Mark
There are those of us that may think NO ONE understands economics,
but that's another matter. :-)
Seriously, there are a great many military and technology discussions
where it's clear that the people arguing are clueless about real
risks and capabilities.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:52:02 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Democracy and Persuasive Metric Design
- --part1_1e.c414930.2b9eb762_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DESIGN OF PERSUASIVE METRICS FOR CONSTITUENT REPRESENTATION:
In a message dated 3/10/03 9:25:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com
writes:
> >In a message dated 3/9/03 10:36:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >ronda@panix.com writes:
> >
> >>I don't disagree that legislation would be better if more people
> >>were involved in helping to clarify what is needed.
> >>
> >
> >
> >If we can all agree on this point, I believe we would be
> >experiencing a profound breakthrough, no matter the interpretation.
> >
> >Larry
>
> I applaud broader-based participation. My concerns lie variously in:
>
> -- the ability of charismatic grass-roots leaders to hijack positions.
> Do note that there are techniques, such as the Delphi method, to
> elicit information from all. The potential limitation of these
> techniques is they tend to require a trusted moderator/facilitator.
> -- no one interferes technically with the process of information exchange
> (e.g., hacktivism and spamming can do so)
> -- the logistics work -- assuming (and I don't see how we can do
> otherwise)
> that the unstructured people actually make and enforce decisions,
> there are ways to convey their consensus to decisionmakers in a
> manner that well-intentioned decisionmakers can use, rather than
> be flooded in raw data.
> -- issue discussions remain many and specifically focused, rather than
> becoming broad fronts that co-opt positions.
>
I agree that, for example, Logistics is going to be a problem because I
cannot envision any way that one can impose an architecture of communication
uniformly and be equally efficacious in all constituent communities at any
particular resolution were we able to design a metric and a canonical
representation, just speaking 'offhand,' so that we could impose a method
'oranges to oranges.'
Not that we must have uniformity, but uniformity it would seem would
generally make a design more economical to realize from a centralized
management perspective. It looks like there is going to have to be a
different approach for each case, where a 'case' represents the trajectory of
issue review from the most local representation to the highest appropriate
level for, of course, the purpose of resolution.
Case resolution, considered across 'oranges,' will be complicated by issues
like:
i. Some elected representatives are more experienced and adept at piping
needs to appropriate committees and generally getting things done and
bartering 'support for support' at the legislative level than others.
Compromise and general politicking (between politicians) takes talent and
charisma always helps. Moreover this disparity of talent will occur at
varying levels of representation from city government to state to federal.
ii. Consider, from the people side, that at each level of 'constituent
resolution' you probably have to have a separate 'constituent lobbyist' on
retainer -- that expert that knows not only the topic, but has the
utilitarian skill to traverse the channels local to him to get the position
seriously considered above the fray.
This series of 'constituent lobbyists' must be networked to be able to
communicate with agility across the 'constituent resolution' levels from low
to high to coordinate 'issue resolution.'
Just to clarify, the expert 'constituent lobbyist' was my interpretation of
Howard's concept -- one of the solutions that dealt with the raw data problem
and the issue of what I dubbed 'polemic intelligence.'
As far as the case that the following are legitimate concerns:
H>-- the ability of charismatic grass-roots leaders to hijack positions.
H>-- issue discussions remain many and specifically focused, rather than
H> becoming broad fronts that co-opt positions.
- -- I believe it would be fruitful and pragmatic to figure out a way to
harness this 'desultory' energy instead of working against it.
Aren't there any Far Eastern philosophies that basically state this?
I agree that it is definitely natural to expect that these behaviors will
happen. The idea is to construct a method to channel or tap the unfocused
energy to achieve the ultimate goal. In the end, who cares how the goal was
reached, as long as it was the one originally intended? I do agree about the
co-opting concern. Depending upon the other 'muck' that is co-opted as the
'broad brushing' occurs, the action may cause one to drop support due to what
might be considered as perverse identifications.
Although the issues of management of scale of constituent feedback by the
elected representative is confronted by the 'lobbyist,' we still have to deal
with constituent participation. Constituent participation must be measured
somehow so that the lobbyist is perceived as legitimately representing the
local constituency. Otherwise we would have made the situation worse by
effectively creating fewer voices of dissent and there would be no means for
the public to remonstrate.
Our representation metric would probably be based on a recognized retainer
payment schedule, where the lobbyist is getting financially compensated by
the constituency. Everyone knows how much the retainer contract is
potentially worth versus its present cash value. That way when the lobbyist
speaks, the words are truly meaningful.
The elected representative can assess the inverse ratio of 'potential
retainer contract value' to 'present cash value' and know whether or not to
give him an ear as the ratio approaches unity.
I know this sounds wrong, but what can you do? Liberty is not free. Please
come up with some other persuasive metric. It may sound stupid. I am just
musing extemporaneously.
Larry
- --part1_1e.c414930.2b9eb762_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">DESIGN OF PERSUASIVE METRICS FOR CONSTITUENT REPRESENT=
ATION:<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 3/10/03 9:25:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.co=
m writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>In a message dated 3/9/03 1=
0:36:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>
>ronda@panix.com writes:<BR>
><BR>
>>I don't disagree that legislation would be better if more people<BR>
>>were involved in helping to clarify what is needed.<BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>If we can all agree on this point, I believe we would be <BR>
>experiencing a profound breakthrough, no matter the interpretation.<BR>
><BR>
>Larry<BR>
<BR>
I applaud broader-based participation. My concerns lie variously in:<B=
R>
<BR>
-- the ability of charismatic grass-roots leaders to hijack positions=
.<BR>
Do note that there are techniques, such as the Delphi met=
hod, to<BR>
elicit information from all. The potential limitati=
on of these<BR>
techniques is they tend to require a trusted moderator/fa=
cilitator.<BR>
-- no one interferes technically with the process of information exch=
ange<BR>
(e.g., hacktivism and spamming can do so)<BR>
-- the logistics work -- assuming (and I don't see how we can do othe=
rwise)<BR>
that the unstructured people actually make and enforce de=
cisions,<BR>
there are ways to convey their consensus to decisionmaker=
s in a<BR>
manner that well-intentioned decisionmakers can use, rath=
er than<BR>
be flooded in raw data.<BR>
-- issue discussions remain many and specifically focused, rather tha=
n<BR>
becoming broad fronts that co-opt positions.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I agree that, for example, Logistics is going to be a problem because I cann=
ot envision any way that one can impose an architecture of communication uni=
formly and be equally efficacious in all constituent communities at any part=
icular resolution were we able to design a metric and a canonical representa=
tion, just speaking 'offhand,' so that we could impose a method 'oranges to=20=
oranges.' <BR>
<BR>
Not that we must have uniformity, but uniformity it would seem would general=
ly make a design more economical to realize from a centralized management pe=
rspective. It looks like there is going to have to be a different appr=
oach for each case, where a 'case' represents the trajectory of issue review=
from the most local representation to the highest appropriate level for, of=
course, the purpose of resolution. <BR>
<BR>
Case resolution, considered across 'oranges,' will be complicated by issues=20=
like: <BR>
<BR>
i. Some elected representatives are more experienced and adept at pipi=
ng needs to appropriate committees and generally getting things done and bar=
tering 'support for support' at the legislative level than others. Com=
promise and general politicking (between politicians) takes talent and chari=
sma always helps. Moreover this disparity of talent will occur at vary=
ing levels of representation from city government to state to federal. =
<BR>
<BR>
ii. Consider, from the people side, that at each level of 'constituent=
resolution' you probably have to have a separate 'constituent lobbyist' on=20=
retainer -- that expert that knows not only the topic, but has the utilitari=
an skill to traverse the channels local to him to get the position seriously=
considered above the fray. <BR>
<BR>
This series of 'constituent lobbyists' must be networked to be able to commu=
nicate with agility across the 'constituent resolution' levels from low to h=
igh to coordinate 'issue resolution.'<BR>
<BR>
Just to clarify, the expert 'constituent lobbyist' was my interpretation of=20=
Howard's concept -- one of the solutions that dealt with the raw data proble=
m and the issue of what I dubbed 'polemic intelligence.'<BR>
<BR>
As far as the case that the following are legitimate concerns:<BR>
<BR>
H>-- the ability of charismatic grass-roots leaders to hijack positions.<=
BR>
<BR>
H>-- issue discussions remain many and specifically focused, rather than<=
BR>
H> becoming broad fronts that co-opt positions.<BR>
<BR>
- -- I believe it would be fruitful and pragmatic to figure out a way to harne=
ss this 'desultory' energy instead of working against it. <BR>
<BR>
Aren't there any Far Eastern philosophies that basically state this? <=
BR>
<BR>
I agree that it is definitely natural to expect that these behaviors will ha=
ppen. The idea is to construct a method to channel or tap the unfocuse=
d energy to achieve the ultimate goal. In the end, who cares how the g=
oal was reached, as long as it was the one originally intended? I do a=
gree about the co-opting concern. Depending upon the other 'muck' that=
is co-opted as the 'broad brushing' occurs, the action may cause one to dro=
p support due to what might be considered as perverse identifications.<BR>
<BR>
Although the issues of management of scale of constituent feedback by the el=
ected representative is confronted by the 'lobbyist,' we still have to deal=20=
with constituent participation. Constituent participation must be meas=
ured somehow so that the lobbyist is perceived as legitimately representing=20=
the local constituency. Otherwise we would have made the situation wor=
se by effectively creating fewer voices of dissent and there would be no mea=
ns for the public to remonstrate.<BR>
<BR>
Our representation metric would probably be based on a recognized retainer p=
ayment schedule, where the lobbyist is getting financially compensated by th=
e constituency. Everyone knows how much the retainer contract is poten=
tially worth versus its present cash value. That way when the lobbyist=
speaks, the words are truly meaningful. <BR>
<BR>
The elected representative can assess the inverse ratio of 'potential retain=
er contract value' to 'present cash value' and know whether or not to give h=
im an ear as the ratio approaches unity.<BR>
<BR>
I know this sounds wrong, but what can you do? Liberty is not free.&nb=
sp; Please come up with some other persuasive metric. It may sound stu=
pid. I am just musing extemporaneously.<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1e.c414930.2b9eb762_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:39:59 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access
- --part1_1d5.4bd8c51.2b9ec29f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/10/03 11:57:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lindeman@bard.edu writes:
> Howard,
>
> You lost me when you went into pneumothorax (hmm, that doesn't sound
> quite right...), but I think you're onto something here.
>
> >The matter of accessibility to experts, and their appropriate use,
> >might also lead to thinking about something about which I don't have a
> >good name -- indepenent review, democracy-by-proxy, etc.
> >
> >Here's the underlying issue. Getting deeply into some issues simply
> >requires substantial background. Even if large numbers of people
> >disagree with some position, in the words of Scotty from the original
> >Star Trek, "Ye canna ignore the laws of physics."
>
> This reminds me of a broad discourse on the politics of science and
> technology which basically poses the question, How can we have
> democratic control of science and technology when the vast majority of
> people don't understand the facts -- and never will? This isn't just a
> rant about scientific illiteracy, although the extent of that is
> disturbing. Even the best informed among us have enormous zones of
> absolute ignorance, and areas of dangerously little knowledge. [It's
> debatable whether science and technology issues are actually distinctive
> in these respects, but to me that debate seems moot.]
>
> Mark
>
Mark, we're working on this problem. I've volunteered some ideas regarding
the concept of 'constituent lobbyist' as the solution to (1) large-scale
unwieldy raw data processing management and (2) the enhancement of general
'polemic intelligence' (so that constructive and meaningful arguments can
take place). The 'constituent lobbyist' is my derivation of the 'expert'
that Howard has been talking about.
The 'equiaccessiblity' to information is the problem that has to be solved
for the purpose of achieving a meaningful 'polemic intercourse' between the
constituent lobbyist and the elected official's expert.
Understand that there is a lot of information that can be kept legally or
otherwise from the public eye by the elected or appointed official as an
expedient to 'getting things done.' You might want to read about the ruses
of the master strategician, Robert Moses (New York State politics). You do
not even have to go that far. Understand that the public cannot get access
to the MTA budget to be able to assess the necessity of a New York City
transit fare hike. Only Governor Pataki has this information.
Therefore in this case, there can be no intelligent polemic. All of your
experts are either on the MTA board of directors or are the Governor's
deputies.
You can have as many town meetings about the issue as you want. The opposing
side has no information. The transit fare hike will occur uncontested -- a
fait accompli.
Larry
- --part1_1d5.4bd8c51.2b9ec29f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 3/10/03 11:57:23 AM Eastern Standar=
d Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Howard,<BR>
<BR>
You lost me when you went into pneumothorax (hmm, that doesn't sound <BR>
quite right...), but I think you're onto something here.<BR>
<BR>
>The matter of accessibility to experts, and their appropriate use, <BR>
>might also lead to thinking about something about which I don't have a <=
BR>
>good name -- indepenent review, democracy-by-proxy, etc.<BR>
><BR>
>Here's the underlying issue. Getting deeply into some issues simpl=
y <BR>
>requires substantial background. Even if large numbers of people <=
BR>
>disagree with some position, in the words of Scotty from the original <B=
R>
>Star Trek, "Ye canna ignore the laws of physics." <BR>
<BR>
This reminds me of a broad discourse on the politics of science and <BR>
technology which basically poses the question, How can we have <BR>
democratic control of science and technology when the vast majority of <BR>
people don't understand the facts -- and never will? This isn't just a=
<BR>
rant about scientific illiteracy, although the extent of that is <BR>
disturbing. Even the best informed among us have enormous zones of <BR=
>
absolute ignorance, and areas of dangerously little knowledge. [It's <=
BR>
debatable whether science and technology issues are actually distinctive <BR=
>
in these respects, but to me that debate seems moot.]<BR>
<BR>
Mark<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Mark, we're working on this problem. I've volunteered some ideas regar=
ding the concept of 'constituent lobbyist' as the solution to (1) large-scal=
e unwieldy raw data processing management and (2) the enhancement of general=
'polemic intelligence' (so that constructive and meaningful arguments can t=
ake place). The 'constituent lobbyist' is my derivation of the 'expert=
' that Howard has been talking about. <BR>
<BR>
The 'equiaccessiblity' to information is the problem that has to be solved f=
or the purpose of achieving a meaningful 'polemic intercourse' between the c=
onstituent lobbyist and the elected official's expert.<BR>
<BR>
Understand that there is a lot of information that can be kept legally or ot=
herwise from the public eye by the elected or appointed official as an exped=
ient to 'getting things done.' You might want to read about the ruses=20=
of the master strategician, Robert Moses (New York State politics). Yo=
u do not even have to go that far. Understand that the public cannot g=
et access to the MTA budget to be able to assess the necessity of a New York=
City transit fare hike. Only Governor Pataki has this information.&nb=
sp; <BR>
<BR>
Therefore in this case, there can be no intelligent polemic. All of yo=
ur experts are either on the MTA board of directors or are the Governor's de=
puties.<BR>
<BR>
You can have as many town meetings about the issue as you want. The op=
posing side has no information. The transit fare hike will occur uncon=
tested -- a fait accompli.<BR>
<BR>
Larry </FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1d5.4bd8c51.2b9ec29f_boundary--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #431
******************************
