tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83259159262879573702024-02-18T21:45:29.720-08:00Open Operations ForumAn open framework for coordinating any data, tactics, strategies, policies, goals or contexts. From autocatalysis to MMT (modern monetary theory).
An OpenOperations approach bridges topics and jargon as diverse as credit, currency, criminology, anthropology, ecology, system sciences and MMT - and more.rgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346252466232483806noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-78665593972435496542015-12-18T04:23:00.003-08:002016-01-25T23:27:20.623-08:00Are Human Politics Still So Absolutely Crude That Aggregates Can't Juggle 3 Policy Tools At Once, To Achieve National Agility?Fiscal vs Monetary vs Tax policies? <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">Appropriators, bankers and taxers, Oh My!</span></i><br />
<br />
<img src="https://ldawe.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/lions-and-tigers-and-bears-oh-my.jpg" /></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Whose policies best manage a nation and it's economy? That's an astoundingly wrong question, and wrong perspective! Sane people would say that the whole train of thought was <a href="http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/">"out of paradigm."</a><br />
<br />
Fiscal & monetary & tax policy are always tools of national policy. End of discussion.<br />
<br />
Even asking that question above is as dumb as asking whether feet, hands or mouth best manage personal coordination. Or other, equally trivial system questions.<br />
<br />
For example, which "policy" is more important for driving your car around town ... the brake, the gas pedal, the steering wheel ... or the ability to fill up at the gas station? With just these 4 variables, we've already exceeded the number of management demands that most politicians (and economists) seem capable of handling! The answer is a resounding "ALL OF THEM, WHEN & AS NEEDED, IN FLUID, FULLY INTERLEAVED COMBINATIONS!"<br />
<br />
Normally, those who can't master interleaved use of brakes, steering, accelerator, refueling ... in infinite combinations ... can't get or keep an automobile drivers license. So why on earth are we letting those same, clueless bozos attempt to "drive" our national policy around our current and emerging contexts?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Can you imagine the head of a National Transportation Commission solemnly pontificating that, in extreme circumstances, filling the gas tank may have more impact than using the brakes? Such a simpleton wouldn't even be admitted to an engineering school.<br />
<div>
<br />
The various engineering teams currently creating self-driving cars wouldn't even laugh. They would grit their teeth in exasperation, and QUICKLY usher such idiots into early retirement. As in ... <i>"please, just get out of the way, before you seriously harm your nation."</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i>If our engineers can design self-driving cars, </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i>why can't our electorate design self-adapting policies?</i></span></div>
</blockquote>
So what on earth is holding back politics?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Are human politics still so absolutely crude that aggregates can't juggle 3 policy tools at once, to achieve national agility?</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br />
Don't answer that question ... unless you're honestly willing to be ashamed of your own nation, and finally determined enough to start making a healthy difference. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Otherwise, just turn your stereo up high enough to hide reality, walk like an Egyptian, and remain in denial.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What an astoundingly simple question for politicians, whole electorates and their vaunted education systems to outright fail on. We have nations with hundreds of millions of people, watching their so-called economic leaders discuss whether a national <i><u>"fuel, price or brake"</u></i> policy is the best one at various times? <a href="http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BMHOTK"><b>BMHOTK</b>!</a> Please get these clowns off the stage, before they drag the level of discussion down to even slower, dumber levels.<br />
<br />
It doesn't do an aggregate too much good to have tools in a toolkit, if they don't know how & when to best use ALL of them, on demand, with increasing agility.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/remarks-081215.pdf">"fiscal policy tends to be a more powerful tool than monetary policy in such extreme circumstances"</a> </span></b></i></blockquote>
<div>
... <b><i>Oh, My, Taboos!</i></b> The very question reveals the depth of our political clumsiness. How'd these people ever get a license to drive policy? No wonder they keep running whole nations and entire economies off the road.<br />
<br />
How about</div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">"don't stop juggling policies 1-3, not just during extreme circumstances .. but during ALL circumstances?" </span></i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ya think?<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br />hat tip to Bill Mitchell<br /><b><a href="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32609">http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32609</a></b></i><b><br /></b><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
</div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-17296456075602585382015-08-12T05:26:00.001-07:002015-08-28T10:27:19.727-07:00We Need Professionally Licensed Cultural Engineers, Not Just Fly-By-Night Profiteers Masquerading As Politicians - And Informed Voters.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=mob+vs+organization+image&client=ubuntu&espv=2&biw=1819&bih=1059&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCIW6_Ka3o8cCFYYyPgodrooO0A#tbm=isch&q=emergent+teamwork+image&imgrc=_">teamwork</a> works, why don't we do even more of it ... at all levels?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNMIUsyogB5n1fciwlHMeTKZkVaHDIS_iq0w5jfh5-VYu_c5KMgQUdxltpkNHNMbM5nh0IvDlejFU5R7mTxn8FP9tLDLyPoFqPiKDJKOmQehupgmTeFTda9uE4EBhzX1iDrVbXx2yAD6he/s1600/teamwork+quotes+%25281%2529.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNMIUsyogB5n1fciwlHMeTKZkVaHDIS_iq0w5jfh5-VYu_c5KMgQUdxltpkNHNMbM5nh0IvDlejFU5R7mTxn8FP9tLDLyPoFqPiKDJKOmQehupgmTeFTda9uE4EBhzX1iDrVbXx2yAD6he/s320/teamwork+quotes+%25281%2529.gif" width="261" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><i>"It is necessary to have </i>[civil]<i> organization if we are to have effective and efficient government. The only difference between a mob and a trained army is organization, and the only difference between a disorganized country and one that has the advantage of a wise and sound government is fundamentally a question of </i>[citizen]<i> organization." <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=RtZpsKeuW_MC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=the+only+difference+between+a+mob+and+a+trained+army+is+organization&source=bl&ots=bjocXjAXQ2&sig=3rn3jbaEuj7VMsaeoWuotE4tK0o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBWoVChMIncKF67qjxwIVRns-Ch2_JACZ#v=onepage&q=the%20only%20difference%20between%20a%20mob%20and%20a%20trained%20army%20is%20organization&f=false">Calvin Coolidge</a></i></span></b></blockquote>
<br />
Yet here we are, unnecessarily waging a great civil war worldwide, between business concerns and the people whom merchants serve.<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://stop-ttip.org/">TTIP</a><a href="https://stop-ttip.org/"> will outlaw any renationalization, once your power, water, trains etc. get privatized!</a> </span></i></b></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
When a servant says to his customer: "Restrict your exploration of options, so I may serve you better" - he's forgetting that the horse doesn't direct the cart. Nor does the car direct the driver, or the Public Servant the public.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When servants mis-lead customers, we call it false-advertising. When servants usurp and enslave customers, we call it an evolutionary dead-end, and death spiral.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/calvincool103111.html"><i>"Mass demand </i>[for things we don't need]<i> has been created almost entirely through .. advertising."</i></a><i> Calvin Coolidge</i></span></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet don't forget that we eventually discard - sometimes quickly - all that we don't need. Don't forget what happened the last time we allowed too much false-advertising to lead us off a cliff, right after Calving Coolidge left office in March, 1929.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Do we the people really need TTIP and other "trade" frameworks, any more than India "needed" the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company">East India Company (EIC)?</a> Who is the benefactor? Who provides which benefits? And who reaps any claimed benefits, for how long? And finally, at what cost to the aggregate?</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"This [TTIP] is a transnational corporate takeover similar to the takeover of India by the East India Company in 1757. That's the Neo-Liberal plan for globalization.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>This effectively shuts down democracy and neuters the nation state. It will lead to revolution unless enforced by police states in which the transnationals control the security forces, as the EIC did in India.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>It's not just a matter of stopping TPP and TTIP but of ending neoliberal globalization. The Right gets this. The Left not so much. So watch for a resurgence of the Right in the EZ." Tom Hickey</i></blockquote>
<div>
<i><br /></i>What are YOUR thoughts?<br />
<br />
Personally, I suspect that prospects for the feudal approach of right wing fat cats & gangsters - trying to emulate aristocrats - is alive and kicking, but on the tail-end of a 2-thousand year cycle.<br />
<br />
Populations everywhere are being SLOWLY transitioning to professionally-run democracies, with hiccoughs.</div>
<div>
<br />
It'll get a bit worse, but then things have to get better - or else.<br />
<br />
This is cultural evolution in action; fascinating!<br />
<br />
Imagine how long it took for human physiology to "settle" into a workable package of 40Trillion cells, ~300 Cell Types, and ~65 Organs. <b><i>That adaptive tuning didn't happen overnight. </i></b>Nor will cultural evolution at our current population levels.<br />
<br />
It takes a super-village of established methods ... to grow an adaptive culture.<br />
<br />
The core challenge is establishing AND MAINTAINING key sub-methods, for inventing & installing new cultural methods, as needed. That's way harder than, say, all the refinements made to the internal combustion engine the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
We need professionally licensed cultural engineers, not just fly-by-night profiteers masquerading as politicians.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until then, we're closer to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=disorganized+crime+image&client=ubuntu&espv=2&biw=1819&bih=1059&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCIXuio3Fo8cCFcluPgodGkcDnw">disorganized crime</a> than <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html">cultural teamwork</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-36112891026070679492015-07-18T20:10:00.000-07:002015-07-22T08:30:54.614-07:00Resiliency Tracks The Quality (including tempo) Of Distributed-Instrumentation PLUS Distributed-Analysis PLUS Distributed-PracticeWhat Is A "Technoprogressive Public Intellectual" ?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ieet.org/index.php/IEET/support"><b>Someone one who publishes random articles about what a given individual naively thinks whole aggregates "could" and "should" do?</b></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOM3zcUp3zJbzs-OvAzt9ER1O3fv20DD0StwUjB1PODf2FhsjoFUfy1ScgSB0H9rGrsIYj8SscHNh-fqJADIkOYUEusvDDkHd8cCh2i9-xnkQyljAcK2LLrQiPv3JOwoFPhlcqBNU1sUF8/s1600/Less_Talk_More_Do.jpg"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOM3zcUp3zJbzs-OvAzt9ER1O3fv20DD0StwUjB1PODf2FhsjoFUfy1ScgSB0H9rGrsIYj8SscHNh-fqJADIkOYUEusvDDkHd8cCh2i9-xnkQyljAcK2LLrQiPv3JOwoFPhlcqBNU1sUF8/s400/Less_Talk_More_Do.jpg" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
If an academic tweets in the world, after NEVER having worked on Main Street, and there are too few people around with relevant experience to instantly give 'em sanity checks .... are acdemics still statistically irrelevant?<br />
<br />
For example, the presumption that there is a <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/life"><b>Longevity Dividend</b></a> is so naive that it's embarrassing.<br />
<br />
These guys don't seem to know the 1st thing about biology-101, i.e., that species lifetimes are very actively programmed, precisely to get prior generations OUT OF THE WAY of their recombinant offspring.<br />
<br />
For <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace"><b>Wallace's</b></a> sake! We do physical, chemical, biological, sexual, behavioral & cultural recombination FOR A REASON. That reason is precisely to counteract & regulate blind, Institutional Momentum, aka, Phenotypic Persistence! If you extend the lifetime of any component in any system, the first consequence is augmented Institutional Momentum. <br />
<br />
Here's an excerpt on augmented human longevity, from a hypothetical <b><i>"Recombinant Systems for Dummies"</i></b> book: <i>"Dude, that's not always a good thing."</i><br />
<br />
Increased interaction and distributed involvement I can see, but if Institutional Momentum is a problem now, extending it will help? That seems like another, very fundamental, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition"><b>fallacy of composition</b></a> for a constantly expanding whole.<br />
<br />
In fact, I'm constantly wondering how to titrate just <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2014/12/scientific-form-over-function-selling.html"><b>what % of discourse in every discipline is completely off the aggregate adaptive path, from the onset of that discipline.</b></a> I'm guessing it's far higher than most would ever imagine. It may vary from 80% to 98% for all we know. You'd have to be an outside observer with the benefit of hindsight to easily determine that. By definition, no sub-aggregate Institution is as adaptive as all of us, so that the momentum of any sub-aggregate Institution is alwyays closer to a tangent to the unpredictably meandering Adaptive Path of a whole aggregate.<br />
<br />
Yet there must be some way for aggregates come to slowly approach aggregate-self-awareness of that ongoing challenge. How to have their Institutions (phenotypes) and use them too?<br />
<br />
How? Surely it starts with systemic Cultural Instrumentation. In general, the more instrumented a system is, the faster it can tune distributed adjustments to ongoing variance in that system's component features.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that few humans were individually "self-aware" until the documented self-discovery of grammar by the Greeks, circa 300-400 BC dramatically increased the numbers displaying that feature.<br />
<br />
So when will whole electorates be aggregate-self-aware? Circa 3000 AD? Let's hope it's even sooner. The internet, and mobile phones, are exciting milestones, yet when it comes to Cultural Instrumentation, things like Facebook are still analogous to Neanderthals pounding rocks, oblivious to the approach of subtly but significantly new species.<br />
<br />
Finally, what do we DO with our proliferating number of system components (humans) broadcasting naive views? Instrument them? That's a start. Then, how do we achieve increasingly distributed aggregate analysis of increasing proportions of prior/current/emerging data?<br />
<br />
If <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html"><b>aggregate success tracks the quality (including tempo) of distributed decision-making</b></a>, then accelerated or continued success (resiliency) may track the quality (including tempo) of selected combinations of <b><i>[Prior Distributed-Instrumentation </i></b><b><i><u>PLUS</u></i></b><b><i> </i></b><b><i>Distributed</i></b><b><i>-Analysis </i></b><b><i><u>PLUS</u></i></b><b><i> </i></b><b><i>Distributed-Practice</i></b><b><i>]</i></b>, not just their algebraic sum.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">If none of us is as smart as all of us, that's still only useful if we can quickly INVOLVE all of us in demonstrating aggregate smarts.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<div>
That's what Natural Selection means. Selecting, by survival, that progressing combination of existing component features which is best able to survive the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune (including tempo). <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKS4Amy6POZ6sLbKWRD1CEqTZqRxymIzngftEagaX64OEbdj5JPNluZf2dcuMNnjsCp91Ssyvubr1y5amoFTsThyphenhyphenZwkFWZDNFWpusgFEsGX7ijNx_y_5VbwBgLl3piThcWC9NDSCaWzDLk/s1600/reply_vs_understand.jpg"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKS4Amy6POZ6sLbKWRD1CEqTZqRxymIzngftEagaX64OEbdj5JPNluZf2dcuMNnjsCp91Ssyvubr1y5amoFTsThyphenhyphenZwkFWZDNFWpusgFEsGX7ijNx_y_5VbwBgLl3piThcWC9NDSCaWzDLk/s400/reply_vs_understand.jpg" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
Curiously, the best way to further improve the resiliency of any recombinant system, is to add subtle methods for reducing frictions and improving the tempo of coordination among existing components, rather than adding novel component variants or even markedly altering the characteristics of existing components.<br />
<br />
Every new task has a solution, and that solution will involve another level of indirection ... by adding sub-components able to build new interfaces between existing as well as emerging components.<br />
<br />
Here's my advice to all <b><i>"Technoprogressive Public Intellectuals."</i></b> Less talk, more do. Within tolerance limits, of course.<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEuYW7AZfO0ucE4zyhyphenhyphenwgEtw42w9TPsxfyfu7UiTAK9fT9hCB0m44pXkBm4WD-7pgXvWJqHhl8NMapnHfzmcfTwNyqAwCcs7lYTiX3s8w3dgY60xTfkw0GnfOYGWK0-sPYr7AEBHkrEIdR/s1600/tolerance_limits_exploring_fitting_in.gif" /><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-6666033083952009062015-07-14T05:17:00.000-07:002015-07-14T18:47:25.950-07:00 There's A Very Simple Lesson In All This. Tuning Our Envelope Of All Known Tolerance LimitsTake our embarrassing example of <a href="http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5965.html">Greece & EuroZone Policy</a>, PLEASE! Before more citizens get lost in the fog of fiscal war.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAeBrLt_Anm_df4HI_i_0AgCsXuXU8ISOxPpFdHKUFMqBk2Y-tc7q9MkDUPx0SZ6R6MdxUg3pw0LVUsnEnhWAzSfF_4pRyXQlXKwkwDgG4IZK4AIFrqd6W986ZARRcR5zudi6BFgNgTv2o/s1600/fog_of_fiscal_war.png"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAeBrLt_Anm_df4HI_i_0AgCsXuXU8ISOxPpFdHKUFMqBk2Y-tc7q9MkDUPx0SZ6R6MdxUg3pw0LVUsnEnhWAzSfF_4pRyXQlXKwkwDgG4IZK4AIFrqd6W986ZARRcR5zudi6BFgNgTv2o/s400/fog_of_fiscal_war.png" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
In other words, <a href="http://www.vox.com/cards/eurozone-crisis">how the eurozone helped lead to Greece's crisis</a>.<br />
<br />
These are the same people who built <a href="http://home.web.cern.ch/about">CERN</a>? <br />
<br />
How did they NOT see this coming? Why aren't Europeans probing the fundamental structure of their own cultural aggregates?<br />
<br />
And why are they taking it out on the citizens and plebes of Greece, instead of on their own reckless lenders & profit seekers? And why are citizens & plebes across Europe egging on their own feckless leaders, and encouraging them to flog the neighboring serfs all the harder?<br />
<br />
This is the usual plight of people who know more & more about less & less, until they know everything about nothing (especially their own context)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Lissencephalic policy apparatus, convoluted cultural outcome paths.</i></blockquote>
Or, how flat-earth level, slow witted ideologues produce criminal politics, <i><u>when allowed to,</u></i> by citizens acting like innocent bystanders, & pretending not to be active accomplices.<br />
<br />
It's only when policy-forming processes are nuanced enough to be adaptive, that culture evolves. <br />
<br />
Right now, with so few paying attention to the most simplistic fundamentals of inter-dependencies, our vast stockpile of detailed data sits unattended, as everyone assumes that policy is unimportant enough to leave to the presumed process owners. Whom everyone privately agrees are idiot politicians! Go figure. Denial is perhaps most rampant among PhDs begging the excuse of being "specialists," and thereby absolved from involvement in evolving democracy. You couldn't make this up.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>Have data, won't use it to drive aggregate selection. Only nitpicking.</b></i></blockquote>
There's a very simple lesson in this.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">Recombinant aggregates can't adapt if emerging components don't get emerging feedback & then practice contributing to aggregate selection, early and often enough. There has to be overall tolerance limits for the variance allowed across the entire envelope of tolerance limits (including time constants<span style="color: red;">*</span>) for all aggregate processes.</span></b></i></blockquote>
<br />
That's the essence of system tuning, and that's how <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis#Role_in_origin_of_life">autocatalysis</a> slowly occurs.<br />
<br />
For those who don't understand that paragraph .... here's:<br />
<br />
<b>Human Systems for Dummies</b><br />
<br />
1) <b>Recombi-NATION.</b> A human culture or nation is a massively parallel recombinant system (even more so than a forming nervous system or a whole organism growing from an embryo). Well Duh!<br />
<br />
<br />
2) <b>What is a recombinant system?</b> Recombinant systems "connect everything to everything" and then relax briefly to a selected form, before doing it all again. Again, Duh! <br />
Evolution of species illustrates a steady progression of recombination occurring less stochastically, and more smoothly & continuously. Human culture now recombines by continuous production & education of children, in pre-k & K-12 learning systems, plus a proliferating array of adult "disciplines."<br />
<br />
<br />
3) <b>Connecting everything to everything, before selecting what form of relaxation is briefly safe.</b> To be blunt, if kids don't get exposed to the entire range of human thought, soon enough & often enough, then aggregate knowledge (context awareness) cannot grow smoothly, and we instead just stockpile data-minus-context in inaccessible journals & other archives.<br />
<br />
<br />
4) <b>Practicing Aggregate Selection is a group exercise.</b> Our cultures & economies can't meet the challenges of selective pressure if we can't generate adequate adaptive tempo. That only comes with early & frequent practice at addressing whatever the moment-of-selective-pressure is, i.e., our biggest policy challenges. It just never helps enough, to have students tied up for decades paying attention ONLY to trivial errata that rarely, if ever, helps extract context from excessive amounts of data. <br />
<br />
<br />
5) <b>Tuning our whole system, not just the components.</b> Our culture & economies also can't generate enough adaptive tempo unless we actively involve a threshold level of multi-generational involvement in pressing policy issues. If success means surviving an endless succession of unpredictable challenges in unpredictably transient contexts, then our #1 goal is not to optimize current skills, but to develop education & training systems that maintains adaptive recombination skills and doesn't let them wax & wain with too much variance. We want to survive the hour (or the business quarter, or the budget year), but we want every new ripple of graduates to be able to solve tomorrow's challenges, and we want every new generation to be able to handle the challenges that will come 2 decades out.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjD2K7jAl5DHl3s2ZOHOKKshtTvn0uUQMQFL-3d2Z1SB7g16ACtqmISDuPLmUq4EV5Y146Vcc8qGT8Vq61790FgL239NavafNagAMlmapQtU5AH3527Z-rbsZPUrNIjuehSZsT_a4AWQ_v/s1600/zero_predictive_power.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjD2K7jAl5DHl3s2ZOHOKKshtTvn0uUQMQFL-3d2Z1SB7g16ACtqmISDuPLmUq4EV5Y146Vcc8qGT8Vq61790FgL239NavafNagAMlmapQtU5AH3527Z-rbsZPUrNIjuehSZsT_a4AWQ_v/s320/zero_predictive_power.jpg" /></a></blockquote>
Zero predictive power? Seemingly unlimited adaptive power? What would you do? Try to do too much (of the wrong thing) until you're gone? Or, prepare your kids to take over AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and then ALSO train them to have kids soon enough ... & know how to train the grandchildren to again take over in their turn, as soon as possible? That's how to keep our species ship afloat, and our culture growing.<br />
<br />
<div>
Term Limits is not enough, by far. We always need <b><i><u>an annotated package of Adaptive Limits</u></i></b> that includes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> term limits, plus ...<br /> early education minima (mis-education limits),<br /> lifelong exposure to aggregate challenges (mis-exposure limits),<br /> lifelong training & education & work (human mis-allocation limits),<br /> lifelong involvement in policy formation (mis-recombination limits).</i></blockquote>
<br />
This is simple biology-101 and anthropology-101. Every recombinant process on this planet meets that entire envelope of challenges ... or soon disappears from the stage.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart#Later_work">Data is meaningless without context.</a> It doesn't matter what we know, only what we know how, and why, to use ... to survive ... in the future, as well as today. We won't get there by knowing more about less, any more than we will by knowing less. Nor by arbitrarily paying attention to less of everything.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDlnQRLqmDDGWwF3oydOOl7KzYw9OUJRNIWjMmg3hbBc-_poXQlWM2sj-sizO0Tk7sIrAlzDufMs9R99rZ4CfSJ1HeCZoGYh3mWxtEoEyxoeruJPyfsAzVB_QNaQkV0ch3Id0S6r8rAdQC/s1600/official_ignorance.jpg"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDlnQRLqmDDGWwF3oydOOl7KzYw9OUJRNIWjMmg3hbBc-_poXQlWM2sj-sizO0Tk7sIrAlzDufMs9R99rZ4CfSJ1HeCZoGYh3mWxtEoEyxoeruJPyfsAzVB_QNaQkV0ch3Id0S6r8rAdQC/s400/official_ignorance.jpg" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Above all else, we need to be agile about what and how we contribute to aggregate selection, and how we train to help our aggregate survive natural selection.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">*</b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><i>A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian">"Hamiltonian"</a> is the presumed equation describing some aspects of a hypothetical system. Similarly, members of any human team or aggregate eventually come to appreciate the critical interplay between the time constants of multiple processes. For some outcome to occur, many different, interacting processes have to occur with some minimal tempo, and deliver local outcomes within some critical period, i.e., with a maximum time constant. This is the basis of orchestral or band music, for example. It would be useful for students to formally grasp this as a named concept and ponder it, from pre-k onwards. The <b><u>Grumbletonian?</u></b> :) Timing of cooperation is an inherent part of cooperation, and something that humans are geniuses at, even as babies - if that talent is developed, rather than neglected. Aggregate tuning is all about reducing NET frictions. Managing that begs for a consensus definition, and delivery of the summary data to track it.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<br /></div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-39543668300457672442015-07-09T13:03:00.002-07:002015-07-09T13:03:48.773-07:00Meeting Challenges With Logical Institution of Adaptive Change ... or ... Continually Accelerating End Runs Around Institutional Momentum<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i>"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237842?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">indirection</a></i><b style="text-align: start;"><span style="color: red;">*</span></b><i>, except of course for the problem of too many indirections." </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wheeler_(British_computer_scientist)">David Wheeler</a></blockquote>
<br />More usefully ...<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><a href="https://plus.google.com/104140272098689841413/posts/cN9d11XAbxi">ALL PROBLEMS IN DEMOCRACY CAN BE SOLVED BY ORGANIZING ENOUGH TO LEVERAGE RATHER THAN MERELY SUFFER MORE LEVELS OF INDIRECTION.</a></i></blockquote>
These and other statements about indirection are actually concise summaries of the theory of adaptive evolution. Sure we have plenty of old & new challenges, every year, if not every day. How do we meet and survive them?<br /><br />Name your problem.<br /><br />Fiat currency budgets? White Collar Crime and banking? Tax rates? College loans? Unemployment? Military Industrial Congressional Complex? Police Brutality? Blue Collar Crime? Trade Policy? Excessive Regulations? Slow Moving Bureaucracy? Pollution?<br /><br />All of these can be easily solved, by teamwork and organized teams. Most will acknowledge that organized teams can do amazing things, and have been doing so for ~4.5 Billion years on planet Earth.<br /><br />What's to stop us now?<br /><br />If that's the case, how do we actually take arms against a sea of self-generated problems, and by organized opposition, overcome them? Here is an observable framework, which we've already been doing, for millions of years.<br /><br />Key concepts:<br /></div>
<div>
Successive, Transient Contexts.<br />Toolkits.<br />Recombination.<br />"Social" organization</div>
<div>
Over-adaptation as Institutional Momentum.</div>
<div>
Coordination & coordination rate.<br />Cost of Coordination.<br />Return on Coordination.<br />Communication & communication rate.</div>
<div>
Selecting signal from noise or "parsing."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Reducing frictions.<br />Autocatalysis.<br />Outcomes vs methods vs perceptions. <br />Tuning & tuning rate, for components & the whole.<br />Adaptive Quality (including tempo) of Distributed Decision-Making = Adaptive Rate<br />Aggregate Interactions & Interaction Rates.<br />Aggregate Context Awareness.<br />Perceiving the Sum of [Aggregate Actions + Diverse Component Actions]<br />Survival = Optimizing the Sum of [Aggregate Actions + Diverse Component Actions].<br />Sustainability.<br /><br /> <br /><b> 1) Successive, Transient Contexts.</b> People learn, as they grow, that the life of a person, a family, a tribe, a corporation or a nation state involves not just one, but multiple challenges occurring as a succession of transient contexts. <br /><br /><b>2) Toolkits.</b> In the long history of planet Earth, we continue to unravel astoundingly diverse examples of how physical aggregates, biological species and whole ecosystems survive succeeding contexts through slow accumulation of increasingly diverse toolkits. The more complex a system is, the more ways it can adjust to changing context (not that it always does). There is a fundamental difference between how most people define efficiency and resilience. Efficiency commonly refers to performance in a given context, while resiliency refers to outcomes across multiple contexts.<br /><br /><b>3) Recombination.</b> Recombination is the outcome of pursuing another level of indirection. When the sticks used by ancient hominids weren't long enough to make a lean too adequate for their growing band, they started recombining them together in novel forms, to make better, faster, cheaper nests or homes. Once you look, recombination is everywhere, including physiological, chemical, biological, sexual recombination of genes, tools & toolkits (even snowmobiles!), behavioral (dance? music? art? sports?) and on to the cultural recombination we call changing business systems and legal systems. We're now facing demand for supra-cultural recombination among multiple nation states. Don't expect the United Nations to go away. It's what comes next that you should be pondering.<br /><br /><b>4) Social Organization.</b> It's fundamentally useful to remind all citizens that social species rule because of their ability to scavenge all their diversity, and keep it in their toolkit for recombination and re-purposing ... as succeeding contexts demand. Social species outdo all others, and dominate the Earth, because those characteristics, which confer overwhelming increases in resiliency.<br /><br /><br />Implications.<br /><br /><br /><b>5) Over-adaptation as Institutional Momentum.</b> History certainly implies that it is usually death to over-adapt to a transient context. Today's "winner" is always today's Dinosaur and tomorrow's history ... UNLESS ... that entity can unwind and recombine the very institutional momentum that allowed it to be the MOST efficient today. Going too far has implications for your survival statistics, once the direction of the adaptive race changes.<br /><br /><b>6) Coordination & coordination rate.</b> If over-adaptation to any one of a series of fleeting contexts is dangerous, what's the fall-back strategy? It's quite obvious, actually. Just like the runners in a multi-lap footrace may or may not be rewarded by "winning" a particular lap, they all share the goal of staying in the race and positioning to lead WHEN NECESSARY. They typically do that by hanging around the leaders, and "staying within striking distance." And what if the race never ends? What if our adaptive race through history keeps changing direction, by changing context? In that case, our survival strategy is to survive and stay in the race. Hence, the ultimate tool in our already complex cultural toolkit is skill at coordination and cooperation.</div>
<div>
Is it better to be biggest? Strongest? Fastest? Not for our purpose. Rather, it's safer and "better" to assume and discard any and all attributes and skills, when & as needed. Grow fur? Humans don & shed clothing instead. Muscle mass? Humans use levers & machines instead. Fangs? Humans use knives instead. Physical speed? Humans use tools, domestic animals, bicycles, cars, boats & planes instead. In short, humans survive via recombination, adaptation and evolution. We're constantly shedding whatever holds us back, and domesticating ourselves to be resilient over time, rather than over-adapted to any particular, transient context.<br /><br /><b>7) Cost of Coordination.</b> Yes, there is a cost to coordinating. Just look at the practice & training time any organized team has to put in ... to learn and express aggregate coordination.</div>
<div>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart">Walter Shewhart</a> famously remarked an obvious truth, that "In all complex systems the biggest [ongoing] cost, by far, is the cost of coordination." Coordination requires an effort, in order to broadcast, receive, sample, analyze and respond to constantly increasing amounts of information from a growing number of teammates doing increasingly diverse things. Can you imagine the challenge for basketball players and coaches if basketball teams went from 5 players to 6 on successive days, then 7, 8, 9, and 10? And what if the rules, court and equipment also all changed? That's life! It's also why sports can be initially useful, but quickly becomes an exercise in form over adaptive function. Ditto for music, choreography and theatre. They don't change as fast as our world does, and hence have become useful to fewer and fewer of our expanding populous.<br /><br /><b>8) Return on Coordination.</b> The most immediate corollary is so obvious that Shewhart left it unstated. In all complex systems, the highest return, by far, is the return-on-coordination. In fact, the return on coordination is the only return that exceeds the cost of coordination. If evolution occurs among others who are coordinating, then we have only one choice, to die out, or keep coordinating on a bigger/faster scale, so that our team outcompetes and absorbs, all other teams. What then? What if there is one day a United States of Earth? Long before that, our own complacency and un-directed personal habits and Institutional Momentum will become our greatest competitor. How do we compete with ourselves, and thereby maintain our adaptive rate? Obviously, just by staying alive. Our current challenge is to change everything and adapt fast enough to survive ourselves. A hundred years after Wallace & Darwin, even some literature majors eventually recognized that. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard#Themes_and_interpretation">"Everything needs to change, so everything can [appear to] stay the same."</a> <br /><br /><br />More Implications.<br /><br /><br /><b>9) Communication & communication rate.</b> How do social, coordinating species invest in coordination, so that the return always exceeds the cost? Despite what a sitting US President foolishly claimed, evolving species do "Nuance."<br /> Those social species (and nations, and democracies) that survive:<br /> Exchange more information, faster and more widely.<br /> Practice more, and perceive more.<br /> Parse more context from the expanding sea of data they generate.<br /> Recognize and explore more aggregate options ... faster.<br /><br /><br /><b>10) Selecting signal from noise or "parsing."</b> What does an adaptive signal look like, for an aggregate constantly re-orienting to a context that is changing yet again? Basically, one that allows a 2-stage optimization task.<br /> S = Sum[A+B], and not Sum[A] + Sum[B].</div>
<div>
That's how a whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. It's also how the USA wrote a Constitution and set out to "form a more perfect union."</div>
<div>
Both "A" and "B" have many parts, but they're used here to mean "keep the components alive AND adequately provisioned" (A) plus "grow the system" (B). Neither citizen component nor nation can sacrifice too much, nor gain excessively, if the whole is to exceed the sum of its parts. Yet between those tolerance limits we have tremendous freedom to operate and express distributed plus collective ingenuity.<br /><br /><b>11) Reducing frictions.</b> This is both trivial and sublime. Any mechanic or race car tuner knows that reducing friction between moving parts is key to enhancing performance of a system. That's why we have oil, grease, ball bearings and precision carving or machining. Yet how many realize that the same thing applies to all the human moving parts in a social system? Much of <a href="http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2011/04/12/military-development-at-west-point-by-col-casey-haskins/">successful military science and Officer Training</a> comes down to systematically finding ways to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Don-Vandergriff/e/B0092WE7HY">reduce frictions among teammates</a>, and making it hard for people to work at cross purposes. That's how social species allow themselves to leverage their increasingly diverse talents.<br /><br /><b>12) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis#Role_in_origin_of_life">Autocatalysis</a>.</b> How do social species actually do all these things? How do they simultaneously increase diversity, increase options and decrease frictions, so that they can explore their emerging options, and do so faster than others? The whole package is called autocatalysis, when each component catalyzes all other components to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts. That's the same way the combination of an egg cell and sperm cell catalyze the rapid growth resulting in a new, unique human, in a self-driving cascade of reinforcing triggers. <br /> First, everything has to be connected to everything, so everyone can see - or be frequently reminded - of dangling tasks. Then all data streams have to interact or discuss, so that analysis preserves the 2-stage optimization mentioned above. Finally, a bias to ADAPTIVE action must be present, which both triggers activity AND tempers it per the preserved connectivity. "Do no harm" gets to be a longer and longer list, as your number of co-citizens grows.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn10kW9JhNrYPM8fBCvps3zvAx-CAvtY__iobp2dht0fLS-sJNrTOAj5z8lpMD5LMJu5Zqzb8YY5WyshlzDhk_tY1iGvEyKtlbcoO8eGjtcOUZ_6G0d5LCbeY1bHuWBUohM724bykn6_Pg/s400/sisyphus-1.jpg" /></blockquote>
<div>
<br /> The result is a massively-parallel calculation that is always impossible for participants to predict, in part because so many of the terms keep changing before the calculation can be completed. As an aggregate, we have zero predictive power, yet unlimited adaptive power, so far. It's up to us to figure out how to adapt, through continuous indirection.<br /><br /><br />Keys to adaptive autocatalysis.<br /><br /><br /><b>13) Outcomes vs methods vs perceptions.</b> How do we keep our eyes on the prize, when the context never stops changing and the "prize" is continuously redefined? Answer, by trial and error discovery of unpredictably subtle adjustments. We redefine the "prize" as ability to survive and thrive, and we keep our eyes on that drifting outcome, whatever it takes. That means maintaining a determination to break any abandon or modify any tradition or break any taboo, as necessary, aka, practice Cultural Recombination.<br /><br /><b>14) Tuning & tuning rate, for components & the whole.</b> Our proverbial mechanics and racing enthusiasts understand the concept of tuning. If they're involved in automotive decathlons or fleet management, they also understand the concept of tuning for resiliency rather than breaking down before completing a multiple-race circuit. However, it's a comical commentary on narrow thinking that there are so many teams of expert "tuners" who stubbornly fight for years on end, and insist on tuning everything except their own interactions. Biology is chock full of examples of molecular, cellular, endocrine, muscular and behavioral functions that are systematically tuned to create a marvelously flexible whole, with the tuning based upon long lists of subtle, "if-then" variations on a basic theme. Just think of how many ways you can tap your finger, or move your tongue, just to start with trivial examples, before moving on to more complex examples such as speech, multiple languages and teamwork. Our survival depends on how fast we can readjust countless processes, and re-adapt them in novel ways, for novel purposes when and as needed. That means adding nuance, not avoiding it.<br /><br /><b>15) Adaptive Quality (including tempo) of Distributed Decision-Making = Adaptive Rate. </b> The reality of social tuning is that <a href="http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf">aggregate success follows the quality (including tempo) of distributed decision making</a>. The tempo of trial & error learning is what biologists call Adaptive Rate. Those aggregates that can make adjustments faster, will outlast those that can't. Further, not that those who perceive possible outcomes earlier, and identify emerging options, can start making changes and reducing frictions sooner. <br /><br /><b>16) Aggregate Interactions & Interaction Rates.</b> In practice, this all feeds together in a constant, self-catalyzing or autocatalytic social loop.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> Interactions drive awareness (personal + aggregate).<br /> Awareness exposes options.<br /> Options demand coordinated actions.<br /> Coordinated actions drive further interactions (restarting the autocatalysis).</i></blockquote>
Note that this reinforcing cycle occurs only IF:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> Interactions remain diverse, and<br /> Feedback remains diverse, sent and received.<br /> Tempo remains high-energy.</i></blockquote>
<b>17) Aggregate Context Awareness.</b> Note that an alert, aware and responsive aggregate occurs only if new components (kids & grandchildren) are quickly aware of the latest challenges motivating their nation, not just the old ones.<br /><br /><b>18) Perceiving & Exploring Aggregate (& local) Options.</b> All of the above only KEEPS happening if kids and grandkids remain aware that yet another context WILL inevitably appear, requiring yet a a bigger perspective to master. That way they will fully expect that challenge to appear, & will go looking for it. In the process, they will also keep building bigger perspectives on where they are and what new options are appearing, & will consider HOW to generate utilize ever more diversity (a bigger toolkit). All this will, quite coincidentally, lead them to practice coordinated use of their social+technical toolkit on an even greater scale. This is, incidentally, what humans have always done. We've just grown so quickly that we've temporarily forgotten the most fundamental lessons that our ancestors knew. Quite literally, we can't see our context for our details, precisely because there are so many of us and we're not staying as connected as we could and should be.<br /><br /><b>19) Survival is the Sum of [Aggregate Actions + Diverse Component Actions].</b> We can now reiterate an old truism. Making a whole greater than the sum of its parts involves a cascade of cooperative adjustments in order to achieve a shared, Desired Outcome. That's what coordination means.<br /> <br /><b>20) Sustainability.</b> What has kept the universe, Earth, biology and humanity going all this time? It is common to say that adjustments occur only after challenges. Yet it is also true that those that survive challenges are those that had already started or continued preparing to make even more adjustments. If we are going to survive by continuously expanding our adaptive rate, then we need to make accumulation of coordination skills become our primary Desired Outcome. Ultimately, that's the best way to ensure that we'll be able to go anywhere and become anything .... regardless of the challenge.</div>
<div>
How do we achieve sustainability? Don't stop doing #'s 1-20, above. Add #21. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If America only knew what Americans know ... we wouldn't have to worry about our sustainability, or the prospects for the 7th generation yet unborn.<br /> <br /> ###############<br /><br /><b><span style="color: red;">*</span></b> <i>Indirection, an alternate route to the same place; i.e., if the front door is locked, crawl in through a basement window in the back of the house. There are multiple paths for bypassing every obstacle.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-57025054522052019112015-06-04T07:49:00.000-07:002016-03-15T03:07:33.755-07:00The Best Asset To Accumulate Is A Toolkit Of Aggregate Coordination Skills<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLWliW9mq3jFy7aRxfovysMsKrPfCXxxQjt_ei0rCOdBLxHFe8OzgJTZQnqhAuagN8fN35UcXzuA2LMzFrRjrOiiRvNGiWWrsDpaiq54XwsQSwQdit00VZsOZfIn5m9IV9qckk9BEn0RJX/s1600/innocent_fraud.jpg"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLWliW9mq3jFy7aRxfovysMsKrPfCXxxQjt_ei0rCOdBLxHFe8OzgJTZQnqhAuagN8fN35UcXzuA2LMzFrRjrOiiRvNGiWWrsDpaiq54XwsQSwQdit00VZsOZfIn5m9IV9qckk9BEn0RJX/s400/innocent_fraud.jpg" width="251" /></a></div>
<br />
How do we fool ourselves? Let me start counting the ways, including a new way every year ... by default, since "Past performance does not predict future results."<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.macrostrategy.co.uk/#/about/4571615434"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">A Science Perspective On The Decline Of Innovation</span></i></b></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>(restricted; precursors may be viewed <a href="http://www.macrostrategy.co.uk/#/media-events/4572980969">here</a>)</i></div>
</blockquote>
As another bit of next-epoch or supposedly "long-term" investment advice, this recent pdf contains some helpful perspectives and commentary, although the author sounds as though he's squarely within the NeoLiberal camp (see "<a href="http://www.macrostrategy.co.uk/#/research/4574213785"><b>Living the Lie</b></a>" - or why they think that Social Democracy is to blame for current G7 economic & cultural ills). <br />
<br />
This line caught my eye as the author's central premise.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"... the next revolution will be based on understanding and developing quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry and quantum biology and all that it entails."</i></blockquote>
That's a credible hypothesis to test, yet many will either disagree, right off the bat or just chuckle. The author is not specifically wrong in his comments, it's rather that he's missing the bigger context, and therefore missing the overall point. Here are just 3 counter-indicators.<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html"><b>Biology has been harvesting quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry and quantum biology for ~3.5 billion years, just on planet earth.</b></a> It's called photo-synthesis, and other forms of energy-transfer. As you will see, we're not doing anything new, although some things are subtly different.<br />
<br />
2) The author's initial premise - that occupying many possible ecological niches is indicative of an "efficient" pass-through ecology or economy - is highly subject to local conditions. As <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart#Later_work"><b>Walter Shewhart</b></a> famously said, "data is meaningless without context."<br />
<i>(Pick 40 islands or other micro-habitats around the world, and you can find ecologies ranging from near mono-cultures to the dense, pass-through ecologies/economies the author seems to expect. Location, location, location - or context, context, context.)</i><br />
<br />
3) IF one's hypothesis is that increased energy handling (efficiency) equates to evolutionary adaptive strength, then it would seem logical to expect the next stages of human evolution to reliably follow where we can go from here, energy-handling-wise. Yet there are already many well-known flaws in that argument. Even if it were true, we'd still expect surprises. In 1870, the same author might have predicted expanded development of hydro-carbon chemistry, which would have missed the expansion of all forms of telecommunications, including the internet, not to mention quantum mechanics itself. :) Don't presume it's over. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>a) Energy-handling efficiency has not reliably predicted survival across niches. In fact, the opposite is exhaustively documented. The most "efficient" (i.e., "successful") species in all archeological contexts invariably disappear from subsequent or later contexts, and are labeled as species that over-adapted to transient contexts. Ditto for corporate history. Proverbial dinosaurs go belly up. Quite literally, over-investing in efficiency has been the death of most species and investors. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>b) In contrast, the recurring lead in both ancient biological as well as current economic evolutionary races are overwhelmingly documented to go to the most agile, and NOT the most efficient. Time after time. </i></blockquote>
That discrepancy between a) and b), is amply discussed in biology, ecology, military doctrine, and systems theory. <br />
<br />
Aggregate Adaptive Rate soon trumps efficiency, every single time. Some barely-adequate mix of efficiency plus resiliency always wins. It's just a question of when.<br />
<br />
Which calls our attention to some subtler questions.<br />
<br />
If it's not energy efficiency, then what is it that we ought to be smart enough to be looking for? One pat answer is "survival paths," no matter how unpredictable. Next, how do we keep ourselves on unpredictable survival paths, or at least within striking distance?<br />
<br />
If there's a unending race, in all disciplines and all economic or cultural wars, to RAPIDLY explore emerging options, based on insufficient data, then survival follows some well-known rules of thumb, and the main competition seems to be executing these principles on increasingly larger scales, which brings up unending "problems of scale."<br /><br /><br /> [As members of a social species, we're now well aware that Aggregate Agility (teamwork) trumps individual agility (contrary to NeoLiberal economic doctrine). Aggregate size matters, and the scale of aggregate-agility represents the Golden Fleece. :) ]<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>c) pattern recognition trumps energy-handling (the minute you know what NEW signal you're looking for, it's a race to briefly ignore the noise; agile focus beats raw power, every time) ...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>d) then adaptive "recruiting efficiency" trumps energy-handling, and that combination [c & d] determines aggregate response agility (from motor-neuron pools to military "maneuver warfare" to business marketing to cultural mobilization). Serial survival of the fittest. Or, as it's termed in education theory and military doctrine, "Outcomes-Oriented Training & Education" or OBT&E.</i></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
It's remarkable how much of military doctrine consists of concise restatements of the theory of evolution. See "<a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html"><b>Return On Coordination</b></a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>Yet so-called socialists and capitalists seem to have scared each other with irrelevant details, and keep uselessly <a href="https://plus.google.com/104140272098689841413/posts/5XbLpMwCSKp">throwing their own baby out with their own, shared bathwater</a>.</i></b></blockquote>
The more I think about these issues, all roads lead to a consistent answer.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">How do we invest in a democracy that ensures the highest National Adaptive Rate,</span></b></i></blockquote>
<i>... not just energy or military or business efficiency?</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Remarkably, that same question is central to the history of biology, military doctrine, democracy and the onset of the US Constitution. Our consistent goal is seemingly to <b><i><u>"make a more perfect union."</u></i></b><br />
<br />
If that goal is kept in mind, then most economic issues become incidental. There seems to be a simple, 2-step optimization occurring in all surviving aggregates. Sum(i+j), while looking for those combinations that are greater than the sum of the parts.<br />
<br />
Where i+j are respectively:<br />
<br />
i) Keep the components alive, and adequately provisioned <i>(it's not a functional army if the generals hoard all the weapons)</i><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">PLUS</span></b><br />
</div>
j) Grow the Aggregate <i>(by expanding Net or Aggregate Agility, <b><u>not</u></b> just agility of some sectors, nor merely aggregate size alone)</i><br />
<br />
This easily falls under the category of <b><i><u>Group Capitalism</u></i></b>, with tolerance limits separating it from narrow <b><i><u>Personal Capitalism</u></i></b> (i.e., NeoLiberal orthodoxy). I predict that the intelligence to see the difference will trump efficiency at pursuing the latter, even though the latter forms of parasitism will always follow, in unpredictable patterns. Part of survival agility includes being able to harvest what's necessary, when necessary, while also leaving tools unused in expanding toolkits when not specifically needed.<br />
<br />
We can't provide for our grandchildren by sequestering more resources. That is, quite simply, a naive idea. Few want the heirlooms passed on by their grandparents, except as mementos, because they're hopelessly obsolete. <br />
<br />
The best assets to accumulate are Coordination Skills. If you don't believe me, ask a Neanderthal ... if you can find a survivor. Yet instead of investing in Democracy, we're killing the Golden Goose, by <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/12/conflating-current-fiat-with-future.html"><b>hoarding current fiat instead of future options</b></a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Here's my investment advice.<br />
<br />
The next evolutionary leap in human culture is more likely to be based on understanding and developing <i>"quantum perspective"</i> on our own, aggregate context, and all that that entails.<br />
<br />
If you can help more precisely define "quantum" - <i>i.e., subtle</i> - aspects of human cultural or aggregate perspective, you'll not only be rich and have a busy, fulfilling life, you may well save the human species.<br />
<div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i></div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-4739463727335786222015-04-28T10:06:00.000-07:002015-04-28T11:00:09.164-07:00Interesting Things Occurring In Italy, & In Human Cultures Everywhere. A Challenge For Current Artists, In All MediasWhat do we have to change in our K-12 education - and in our nation's art - to make most citizens aware of <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-pattern-of-process-flow.html"><b>the pattern of process flow</b></a>, and it's implications for our our own culture and our cultural adaptive rate?<br />
<br />
Consider this question.<br />
<br />
If your parent culture (and by default EVERY culture) was a <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2015/03/cultural-development-at-31st-week-of.html"><b>developing baby-culture</b></a> ....<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NtCedI5i0kUMw8jIbpLT_pFtBCDHf6xKBKsuJCTATEzRJFbLxNJvGSwMIiCvgsk2M202-gY-xBG393gRHzDGinIbomoBXtOBJ8qIumIsR3slNBDjEplb0-FSefTMePE2Gv2Vykkf_R8L/s1600/baby_culture.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NtCedI5i0kUMw8jIbpLT_pFtBCDHf6xKBKsuJCTATEzRJFbLxNJvGSwMIiCvgsk2M202-gY-xBG393gRHzDGinIbomoBXtOBJ8qIumIsR3slNBDjEplb0-FSefTMePE2Gv2Vykkf_R8L/s1600/baby_culture.jpg" /></a></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
... then what might evolving cultures of tomorrow look like?<br />
<br />
This question is so interesting that I'm curious to hear reactions from diverse readers.<br />
<br />
Some people are still obsessing over how our brains have already been <a href="https://vine.co/v/MzKDtpQ1A93"><b>making memories</b></a>, for many million of years.<br />
<br />
Ho hum. Ancient history.<br />
<br />
That history is now recognized nothing more than a trivially necessary but not sufficient lesson for application on a larger scale, to current context.<br />
<br />
After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart#Later_work"><b>data is meaningless without context</b></a>. So are known principles. Further, mass education learning rate is meaningless without reference to <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/"><b>Cultural Adaptive Rate</b></a>.<br />
<br />
What matters far more are the details of how our social interactions form human culture ... or not.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, a tiny trickle of people - from <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51046418-82/eccles-economy-president-federal.html.csp"><b>Marriner Eccles</b></a> to <a href="http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf"><b>Warren Mosler</b></a> - have been tripping over opportunities to link systems principles to everyday real life, and to our amazingly ignorant processes for setting national policies.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
see <a href="http://www.retemmt.it/">http://www.retemmt.it/</a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://primaveraeconomica.it/"></a>and <a href="http://primaveraeconomica.it/">http://primaveraeconomica.it/</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
I remember hearing of a literature professor in the 1960s proposing that a negligible % of individual humans were "self-aware" before the advent of classical Greek literature, ~400 BC, and their "discovery" of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar"><b>grammar</b></a>. Was he right? There's plenty of behavioral evidence for & against, so it seems to be a statistical question, not an absolute one. Most may recognize that what some of their neurons know is not always what they as an individual actually do. :) Even more telling:<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>there are vast differences between what key individuals and whole disciplines claim to know ..... and how their electorates actually behave.</i></b></blockquote>
In regards to classic Greek culture, it's sobering to consider that it took only a tiny confluence of triggers (perhaps the combination of exposure to vast diversity, plus newfound wealth & leisure?) to unleash a wholesale transfer of attention from trivial to profound interests, in a human population long past capable of doing so.<br />
<br />
Such transitions are in general, viewed in systems science as <b><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=l50tdUNgZZgC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=phase+shift+in+autocatalysis&source=bl&ots=isc2bSp3SE&sig=L6B8A9DAcblmXTJOxn5ZxY1u_rY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L6w_VfqnNOXLsASxt4G4Dw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=phase%20shift%20in%20autocatalysis&f=false">phase shifts in autocatalysis</a>.</b><br />
<br />
Today, 2000 years after the most famous Greeks, we have a vast human population also capable of far more than it is actually doing, or even actively considering. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's exciting to think that we are waiting only for some unpredictable set of trivial triggers to unleash yet another transformation in collective human thought. Humanity as a whole may come out of our next transition as predominantly "culturally aware," not just with most people individually "self-aware." Such a transition in "group context awareness" may trigger cultural blossoming far greater than the transitions historically associated with the onset of classical Greek culture.<br />
<br />
That aggregate transformation may not be marked by great advances in how much a tiny fraction of humans do know. Rather, it may be marked by great, but subtle, advances in how soon most humans are allowed to and required to know ... <i><u>what few things most must know</u></i> in order to produce greater Group Intelligence, and a faster Group Adaptive Rate. Military scientists at War Colleges refer to such "teamwork" adaptive agility as the <a href="http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf"><b>"[adaptive] quality of distributed decision-making."</b></a> I'll call it simply the <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html"><b>return-on-coordination.</b></a><br />
<br />
Exciting times indeed! <br />
<br />
I'm long past convinced that such expected advances will depend NOT on adding more to what we already know about simple systems like central nervous systems, but rather, in beginning to more actively disseminate and actually APPLY even slightly larger fractions of <b><i><u>what's already known</u></i></b> ... about system-coordination ... to our own policy coordination.<br />
<br />
The difference between a self-tuning electorate (agile, adaptive democracy) and an <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-does-v330million-cultural-engine.html"><b>un-tuned culture</b></a> (past baby-cultures) will make the dramatic difference between an untuned vs a tuned V8-engine look like trivial child's play.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb6GqWV35I4ePcSpVkXHOT_2E5oOmSwm4OHr2ZwEgF5Lc27JwMEmzsM6jp-c0WRrewCBKaHJb374vkI-QkCSuPJa_xDKeAzvp2jNh6yr3DaZVrfHelebzAtIc7RCIcktCwsDtfu_r1A724/s1600/diesel_engines_evolution.jpeg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb6GqWV35I4ePcSpVkXHOT_2E5oOmSwm4OHr2ZwEgF5Lc27JwMEmzsM6jp-c0WRrewCBKaHJb374vkI-QkCSuPJa_xDKeAzvp2jNh6yr3DaZVrfHelebzAtIc7RCIcktCwsDtfu_r1A724/s1600/diesel_engines_evolution.jpeg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
How do we visualize our own <b><i><u><a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-methods-will-allow-us-to-be-not.html">Evolution of Adaptive Power?</a></u></i></b><br />
<br />
What do we have to change in our K-12 education - and in our nation's art - to make most citizens aware of <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-pattern-of-process-flow.html"><b>the pattern of process flow</b></a>, and it's implications for our our own culture and our cultural adaptive rate?<br />
<br />
That's a challenge for current artists, working in all medias, to visualize.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We have to visualize our possible outcomes, before we can select which ones to shoot for. With every consensus national outcome adequately visualized ... <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa106027.html"><b>we can always impress ourselves with our own, untapped ingenuity.</b></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We know that evolving species, and cultures, constantly increase the amount of information they can process in a unit of time, which is itself relative to Adaptation Space. To speed up our own cultural adaptive rate, we need new methods. But which ones? We continuously need <a href="http://continuously%20newer%20methods%20for%20increasing%20and%20tuning%20key%20communication%20throughput%20-%20the%20key%20to%20all%20development./">newer methods for increasing and tuning key communication throughput - the key to all development</a>. And to get those methods, we have to first visualize how to select them. In all probability, we already have the required methods ... and just don't yet know what to use them for, nor why to use them.<br />
<br />
It turns out that methods too are meaningless without context.<br />
<br />
Here's the challenge for poets, musicians, videographers, writers and all other artists. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2013/10/everyones-looking-for-better-way-how-do.html"><b><i>Everyone's Looking for a "Better Way" - How Do We As A People Actually Achieve It?</i></b></a></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Visualize many Desired Aggregate Outcomes?</div>
<div>
Recruit more citizens to view that palette?</div>
<div>
Prepare more citizens to participate in SELECTING which aggregate options we want to explore?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If we don't help select where we're going, some collection of nincompoops will ... by sheer default, if nothing else.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That would be a pity, because A Group Brain Is A Terrible Thing To Waste.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ubCqp0b15YY%2FVT-37wluK9I%2FAAAAAAAAC38%2FhVxRD41epXY%2Fs1600%2Fdiesel_engines_evolution.jpeg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb6GqWV35I4ePcSpVkXHOT_2E5oOmSwm4OHr2ZwEgF5Lc27JwMEmzsM6jp-c0WRrewCBKaHJb374vkI-QkCSuPJa_xDKeAzvp2jNh6yr3DaZVrfHelebzAtIc7RCIcktCwsDtfu_r1A724/s1600/diesel_engines_evolution.jpeg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ECMU35gkpjw%2FVT-333hKhVI%2FAAAAAAAAC30%2F1s8UurMcnjw%2Fs1600%2Fbaby_culture.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NtCedI5i0kUMw8jIbpLT_pFtBCDHf6xKBKsuJCTATEzRJFbLxNJvGSwMIiCvgsk2M202-gY-xBG393gRHzDGinIbomoBXtOBJ8qIumIsR3slNBDjEplb0-FSefTMePE2Gv2Vykkf_R8L/s1600/baby_culture.jpg" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-40264680254263118152015-04-12T08:36:00.002-07:002016-05-04T07:39:39.828-07:00None Of Us Can Select As Well As All Of Us ... IF ... All Of Us Adequately Participate In Selecting Where We're Going<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVUGwbJlTNq_C0kR-UQWz9YqdUgIbZndXu1NVakLm9_rBmwpxCx6VMDgsePoyi4Ks9qCO8yzrzuf78XemzYfGXXmUhM5ulCyOwj-Bmc_CZlSAEZQEIULLnD6_681A1shNfnFPt6h15otCv/s1600/cultural_selection.jpg"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVUGwbJlTNq_C0kR-UQWz9YqdUgIbZndXu1NVakLm9_rBmwpxCx6VMDgsePoyi4Ks9qCO8yzrzuf78XemzYfGXXmUhM5ulCyOwj-Bmc_CZlSAEZQEIULLnD6_681A1shNfnFPt6h15otCv/s1600/cultural_selection.jpg" width="309" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Paul Meli raised a key concern yesterday.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wdzlSAreS8"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Why Has Our US Media Come To Function As A State Sponsored Institution?</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
<br />
There's a particularly interesting implication in the video at the above link.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"you can have journalism, or you can have empire"</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I've long wondered how an entire press corp became so complicit. Patrick Smith indicates that it's the same creeping momentum that drives citizen complicity in the excesses of empire. It's an unregulated bug baked into our narrow approach to "capitalism."<br />
<br />
That reminds me of a saying attributed to some Roman statesman, 2000 yrs ago:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"No law withstands the will of the people."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
One nuanced translation: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"No reality withstands the temptations of an electorate." </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
So periodically, we can easily be our own <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud"><b>Control Frauds</b></a>? Defrauding ourselves of some part of our own options?<br />
<br />
Whole aggregates, not just individuals, can succumb to rash temptations, if they feel that not enough people are either watching or willing to condemn their actions. In other words, if there are no significant consequences.<br />
<br />
Once you know that you can act with impunity, your behavior WILL gradually start to change, and your <i><u>moment of adaptation</u></i> will move towards those processes shaping your own, local self-regulation, and away from distributed, aggregate adaptation (e.g., looking out for your grandchildren). Feedback? Pattern recognition? Both effect your ability to perceive the spectrum of immediate-to-sequential outcomes.<br />
<br />
Somewhat analogously, once our nation feels that it can act with complete impunity, OUR national behavior also begins to change, also inevitably, and our moment of aggregate adaptation moves to or away from our methods for maintaining distributed national vs international feedback, which alters how we set aggregate Desired Outcomes - which in turn drive all our efforts and methods for aggregate self-regulation.<br />
<br />
There's a deep implication in these observations. When whole nations - not just individuals - begin to condone actions they themselves wouldn't willingly submit to, it always involves the conscious conclusion that the people being acted upon DO NOT MATTER AS MUCH AS WE DO. <br />
<br />
Overwhelming evidence, historical and current, indicates that this is a highly conserved behavior in humans, not just in other species. So it's a feature of reality that we must acknowledge and deal with, not try to ignore.<br />
<br />
Whenever a feature is highly conserved throughout an evolutionary sequence, it has some strong adaptive value, even if it's not immediately obvious.<br />
<br />
In this case, when aggregate experiments fail, and revert to meanness, not just any mean, it may usually have helped human cultures dissolve and shift wholesale direction, faster than they would have otherwise. Think of NeoCons and NeoLiberals as our safety valve, in case everything goes wrong. In that case, returning to stone-age thinking sooner rather than later may actually help. We may be homo sapiens, but it pays to keep a remnant of our ape ancestors around.<br />
<br />
Note that that doesn't mean that we should put our lowest common denominator in charge BEFORE we find ourselves in grand dead ends! We still have insanely interesting options to explore. Many of those options are not possible anytime soon, if we restrict ourselves to use of our NeoLiberal monkey brains alone.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://constitutionus.com/"><b>"In order to make a more perfect union"</b></a> is an ideal long endorsed - in one form or another - by the majority of humans.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>When and how to make selective inclusions is one corollary of that ideal, as are two other corollaries.<br /> <br />Whom to exclude from our union - and when?<br /> <br />And also, who, when and HOW to exile from our union? And, for what reasons, and to satisfy which emerging Desired Outcomes for the remainder of our union?</i></blockquote>
There are well known methods for exploring and estimating answers to these questions. We merely need to be fearless and honest enough to face them quickly, rather than just letting those feared ills occur anyway, through our inaction. For example, given sexual and cultural recombination, physical culling is rarely necessary. We just have to stop making more of or reinforcing a mal-adaptive human, habit or method, and let its representation in our aggregate repertoire rapidly dwindle. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As always, we as a people face overwhelming pressure to make rapid decisions based on insufficient data - but not too rapidly. That's the business of nations and cultures, not just the business of individuals. Our job - individually as well as collectively - is to choose well.<br />
<br />
There's no evolution for the detached. Success follows the depth and quality of participation, not just blind complicity. Since our aggregate selections drive all national adaptations and national outcomes, we must admit that none of us can select as well as all of us - IF we maintain enough distributed participation to add adaptive value.<br />
<br />
Aggregate intelligence means aggregate uncertainty. Only fools, and foolish nations, are cocksure and recklessly bent on being number one, which is historically a mistake in a marathon. Staying in an unending race means positioning ourselves in THIS TRANSIENT CONTEXT to be ready for subsequent, entirely unpredictable, contexts.<br />
<br />
What is YOUR definition of success?<br />
<br />
Finding a better way, NOW? That's efficiency (which is meaningless without present context).<br />
<br />
Finding ways to keep finding adequate ways to get by? That's resiliency.<br />
<br />
As soon as we as the people can juggle two method-sets simultaneously, we can move on to juggling yet another. And another after that, someday. Even though we can't imagine what that might someday be.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSty6x53KQhD4xzoUhSaxinestTHgHQ-xnZDfFFE_I_auu_sqH9Z2aJwqrOGQwH1MJgYbfqf1UpmrwDgdkphwA20ItIC0WRZ7-CFctr6y500CfHusKY2tu1FriRMFVXOFhEtp-PPczeMzK/s1600/natural_selection_of_stupid_people.gif" width="494" /></blockquote>
<br />
The biggest question is always "HOW" to achieve more participation, from more people, more of the time.<br />
<br />
There's no human population in history that could compete with the one we have today. Would they have stopped fighting if they knew about us and our capabilities today? Would we, if WE knew about future achievements?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nzUVEHhbtxI%2FVSp4kCgt-jI%2FAAAAAAAACjQ%2FGlwDJ65Cw8E%2Fs1600%2Fcultural_selection.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVUGwbJlTNq_C0kR-UQWz9YqdUgIbZndXu1NVakLm9_rBmwpxCx6VMDgsePoyi4Ks9qCO8yzrzuf78XemzYfGXXmUhM5ulCyOwj-Bmc_CZlSAEZQEIULLnD6_681A1shNfnFPt6h15otCv/s1600/cultural_selection.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-neSdqeCtpNM%2FVSqQPdKeQfI%2FAAAAAAAACjw%2F6_o7lh1d-mk%2Fs1600%2Fnatural_selection_of_stupid_people.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSty6x53KQhD4xzoUhSaxinestTHgHQ-xnZDfFFE_I_auu_sqH9Z2aJwqrOGQwH1MJgYbfqf1UpmrwDgdkphwA20ItIC0WRZ7-CFctr6y500CfHusKY2tu1FriRMFVXOFhEtp-PPczeMzK/s1600/natural_selection_of_stupid_people.gif" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-68519257179774235662015-03-31T04:40:00.002-07:002015-05-30T12:34:54.928-07:00Cultural Development at 31st Week of Democracy<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/sell_out_alert_9_democrats_already_caving_to_gop_on_social_security_cuts_partner/"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">9 Democrats who are selling out on Social Security cuts</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
(Hat tip, <a href="https://twitter.com/aldaelectrician">Al_the_Electrician @aldaelectrician</a>)<br />
<div>
<br />
So, as usual, things have to get worse before they can get better?<br />
<br />
In health science, we'd call that a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_neuropathy"><b>neuropathy</b></a> ... a degraded ability to sense pain (until it does significant damage), which is essentially a failure to KEEP rebuilding systemic instrumentation to fit changing contexts.<br />
<br />
You can picture that outcome, and even how it occurs, in both human physiology and human culture.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaji7CB6FLMigU_ELQbYxLX_5FSv0Ov5TBaW7osw4hF5Tc9ZwiPT6GNQd9QSWfTwEW9evLjLz_RjjwyeeHaIoFbeU3w_xh8iOcmBaTwpW_6bjmIoJmv7IsNXl8U9Hzcwsay1bYwriCY5tq/s1600/cultural_development_at_31_weeks_of_democracy.jpg"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaji7CB6FLMigU_ELQbYxLX_5FSv0Ov5TBaW7osw4hF5Tc9ZwiPT6GNQd9QSWfTwEW9evLjLz_RjjwyeeHaIoFbeU3w_xh8iOcmBaTwpW_6bjmIoJmv7IsNXl8U9Hzcwsay1bYwriCY5tq/s1600/cultural_development_at_31_weeks_of_democracy.jpg" width="492" /></a></blockquote>
Which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimester"><b>Trisequester</b></a> is YOUR democracy in?<br />
<br />
Is there a term for aggregate-neuropathy or even "Cultural-Neuropathy" ?<br />
<br />
Organizational degradation? <br />
<br />
A slowing ability to detect, parse & adaptively respond to increasing levels of useful feedback?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A constant struggle to see the signals for all the noise?<br />
<br />
That describes all human aggregates, all the time? <b><i><u><span style="font-size: large;">Ya think?</span></u></i></b><br />
<br />
Unless, that is, we take up thoughtful arms against an always rising sea of emerging interdependencies.<br />
<br />
I keep coming back to the analogy of adolescent growth spurts. All growing aggregates have to get clumsier before they can <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-deeper-meaning-of-entrepreneurism.html"><b>regain or increase aggregate agility.</b></a><br />
<br />
With growth comes a corollary challenge. We always need newer, more refined methods for solving the task of HOW to grow, gracefully. Why? So we can <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2015/03/cant-every-aggregate-afford-to-generate.html"><b>have our growth, and be it too</b>.</a><br />
<br />
It's not a challenge we can ignore ... unless we choose to abort our future.<br />
<br />
This was the America we all knew post 1776.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.pitchero.com/ui/10187/1321893969_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.pitchero.com/ui/10187/1321893969_0.jpg" height="320" width="294" /></a></div>
<br />
Will there be another cultural growth spurt? Here? In the USA?<br />
<br />
If so, what will it look like?<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-vPpm7-w_0rs%2FVRqE6s5kiqI%2FAAAAAAAACfM%2Fv8UbGw5qLqU%2Fs1600%2Fcultural_development_at_31_weeks_of_democracy.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaji7CB6FLMigU_ELQbYxLX_5FSv0Ov5TBaW7osw4hF5Tc9ZwiPT6GNQd9QSWfTwEW9evLjLz_RjjwyeeHaIoFbeU3w_xh8iOcmBaTwpW_6bjmIoJmv7IsNXl8U9Hzcwsay1bYwriCY5tq/s1600/cultural_development_at_31_weeks_of_democracy.jpg" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-80044432540650753592015-03-29T12:21:00.004-07:002015-03-29T12:21:50.366-07:00Can't Every Aggregate Afford To Generate Their Needed Diversity ... And Have It Too?<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://spotontalent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/cakeandeatittoo.jpg"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEie93fUZ8PPTQvJQTMYpfnqY8_5m6Dneg0tA590bpWQHeeZjpcQETyBJY4XSXhVQee-SMWGc3ejjt-lBL_2Kpv530XERXCG8qaPwOhh3uHgrZNGJ3VwfRFzZI8jbz0D6WPTnPu8rBnsFeCVPGOl2yFBaq3mbdeDPGfubccR0EB4j8EMVQJweA=" width="325" /></a></blockquote>
Can anything be extended past tolerance limits?<br /><br />Sure. Ever heard of "Count" Victor Lustig? He was an ironic crook.<br /><br />In 1925, "Count" Lustig allegedly sold the Eiffel Tower to a group of scrap metal tycoons.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Sehr lustig, ja ... auf Deutsch!</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Victor's example is from a 2-book series from from 1973, on:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUB5zw9p89GiYy0mTHzLt3gQEHkUzbo1LAfAbxKWOUcz0jaKxZUcgNw4NRGFbjRJosIeS6f5Q3b_5T3w1cIytjmlyPr9S40evZm-k17D9whdwmpraTyyA3WQitU2bQkAleDgexWKdS5kw-/s1600/consume_produce.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8400970-crimes-and-punishment"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Crimes & Punishment. A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Aberrant Behavior</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
<br />Obviously, a pictorial encyclopedia of all human cultures would look remarkably analogous. Every culture is aberrant to what will come next .... unless everything stops evolving, adapting and changing. But that's beside the point, right?<br /><br />The C&P book is clearly dated in some ways, but reveals an already mature literature strongly correlating personality dominance traits with various crime statistics, in addition to all other effects more weakly linking outcomes to contexts.<br /><br />Is that proposed correlation between intrinsic dominance & crime still considered prominent, or useful, in criminology and for cultural adaptation in general? For example, the authors & editors seem infatuated with the psychologist Maslow, some of whose ideas now seem as anthropomorphic as Freud's were outright arcane.<br /><br />Nevertheless, it's a fascinating read, for yet another reason. Each description of the background of bizarre criminality also implies a strong correlation with prior isolation, lack of constant feedback, lack of belonging, and overall ... failed social regulation in it's most broadest definition.<br /><br />From the point of view of distributed prevention, one can't help imagine how cheap it really may be to prevent a larger proportion of all types of crime.<br /><br />In cancer biology, we constantly discuss how much it actually takes to "transform" a given cell into a cancer clone. It's actually not easy, at all, especially when cells remain in their normal context, literally engulfed in a flood of continuous feedback.<br /><br />This analogy comes to mind when reviewing how much cultural malaise it actually takes to socially "transform" developing youth to even the low % of overt sociopaths we call criminals, whether blue-collar or white-collar.<br /><br />And, that actually segues seamlessly to a connected phenomenon. Where's the border between the main body of genetic, personality & cultural "diversity curves," and the long tails of those same curves, which we label as either "rare" diseases or fringes outside of acceptable cultural tolerance limits?<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg96YplXtaSCxmLDlJT6-O4uSWeQ0hOQdwTTxaOdp75xE6K3adB_jtoXFxMaXvTamF6QEyU8BlwyM-xiHIPI5Tf62YIXoG_YsQYD57ImOQJ788s91XmR-Uy0j57BIteZr51Rr58iXtS7UTV-bRtDch5HEdteD1QoiecXbC2EtTtOaI0BUCNEO7TuzXCKWeGqhTHBmGi30h4Aky-VII91M4=" width="400" /></blockquote>
<div>
<br />This is a rather neglected question in general biology and cultural evolution, not just cultural practices.<br /><br />A) We acknowledge the primary importance of diversity, and of methods for actively driving sexual, psychological & cultural recombination.<br /><br />B) Simultaneously, we still seem to try too hard to arbitrarily label that same needed diversity and recombination-methods as something to be "cured" or excised, instead of something necessary but never sufficient, to be embraced, extended, and gracefully accommodated. When in a hurry, no corner looks too short to cut ... until experience proves it to be so, well after the fact.<br /><br />This oxymoron is highlighted by well known but usually dismissed differences in how physiological/personal/cultural diversity was & is handled in old vs emerging cultures. Historically, the default handling of diversity was clearly more weighted toward community accommodation of diversity. It's only in emerging cultural mash-ups that frictions build to the point of heightened efforts to cut corners & cull the low % of diversity outliers, from schizophrenia & autism on to sociopathologies and the now more than 7000 uniquely defined rare diseases. Unless, of course, the sociopaths transiently gain prominence. Then things soon get worse, even if it looks briefly attractive. Every new random modification is only another tangent, branching from a totally unpredictable future. If that weren't true, recombination wouldn't be the law of reality.<br /><br />One implication is that we simply needn't be in a hurry to eradicate everything that surprises us. That's not how evolution got us this far.<br /><br />So, can't every aggregate afford to generate their needed diversity ... and have it too?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.kiasoulforums.com/attachments/off-topic-lounge/18937d1371654305-have-your-cake-eat-too-hamster-enjoys-cupcake.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiWzk0o7g4Xk6LsWmMiZDUUqiEu09OT7FdNM3bL_aayHeZK0kq3u54Le-QjDKE_unV-aenmW-lSiPMi3s-JEAcD8mi0rBYI1G4mzr6YAFJg65ly99UuSamGqKBGAug60zJ5I5_pBEXV1z7yQ6nhrHT9RXfQcWvesMRBjCgFNhF8NISJGpkptzuU5YdFLWBEDYwWpGomm8dLebPlX3-j37S0CWWpNVDu_SNgv54Q2y17xaov27dqFOKedZnuvA=" /></a></blockquote>
<br />What's the distributed cost of recombination, and utilization too? <br /><br />Not much, it turns out, when coordination costs and the return on coordination are BOTH amortized & distributed across whole democracies. That's the simple logic of adequately and gracefully provisioning most if not all contributors to cultural diversity, as much as possible - with early accommodation and regulation, NOT expensive and pointless late removal. It's what social species do. It's easily affordable, and well worth it.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUB5zw9p89GiYy0mTHzLt3gQEHkUzbo1LAfAbxKWOUcz0jaKxZUcgNw4NRGFbjRJosIeS6f5Q3b_5T3w1cIytjmlyPr9S40evZm-k17D9whdwmpraTyyA3WQitU2bQkAleDgexWKdS5kw-/s1600/consume_produce.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUB5zw9p89GiYy0mTHzLt3gQEHkUzbo1LAfAbxKWOUcz0jaKxZUcgNw4NRGFbjRJosIeS6f5Q3b_5T3w1cIytjmlyPr9S40evZm-k17D9whdwmpraTyyA3WQitU2bQkAleDgexWKdS5kw-/s1600/consume_produce.jpg" height="400" width="306" /></a></blockquote>
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kiasoulforums.com%2Fattachments%2Foff-topic-lounge%2F18937d1371654305-have-your-cake-eat-too-hamster-enjoys-cupcake.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiWzk0o7g4Xk6LsWmMiZDUUqiEu09OT7FdNM3bL_aayHeZK0kq3u54Le-QjDKE_unV-aenmW-lSiPMi3s-JEAcD8mi0rBYI1G4mzr6YAFJg65ly99UuSamGqKBGAug60zJ5I5_pBEXV1z7yQ6nhrHT9RXfQcWvesMRBjCgFNhF8NISJGpkptzuU5YdFLWBEDYwWpGomm8dLebPlX3-j37S0CWWpNVDu_SNgv54Q2y17xaov27dqFOKedZnuvA=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fspotontalent.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fcakeandeatittoo.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEie93fUZ8PPTQvJQTMYpfnqY8_5m6Dneg0tA590bpWQHeeZjpcQETyBJY4XSXhVQee-SMWGc3ejjt-lBL_2Kpv530XERXCG8qaPwOhh3uHgrZNGJ3VwfRFzZI8jbz0D6WPTnPu8rBnsFeCVPGOl2yFBaq3mbdeDPGfubccR0EB4j8EMVQJweA=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F72gpf1za5iq428ekh3r7qjc1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fimage231.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg96YplXtaSCxmLDlJT6-O4uSWeQ0hOQdwTTxaOdp75xE6K3adB_jtoXFxMaXvTamF6QEyU8BlwyM-xiHIPI5Tf62YIXoG_YsQYD57ImOQJ788s91XmR-Uy0j57BIteZr51Rr58iXtS7UTV-bRtDch5HEdteD1QoiecXbC2EtTtOaI0BUCNEO7TuzXCKWeGqhTHBmGi30h4Aky-VII91M4=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-7175293902252440762015-03-05T13:21:00.000-08:002016-02-10T05:59:00.203-08:00Human Aggregates Everywhere Are Constrained Primarily By Confusing Derived Numerals With Real Feedback Signals<a href="http://rlv.zcache.com/im_afraid_of_my_own_shadow_coffee_mugs-r0a9e6d06eb0f41ccaf2a62d9a7e1e10f_x7jgr_8byvr_512.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjiKP2H9T1eMbPfCEXjevtWiLc6u2wMAmkuYx5cqYTUAys_KX3RgfXzoK9oL_v5DOujW4yGGxK4dWd8uo5LW3aKMowbCzDdLDO990wAx_7DkmezZiM5dLT3O5psAygDBqFL-JnnUChfQSpieXS0wSBm9DvfIsDSnK6yZ6vTzm83xJHWbfq8KL5eGrBq9pvhNGvgF1OkNsQo-DvQCJlLXU5bztNZlZxCQEQJH9X2BOIAWpLn=" /></a><br />
<br />
What kind of aggregate is afraid of it's own shadows? Essentially, a moronic one.<br />
<br />
We desperately need growing populations to grasp - <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/12/conflating-current-fiat-with-future.html">by mathematics alone</a> - that aggregate capabilities and options are NOT constrained by derived accounting metrics.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/eccles/077_03_0002.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">"Let's look at the substance, and not the shadow."</span></i></b></a> Marriner Eccles, Fed Chief, 1938</blockquote>
<br />
All currencies, by definition, are simply the data thrown off by interacting citizens, not the inverse.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/eccles/077_03_0002.pdf"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">"The substance of our wealth is the production of our [citizens]. The shadow is our money."</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
<br />
Now, as in 1938, the heads of our banks and banking organizations are the LEAST systemically educated of our citizens, and it remains for us to explain to them the difference between shadow and substance, between nominal and real. <br />
<br />
Human aggregates everywhere are constrained primarily by confusing derived with real feedback signals. It is up to all of us to systemically educate our many specialists, so that they may keep sight of growing context, and not get lost entirely within their various data streams which are producing as many incidental shadows as relevant feedback signals.<br />
<br />
Any naive or isolated person can be easily impressed by big numbers. It requires education, training and practice to keep track of what those mean for real contexts.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Imagine how good it will feel when the moronic aggregate stops pounding it's head against it's own fiat!</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br />
Let's look at some real examples.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Scary Numbers, example #1.</span></b><br />
<br />
Soon after you started as a single egg cell, if someone had told you that your <i><b><span style="font-size: large;">"Inter-cellular Signalling Debt"</span></b></i> would soon be overwhelmed with the responsibility for <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23829164">40 Trillion new cells</a>, would you have stopped growing, and laid off all your cells? <br />
<br />
In what order? Red blood cells first, then all the other 300 subtypes, in some imagined order of aggregate value? <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/29.html">Some humans saw this dis-unity problem coming long before we were even aware of cells to count</a> but never quite enough to assuage our aggregate fear of aggregate shadows.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Scary Numbers, example #2.</span></b><br />
<br />
Currency supply. <br />
<br />
How does a currency supply work? It "denominates" all the transactions citizens can and will muster. Hence, currency supply has to grow, as a derived "shadow" (record keeping) for real citizen transactions. When any & all desired transactions can be denominated without spurious constraints, then the <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/publications/economic-education/ben-franklin-and-paper-money-economy.pdf">return on coordination is truly stupendous</a>, as <a href="http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1701-1750/benjamin-franklin-a-modest-enquiry-into-the-nature-and-necessity-of-paper-currency.php">Benjamin Franklin noticed early on</a>. OVERLY constraining a currency supply has, of course, dire consequences, <a href="http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/06/other-reason-for-american-revolution.html">then</a> and <a href="http://www.epicoalition.org/docs/soft0004.htm">now</a>.<br />
<br />
Given simple realities, what currency supply might we need today, with the <a href="http://www.naics.com/history-naics-code/">many types of our 330million residents?</a> The answer clearly depends entirely upon:<br />
<br />
1) the rate of transactions, <br />
<br />
2) the number of transaction types, and <br />
<br />
3) the unconstrained distribution of transactions (so that any novel transaction chain can be created, upon demand).<br />
<br />
As a start, just imagine that every citizen did execute just ONE sort of $1 transaction with every other citizen - per year. In that case, the year-to-year currency supply REQUIRED for rapidly denominating aggregate transaction completions would be N-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial">factorial</a> dollars (i.e., each citizen does a transaction with 3.9 million others in 1790, or 330 million others in 2015).<br />
<br />
Population N-factorial in 1790 would be 3.9million factorial, (a truly big number).<br />
<br />
Population N-factorial in 2015 would be 330million factorial, an even far larger number.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://decodedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A41_N_Factorial.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgDCTaIHFYQuFWdvd0em-FSuiQE-lQkqncqP68C3Q5LOaUDv7UIxJjiwnm-MDXb7jppBuRHOfZ3S6Zz7wFzD9F73n4eEnhFBATc_x8rtU9CFzbt8CzhV60TvYiSIKAT7Z-RNvD2YgcTE5D-9hEoso5AUgAq_c7bhBPmIJFHZAfzBokW7RWv0zdN=" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
What would 330million factorial be? Awfully big. So big we don't even have everyday jargon for naming numbers that large, which are way past the <a href="http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts">$10-to-$75 trillion commonly described as circulating dollar-denominated assets</a> (M2 + debt). <br />
<br />
A fiat currency system addresses this scalability task by continuously & asynchronously creating & destroying "dollars" (denomination units), in multiple, dynamic ways, including loan creation, loan-repayment, fiscal spending, and taxes, while (supposedly, pending national policy) placing no control over the absolute number of transaction units available to denominate transactions. <br />
<br />
The only thing we have to fear is fear of the number of accounting numerals we use? Seriously?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57909657-219/eccles-marriner-federal-reserve.html.csp"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">In fiat currency, we have found a way to make our IOUs, and count them too!</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
<br />
That final task, accounting, is essentially all that a banking system is required to do. It's very simple, actually. <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-currency-denominated-economy-cannot.html">Bankers & economists are the only ones who can't seem to see their function for their imagined complexity!</a><br />
<br />
Yet we clearly are not growing our currency supply anywhere as fast as we could, if we removed all constraints on citizen interactions and transactions. That's a problem.<br />
<br />
We are holding ourselves back, essentially withholding fiat (public initiative). What are we afraid of? Our aggregate shadow? Afraid of what our kids may invent next? (If we LET them, anyway.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.occupylv.org/topics/what-kind-fool-would-try-save-fiat">What kind of fool tries to save (too much) initiative</a>, aka, fiat, aka, fiat currency? <br />
<br />
That's like accumulating energy, or fat, unused, in the hope that you can make better use of it later. As with all things, there are rather tight tolerance limits on the utility of hoarding initiative. The more of a resource you hoard, the less agile you are in wielding it's use. Yet if you have none, you're also not agile. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">It's the dynamic tolerance limits, stupid!</span></i></b></div>
<br />
Our aggregate limitations are organizational limitations, imposed by lagging technical capabilities and aggregate training and practice, but NOT by the size of the numbers used to count the ongoing interaction messages, or "currency" units we use.<br />
<br />
So, in 1790, what if someone had pointed out the colossal number of dollar bills we'd be responsible for managing one day, once our population reached 330 million, today? Should we have panicked at the sheer size of that fiat number, laid off all workers, and decided to stop all population growth (or cultural evolution) right then and there, at 3.9 million?<br />
<br />
Lay off workers? Isn't that what we routinely do? In which order? We have <a href="http://www.naics.com/history-naics-code/">thousands of types</a> to choose from. All necessary but not sufficient, and all must be adequately provisioned if we're to increase national resiliency as well as agility. Is laying off workers a sign of aggregate intelligence?<br />
<br />
Not if, like the proverbial egg cell, we wanted our culture to keep growing.<br />
<br />
If there's one thing that defines American Exceptionalism, it is our historical ability to almost maintain an understanding of the power of fiat currency, and <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html">return on coordination</a>.<br />
<br />
Note that maintaining that perspective was a constant battle, waged largely as class war. The US currency supply was highly politicized from the onset, in two key developments, notably championed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Report_on_the_Public_Credit">Alexander Hamilton</a> and the largely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Report_on_Public_Credit">British Banking Lobby</a>. The politics of money is, in reality, inseparable from class war, clan competition and frictions between individuals.<br />
<br />
Whatever the class politics, in 1790, ~4 million citizens started our post-war currency system, printed and circulated, out of thin air, what we can call (for the sake of argument) the first $80MILLION dollars of IOU notes for prior debts alone, ignoring everyday transactions. Today, we're afraid of denominating another trillion dollars of transactions? So afraid that we're instead limiting our real interactions and NOT exploring our emerging aggregate options?<br />
<br />
What should we be more afraid of?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Philip-K-Dick-shadow-people-Meetville-Quotes-159569.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgyr_t7YHNr6mLI97XvVfexw3WFljK_6d5T-Pfdz6DyfetSLFy7HI-vhrPeb-m-uHWSbHp37Pzaopr-bW2I1UiAW7ATeqDjlVl3Eou-KU3t_KApBzPEJhZGGiNmJbhNawmAuMQbGf9cJMhTO64fn6NrpNCfIwKIoCAugIRhreIDd1dRLaIvYkVH9Vczn2_QoB46kD6U-2DZwj9sZVV9__2R18ezdQ=" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Such people are a threat to themselves, as well as to their own aggregate. To evolve, we have to save them from themselves, as part of saving ourselves.<br />
<br />
After all, what's more valuable, <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/12/conflating-current-fiat-with-future.html"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">current fiat, or future options?</span></i></b></a> Isn't the point to optimally combine the two? It boils down to what your definition of "value" is. Possessions here & now, or future survival of your lineage.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmeetville.com%2Fimages%2Fquotes%2FQuotation-Philip-K-Dick-shadow-people-Meetville-Quotes-159569.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgyr_t7YHNr6mLI97XvVfexw3WFljK_6d5T-Pfdz6DyfetSLFy7HI-vhrPeb-m-uHWSbHp37Pzaopr-bW2I1UiAW7ATeqDjlVl3Eou-KU3t_KApBzPEJhZGGiNmJbhNawmAuMQbGf9cJMhTO64fn6NrpNCfIwKIoCAugIRhreIDd1dRLaIvYkVH9Vczn2_QoB46kD6U-2DZwj9sZVV9__2R18ezdQ=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdecodedscience.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FA41_N_Factorial.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgDCTaIHFYQuFWdvd0em-FSuiQE-lQkqncqP68C3Q5LOaUDv7UIxJjiwnm-MDXb7jppBuRHOfZ3S6Zz7wFzD9F73n4eEnhFBATc_x8rtU9CFzbt8CzhV60TvYiSIKAT7Z-RNvD2YgcTE5D-9hEoso5AUgAq_c7bhBPmIJFHZAfzBokW7RWv0zdN=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fim_afraid_of_my_own_shadow_coffee_mugs-r0a9e6d06eb0f41ccaf2a62d9a7e1e10f_x7jgr_8byvr_512.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjiKP2H9T1eMbPfCEXjevtWiLc6u2wMAmkuYx5cqYTUAys_KX3RgfXzoK9oL_v5DOujW4yGGxK4dWd8uo5LW3aKMowbCzDdLDO990wAx_7DkmezZiM5dLT3O5psAygDBqFL-JnnUChfQSpieXS0wSBm9DvfIsDSnK6yZ6vTzm83xJHWbfq8KL5eGrBq9pvhNGvgF1OkNsQo-DvQCJlLXU5bztNZlZxCQEQJH9X2BOIAWpLn=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-79318133018919323112015-02-21T12:23:00.001-08:002016-05-04T07:47:36.816-07:00Investing In Aggregate SELECTION MARKETS. Not Just Financial Capital Markets<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj30tEWfVPI0vE4gokadEDThdz6S48bi6jVXjUrXDCinA4xT6bBaGQGkSdIeDkkJlkA8bLQtGEz_bA_N4xcJx_4xrk8WFACpAVklSC3Bpe0dF_YPrZq2KtnF9Z9TnK6ICIswbbcGghmQGiU/s1600/AuntSamanthaWants_YOU_to_Select.jpg"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj30tEWfVPI0vE4gokadEDThdz6S48bi6jVXjUrXDCinA4xT6bBaGQGkSdIeDkkJlkA8bLQtGEz_bA_N4xcJx_4xrk8WFACpAVklSC3Bpe0dF_YPrZq2KtnF9Z9TnK6ICIswbbcGghmQGiU/s1600/AuntSamanthaWants_YOU_to_Select.jpg" width="494" /></a></blockquote>
How? Just keep doing what we've been doing, when we bother. What, exactly, you ask? Answer: practicing molecular, sexual & cultural recombination AND selection, of course. Everything else is just noise in the system.<br />
<br />
Can we do it? Of course we can. Someone or something always does, eventually. Why not us?<br />
<br />
Let me explain. Someone just wrote to me, saying that the Supreme Court shares blame for Wall Street’s (and Congress') drastic <a href="http://www.vice.com/read/why-obamas-regulators-let-wall-street-goldman-sachs-bankers-off-easy">descent into pervasive fraud</a>.<br />
<br />
Yes, but the roots of Judicial corruption go back to politics of appellate appointments, which goes back to campaigning, which goes back to ethics & education ... which has it's own roots & control functions, in regional & local culture.<br />
<br />
The best place to fix any outcome is at the prevention stage. Repairs are affordable only briefly, as stop-gap emergency efforts.<br />
<br />
If you fix fundamentals, the fix soon sweeps through all symptoms, at all levels.<br />
<br />
Yet without top-down support, it takes much martyrdom to slowly recruit momentum in whole aggregates. The bigger the aggregate, the more - & more protracted - the distributed, self-martyrdom.<br />
<br />
If we're LUCKY, another Hoover-FDR or Marshall-Patton will come along & quickly, temporarily patch things up without our aggregate fully understanding how or why. Yet that would most likely be short term lucky & long term unlucky, because we just put ourselves at greater risk, while still not understanding how to manage mounting risks.<br />
<br />
If we're not even short-term lucky? Then it's civil war, between classes, until our own governance is more permanently reconquered, and reshaped into less obsolete forms. Isn't that what the American Revolution was all about? Didn't the founders advise is to keep up continuous revolution, or at least continuous cultural evolution? There's nothing going on now that didn't occur in the lead-up to 1776, or to the Magna Carta, or to Athens first citizens revolt, 2300 years ago - or in any tribal council throughout the last 60,000 years. <br />
<br />
The most fundamental change is the scale of our aggregate, which we are NOT handling well.<br />
<br />
It's a pity that across the entire sub-discipline of exception-handling, we're loathe to handle our own aggregate growth as the most constant "exception" to be continuously handled! Go figure!<br />
<br />
For our evolutionary path to extend, EVERYTHING has to undergo recombination and subsequent selection. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard#Themes_and_interpretation">Even literature majors eventually grasp that timeless reality.</a><br />
<br />
What evolving, adapting cultures always need are rapid, enabling adaptations to SELECTION MARKETS. Not just capital markets.<br />
<br />
What is a Selection Market? So far, our most common term for it is "evolution," but only because the process is so infrequently discussed. <br />
<br />
What things are bartered, recombined & selected in Selection Markets? A widening range of disappearing, existing & emerging sub-components, components and super-aggregates of existing aggregates (e.g., colonial "states" transitioning to the United States of America, or, more pathetically so far, European States TRYING to transition to the United States of Europe).<br />
<br />
Are capital markets robust enough to mediate the SELECTION already going on within ad hoc Selection Markets? Of course not. Just start listing for yourself the things which we normally don't (or, for some things, ever) try to list for sale or purchase on capital markets. For example, dynamic & intangible essentials, from trust, motivation, affinity (love) & spouses to understanding ... and on to generalized forms of <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html">return-on-coordination</a>, like family, friendship, tribes & supra-tribal culture (aka, teamwork & solidarity & democracy).<br />
<br />
Yet Selection-Markets for all those things DO exist, and exert a far more dominant effect on our personal, national and cultural outcomes than mere capital markets do.<br />
<br />
So why aren't we more actively investing our human & social & cultural capital in improving what matters most, our real Selection Markets? We clearly possess the native intelligence, since we've been discussing the elements of Selection Markets since before recorded human history - just never quite pervasively enough to keep up with escalating demand, by right-sizing our selection efforts.<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">*</span></b><br />
<br />
Is that lag simply for lack of putting our heads together, and trying? In our recent feudalism/"economics" textbooks, "capitalists" demean historical natives for trading away lands & other resources for "blankets & beads," and yet here we are, hundreds of years later, trading our own aggregate future for our own trinkets. It's as though we've traded lazing about with a jug of wine & a loaf of bread .... for lazing about with designer drugs and video games.<br />
<br />
Really, should not every discipline include practice in contributing to evolution of national strategy & net, cultural outcomes. ow to be relevant, not just specialized.<br />
<br />
Most of us here in the USA may think that nothing's changed, but that just means that another aggregate less distracted with designer drugs & video games is about to loot our resources, en route to exploring insanely great new aggregate options, a future whole which will literally leave the sum of our personal options behind, in the dustbin of history.<br />
<br />
Are we that easily distracted? So far, yes. We're raising yet another generation of students beaten into hoarding data and ignoring the changing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart#Later_work">context that applies meaning to data</a>.<br />
<br />
Aunt Samantha says it's up to YOU to either start re-inventing American ingenuity, or jump ship with the other rats.<br />
<br />
The only other choice is to head back where we came from, with the other Luddites, who never see <i><u>either</u></i> direction of causality coming down the pike.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk8noVlG_cOduwbHdNazjjl4tuLhH9ckACvZouhbUMkqBNHjXTlscwIrERLGk4WvOkCDNQIs6lm9nRHpi6OsU8W3QFLbEkVfcwdrgaMA1198dXc9D3Vb-sjoWKT50faHBiP1HAJMbOSszg/s1600/go_back_we_fucked_up.jpg"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk8noVlG_cOduwbHdNazjjl4tuLhH9ckACvZouhbUMkqBNHjXTlscwIrERLGk4WvOkCDNQIs6lm9nRHpi6OsU8W3QFLbEkVfcwdrgaMA1198dXc9D3Vb-sjoWKT50faHBiP1HAJMbOSszg/s1600/go_back_we_fucked_up.jpg" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">*</span></b> <i>How to right-size selection efforts? The efforts involved in architecture, molecular biology & engineering in general are good examples. More is always different, and with more of anything, then some previously negligible inter-dependencies always become critically important, requiring feedback-triggered catalysts to <b><u>separate tuned from un-tuned system-engines</u></b>. In short, <b><u>to invest in Selection Markets, invest in right-sizing aggregate regulation</u></b>, neither too much, nor too little, but always just enough, just as needed and just in time to respond to changing context. This is a drop-dead fundamental corollary of all system logic. It's amazing that so many capitalists want their bodies and bankers to be agile, while simultaneously missing the overriding need to keep their aggregate culture agile.</i><br />
<i> Not too long ago, this was simply called providing citizens with a "Liberal Education" - as in a broad education. That term has proven to be too amorphous. <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2015/02/name-weapon-platform-whats-catchier.html">New terms are always needed</a>, as tools helping aggregates self-recruit, in order to tune their growing selves with tempo adequate to the accelerating demands of context_times_"more."</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2K0YuwicXiU%2FVOjfNesltKI%2FAAAAAAAACbI%2FqTxQI8iYi8s%2Fs1600%2FAuntSamanthaWants_YOU_to_Select.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj30tEWfVPI0vE4gokadEDThdz6S48bi6jVXjUrXDCinA4xT6bBaGQGkSdIeDkkJlkA8bLQtGEz_bA_N4xcJx_4xrk8WFACpAVklSC3Bpe0dF_YPrZq2KtnF9Z9TnK6ICIswbbcGghmQGiU/s1600/AuntSamanthaWants_YOU_to_Select.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-aSPPX-ooVGo%2FVOjlGaPsJmI%2FAAAAAAAACbY%2FEMRNNlWDnz0%2Fs1600%2Fgo_back_we_fucked_up.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk8noVlG_cOduwbHdNazjjl4tuLhH9ckACvZouhbUMkqBNHjXTlscwIrERLGk4WvOkCDNQIs6lm9nRHpi6OsU8W3QFLbEkVfcwdrgaMA1198dXc9D3Vb-sjoWKT50faHBiP1HAJMbOSszg/s1600/go_back_we_fucked_up.jpg" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-53387508002284181132014-12-02T08:52:00.000-08:002015-07-18T18:39:08.972-07:00Scientific Form Over Function: Co-Opting From The Start, vs Bridging The "Context Gap" Using Cultural Hybridization.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ5Md-uW8u6htyAXzfn1-QnKtT0jU4MSwrCub7VVCaBke0YvePRxm4AFVrPbs8ex5RUoQGScniXmFWxBFf1DSSZcKbdh1iFz6q835fAU492n7uCcSz4vrJyZsuw8QTROrlnOll6Fwaf_nM/s1600/mockery_of_science.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ5Md-uW8u6htyAXzfn1-QnKtT0jU4MSwrCub7VVCaBke0YvePRxm4AFVrPbs8ex5RUoQGScniXmFWxBFf1DSSZcKbdh1iFz6q835fAU492n7uCcSz4vrJyZsuw8QTROrlnOll6Fwaf_nM/s1600/mockery_of_science.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
UK State of the State session in Parliament:<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/economic-dishonesty-deficit-autumn-statement-george-osborne">‘On all sides barely an honest word will be spoken.’</a></span></i></b></blockquote>
You mean politics is the same everywhere? Why?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<br />
You know, reading this article, the obvious finally hit me about why indirection and active misdirection and outright lies & propaganda are still universally tolerated in aggregate politics. It's not a bug ... it's still a feature.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Policy formation for aggregates will forever require the active pursuit of short-cuts and active mis-direction (lies), in a never-ending struggle to ... gracefully ... accelerate the always-emerging steps of re-organization in rapidly evolving aggregates." </i>Me.</blockquote>
<i>One aggregate step forwards, one </i><i>staggeringly </i><i>long polynomial series of adjustments</i> ... just to maintain - <i>let alone increase</i> - agility, in an aggregate that is always expanding as well as evolving.<br />
<br />
It's funny how trivial this is ..... and not funny how deeply such an obvious topic is skirted in the training programs for all "system-science" disciplines.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart#Later_work">All data is meaningless without context.</a> </span></i></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Going further, <u>most data is meaningless even TO context</u>.</span></i></b></blockquote>
Plus, some data relevant to last context is irrelevant to the next, and vice versa.<br />
<br />
Hence, over time, progressively greater amounts of extant data are INCREASINGLY MEANINGLESS to the subsequent cascade of contexts.<br />
<br />
So what IS the actual relevance of the scientific method? What is its adaptive PURPOSE?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To continuously coax the most coordinated relevance from the excess of data we already have, and continue stockpiling!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We rarely need more data about existing components, and in fact, we spend most of our time actively ignoring already relevant bits of data.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><u>So-called "advancement" in every discipline is actually a stubborn exercise in form over function</u>, ...</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br />
... even as the overwhelming majority of aggregate "value" comes from making & tweaking frankenstein hybrids from already existing data & components. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Snowmobiles? New species? New cultures? By statistics alone, re-combination explores more options than discipline-specific invention does. Hybridization is not limited to plant species. Human cultures hybridize too.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The most important question in <b><i><u>every</u></i></b> science field - in fact in every human discipline - from day 1, may well be: </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>"how do we coordinate current & <u>emerging</u> knowledge in each discipline, with </b></i><i><b>current & <u>emerging</u> knowledge</b></i><i><b> in all disciplines?"</b></i></blockquote>
Without such continuous re-modeling of changing FULL context, we continue accumulating meaningless data - <b><i><u>minus changing context!</u></i></b> Forget our economic Output Gap, our <b><i><u>Cultural Context Gap</u></i></b> represents a far deeper gap between us and our potential Adaptive Rate.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Our <u>Cultural Context Gap</u> represents the greatest gap between us and our potential Adaptive Rate.</span></i></b></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Why isn't FACING all this social angst - and all our social taboos - a key axiom in all Science-X01 courses at undergraduate and graduate level training programs? Is it a lack of honesty, a lack of courage, a lagging intelligence, simply a lack of distributed involvement ... or all of the above?<br />
<br />
Perhaps because most faculty couldn't survive doing as poor a job as they presently do? </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Science Faculty:</u><i> "Students, </i><b><i><u>our honored task is to examine every phenomenon except the recombinant elephant in the room</u></i></b><i>. To this axiom, we shall forever hold true. Honesty shall be our guide." [Doh!]</i></blockquote>
<div>
WTF? If students actually used their heads coming in, they wouldn't stand for existing education, from day one.<br />
<br />
It seems that the <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-currency-denominated-economy-cannot.html"><b>Erbles</b></a> are in secret league with all sheltered Luddites, in all disciplines. How do you say <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/once-a-cop-now-an-outcast-a-chinese-tale-of-abuse-and-a-craving-for-justice/2014/12/01/243ee950-5dde-11e4-827b-2d813561bdfd_story.html">"<b>guanxi</b>"</a> in every discipline-specific jargon, in every language? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And to think that in the past several years I've been deluding myself, actually thinking that economics was unique in this depth of self-fraud. Today's "stain" of orthodox macro-economists may briefly lead in the application, but they're not as uniquely exceptional as they may think they are (if they truly "think" at all). There are new vistas of baffling bullshit to explore, in all fields. The pie in the sky's the limit.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Science which is not taught naked of all taboos is the greatest fraud of all. For then the very application of reason is hidden - from day 1- behind the recombinant taboo of the day. That is a mockery of the scientific method at it's most fundamental core ... when we pretend to practice science, while lying to ourselves from the start, about net adaptive relevance."</i> Me.</blockquote>
Scientific form over function. Selling out from the start. Usually by systematically ignoring dynamic or "recombinant value" while over-valuing static value. That's just <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=phenotypic+persistence&oq=phenotypic+persistence&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.357j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8">phenotypic persistence</a> writ large.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i>Every day, every generation and every context, we can't see our novel, emerging aggregate for the current components!</i></blockquote>
Nor our expanding, aggregate options worth exploring.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Our social parasites don't need to even try to baffle people with bullshit, when aggregates willingly co-opt themselves coming out of the gate.</span></i></b></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Does anyone think that even <a href="http://role_in_origin_of_life/">autocatalysis</a> is immune to Natural Selection? Not all that <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/11/autocatalysis-mmt-quantifying-economic.html">auto-catalyzes</a> is equally adaptive across local, regional or national scales, nor are all hybrids. <a href="http://neweconomicperspectives.org/tag/greshams-dynamic">Gresham's Dynamic</a> is one proverbial (mal-adaptive) exception, and Gresham's dynamic is always hiding, by default, in all the various sub-disciplines practiced by members of all aggregates - always in plain sight for those who won't look.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-17914053865595744042014-11-24T06:44:00.003-08:002014-11-24T06:44:46.030-08:00Have YOU Ever Heard Of A Human Aggregate That Ran Out Of Fiat?<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtvI0Ylykxojne9OnOxEb0pkONhr-XwRZioVXjD5h8UBYktzppcO_3D86vdPbPgh2tkvhO5s8CapdlNAp8QxbLNVRV-I0vuSHOqGeoE-hrcVoLFW2wNtPUctT24oCVZBRrCZgwTN0O7Xs/s1600/Have+Gun+Will+Travel+01.jpg"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtvI0Ylykxojne9OnOxEb0pkONhr-XwRZioVXjD5h8UBYktzppcO_3D86vdPbPgh2tkvhO5s8CapdlNAp8QxbLNVRV-I0vuSHOqGeoE-hrcVoLFW2wNtPUctT24oCVZBRrCZgwTN0O7Xs/s1600/Have+Gun+Will+Travel+01.jpg" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />It's sad & amazing that the function of national group-brains is declining (and our aggregate species group-brain too) ... even as neuroscientists worldwide obsessively over-study the structure of individual primate brains, all the while oblivious to the structure of the group-brain emerging all around them. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That brings new comedy to the term OCD. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On what scale? You can easily argue that the phenotypic persistence displayed in Deep State institutions mediate SSOCD, or social-species obsessive-compulsive disorders.<br /><br />Consider the following trains of thought.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3225">Balance sheet recessions and democracy</a></span></b></i> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
and </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29550">A depressing report from Florence</a></span></b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<br />From the Renaissance to depression, in 500 years. Two impressions forward, one depression back? Is that the best we can do?<br /><br />Somewhere in our current culture, we've forgotten that the whole purpose of social species is to take on Desired Consensus Outcomes which are beyond the ambition of individual skill sets.<br /><br />Too few follow such discussions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hence, those that do are largely ignored, as aberrations.<br /></div>
<div>
Too much of our public discourse has been on various collision courses, & have actually already collided, years ago, producing our ongoing, slow-motion train wreck.<br /><br />The US is supposedly acting slightly more intelligently than Japan or the Euro-zone ... yet not much, as the confusion in the following article shows.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-big-economies-got-right-or-wrong-after-crisis-1416786759"><i><b>"Weak banks don’t lend, highly indebted consumers don’t spend, and businesses with poor prospects don’t invest."</b></i></a></blockquote>
<br />Yet this same WSJ author comes out with the oxymoronic statement:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>"But U.S. policy makers failed to forge agreements to rein in long-run deficits, ..."</b></i></blockquote>
Why? Because ...</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>[a deficit in fiat] "could be a problem should another crisis hit."</b></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
WTF? And edges COULD be a problem too, IF the earth were flat.<br /><br />I swear. Too many people in diverse disciplines forget the simple method of algebraic substitution, as a sanity check. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To spell it out for non-thinkers, we all say we've used fiat currency for 80+ years. Yet what does "fiat" mean? At will? Who's will? The public's? So fiat currency denominates net Public Initiative? The word "fiat" means initiative, and/or nerve? Similar to public confidence?<br /><br />Have YOU ever heard of a human aggregate that ran out of fiat?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And if there's a deficit, what is it that we're trying to balance? The balance of Public Initiative vs personal hoarding? Inflation vs deflation? <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/12/conflating-current-fiat-with-future.html">Stockpiling Future Options vs Trying to Hoard Current Fiat?</a> People get lost in making lists of things to balance, often losing track of form vs function. At the end of the day, we do have a constant, orienting reference: balance what continues to be adaptive vs what becomes maladaptive.<br /><br />Yet some other slow boarder, trying to catch the thinking train, opines that<i>"monetary policy is limited when an economy slows down considerably and lacks confidence."</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
LOL! Let me try to translate & extend that to it's logical implications. Groups run out of confidence, & generate a deficit in nerve, which they must then borrow? Can't spend nerve they don't have? Sub-groups often run out of confidence. When they do, they borrow - or rather receive - more nerve from the larger aggregate. That's what defines a social species.<br /><br />All this lack of sense makes you wonder how humans made it through the last 200K years, always running a perpetual "deficit" in nerve. Does no one get the joke?<br /><br />Who have we been "borrowing" nerve from all these millennia? Accountants presuming an external source for every sink? Was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-entry_bookkeeping_system">double-entry bookkeeping</a> a miracle or a curse? Or always both simultaneously?<br /><br />That all this social noise occurs in the year 2014 is a sad testament to the fragility of homo sapien logic. Homo sapiens still can't see the culture (or social species) for the individual?<br /><br />And, there's the parallel myth that "job creators" create jobs by hiring people - even though that is just one receiving step in a cycle. One businessperson hires only when they have requests from other buyers to sell more, so they hire to meet that demand. Businesspeople rarely hire just to stockpile inventory, i.e., with no sales in sight. Optimal asset stockpiling occurs as aggregate stockpiling Policy Options, as a growing Policy Space, which they explore by increasing the distributed options available to their grandchildren.<br /><br />Somewhere upstream in the circle of consuming/buying ... if buyers/consumers [i.e., job creators] have no income, limited options, and constrained innovation, how are they supposed to create jobs (i.e., demand for products and services)?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>Acquisition pulls economies. Only drug dealers push.</b></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Ok, greedy lobbyists do too.</div>
<div>
<br />Can we just redefine <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism">NeoLiberal's</a> as those who don't believe in social species? Rather like those that don't believe in a round Earth or a helio-centric solar system?<br /><br />Until then, we may as well stamp the following on the business card of Homo Sapiens:<br /><br /> <blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/02/have-more-options-than-we-can-imagine.html">Have Options,</a></span></b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/02/have-more-options-than-we-can-imagine.html"></a><a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/02/have-more-options-than-we-can-imagine.html"><i><b><span style="font-size: large;">WON'T Explore Them.</span></b></i></a></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /> </div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-uIblmseIaZI%2FTzif9pF-GII%2FAAAAAAAA8mo%2FfzFkh8C6Yek%2Fs1600%2FHave%252BGun%252BWill%252BTravel%252B01.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtvI0Ylykxojne9OnOxEb0pkONhr-XwRZioVXjD5h8UBYktzppcO_3D86vdPbPgh2tkvhO5s8CapdlNAp8QxbLNVRV-I0vuSHOqGeoE-hrcVoLFW2wNtPUctT24oCVZBRrCZgwTN0O7Xs/s1600/Have+Gun+Will+Travel+01.jpg" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-4701473341109652942014-11-10T09:37:00.003-08:002014-11-13T08:27:46.337-08:00Continuously Re-Distribute Ounces Of Cheap Cultural Preparation ... Or Pound Ourselves With Expensive Cultural Rehab?<div>
If you've ever wondered how natural selection can proceed, if we don't always produce enough diversity beforehand to select from after the fact ... then read on. In the end, this should also remind any thinking person of the need to provision culture with distributed spending first ... and clawing back (capitalism) later. In fact, both those examples illustrate one, singular logic. Sow widely, to reap adequately.<br />
<br />
Now let's diverge, so we can find some new circuits leading back to the same path.<br />
<br />
Do you like puzzles? How about this one?<br />
<br />
What links '60s rock music, parallel Roger Ericksons, Korzybski & Wittgenstein, LSD, network logic and capitalism?<br />
<br />
Why, with a few extra links, this does! You'll laugh when you see how.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://assets.energizedwork.com/tech-on-deck/mechanics-of-meaning/science-and-sanity.jpg"><img border="0" height="353" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEh8XvF4r-n4gtjtk8R2wHuPlV0a4q3JRSob9MXwrF-g9bmr6d1Y18tiJJd8bmGmjU4qtLK3HpUaqzh4_daZmrprwKfeYXl3bFMND5f6gB_aITDJEmd098en1M1vNKbTduad33JCsbKxDX6ngJpxDqwsZVNgkI5qpbKdOJdRXsA4J-nx6OnNOUT8l5sNs0tu4CNXW-1Vs7xQ-g=" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
This is actually fascinating, not just comical.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.scarletdukes.com/st/tm_ausquest.html"><b><span style="font-size: large;">A QUEST FOR PURE SANITY - THE PSYCHEDELIC POETRY OF TOMMY HALL (13TH FLOOR ELEVATORS)</span></b></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Science And Sanity", by the Polish-born mathematician Alfred Korzybski</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
5th edition (Institute Of General Semantics, New Jersey)</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
All this rehashed in a 1967 acid-rock album - written by a chem-engineer student! :)<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Since Aristotle, man has organized his knowledge vertically", the famous liner notes differ markedly from the juvenile poetry/hype that made up the average 1966 rock LP back covers. Written, though uncredited, by Tommy Hall, the liner notes go on to observe that our language has been used primarily to identify - and consequently distinguish between - objects, rather than to focus on the relationship between them. Such a way of thinking, Hall states, is keeping man from enjoying the perfect sanity which comes from being able to deal with life in its entirety. </i></blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The terminology is Korzybskian, but the implementation is brand new. It definitely wasn't something they would teach you at alcohol drug rehab.</i></blockquote>
Hilarious! Who knew what acid-rock was really all about!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The goal is to resystematize our knowledge so that it would all be related horizontally."</i></blockquote>
Ironically, they may have missed the point, and been wrong all along, by assuming the solution was to go too far in either direction.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why? This story makes you wonder if the supposed appearance of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect">dialectic</a> mainly in Indo-European cultures was an accident of the discovery - or wide-spread use - of certain psychedelic drugs.<br />
<br />
After all, many other tribal languages never embodied the distinction of simplified summary mappings and classifications vs coordinating ALL objects, and hence didn't NEED dialectic. :) </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The two strategies impose different amounts of complicated overhead, at different scales. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How and why? Consider this. The process of <i><u>sensory system evolution</u></i> is always to reduce sensory-receptor bandwidth to that minimal range allowing adequate navigation. Humans, for example, didn't need ultraviolet or infrared vision, or ultra-sonic hearing or echo location to survive. We forsook those individual skills and instead invested in a more complex neocortex allowing more post-processing of limited-frequency sensory input.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If we apply that analogy to human language and human culture, not just human physiology, then a similar conclusion is apparent. The key to navigating increasingly complex cultural contexts with lean linguistics may be to limit group-discourse bandwidth & focus cultural-cognition on that skeletal backbone of context which is adequately vs totally relevant. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To scale up any system, some micro-level features have to be sacrificed, as useless burdens on macro agility. No system scales unchanged.</div>
<div>
<br />
The evolutionary advantage of aggressively "classifying" languages & cultures may be their ability to focus on what does vs doesn't scale, and hence allow accelerated evolution.<br />
<br />
For those unfamiliar with these analogies, try using another, more similar one. There are advantages of delegating some aspects of micro vs macro context management to dedicated specialists, such as human genders - where "males" cannot possibly master the details of pregnancy & neonatal care, while "females" cannot as deeply grasp the details of large territory management - not to mention the many segments in the spectrum between those and other arbitrary behavior sets.<br />
<br />
If nothing else, visualizing those system anomalies as <i><u>necessary features</u></i>, and not <i><u>unwanted bugs</u></i>, points out that arguing for either paternalistic or maternalistic cultures misses the bigger context. Rather, all human cultures feature interleaved as well as interdependent maternal & paternal subcultures, as well as all the intermediate variants demanded for retaining resiliency, via biological diversity.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, back to our Texas pyscho-rockers.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In an intellectual quantum leap he suggested a modern and tangible way to effectuate the non-Aristotelian lifestyle that remains painfully abstract in Korzybski - psychedelic drugs."</i></blockquote>
Too bad that didn't work out for them. Being narrowly educated, they weren't aware of the different mental health dangers of disrupting basic neural-reward systems vs the more diffuse psychedelic (peripheral neural-ordering?) drugs.<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">*</span></b><br />
<br />
Intellectual quantum leap? Or tragic, juvenile generalization?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Alfred-Korzybski-philosophy-Meetville-Quotes-218160.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjMj45-_fTEpoAOBYSPZxuSII7DmHCJUDtcE22_2m8KmkjR8XO3D-rRmqJ0brrrEe8feBfssF3Azd5kadLvuZR5olRerGe15P70XrRXzvbtSaBJsMOOyZ04zGmS-G7Hqz-u2_L6Kk3BfvqmBfMinNHFAb5doY3vmq_Xwuxr9NZz4J11zWgJHZkqPlXqZmQx8VfcuNOwHhyphenhyphenstzElNh5Bu1aK0uaDiA=" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
Their mistake - mixing heroin & LSD- was as fundamental as not appreciating the differing repercussions from tampering with foundation/plumbing/electrical building codes vs experimenting with interior design. Sad, but true.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Pity we can't get back to simply providing all students with:<br /><br />1) awareness of infinitely changing & fleeting contexts;<br /><br />2) familiarity & comfort with navigating change, as Context Nomads, and<br /><br />3) joy in surfing accelerating change with boundless curiosity & fascination, PLUS</span></i></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>4) enough early feedback to appreciate the difference between foundations, and frontiers of exploration.</i></b></span><br />
Why is it proving so difficult to have our growing culture and keep it too?</div>
<div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://unmosaicoparaxmir.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/alfred-korzybski-quotes-1.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://unmosaicoparaxmir.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/alfred-korzybski-quotes-1.jpg" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
That observation holds for group brains as well as groups of neurons, i.e., an individual brain. Does that vaguely remind you of our two political parties? Even if in different ways at different times.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the core purpose of cultural politics is to keep a population in the survival zone within the closed circle spanning passive-aggressive belief and anarchic-repressive cynicism?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">*</span></b> <i>However, being at an early stage of cultural-dialectic, it might well be useful to imagine what the cultural equivalent of cultural-psychedelic drugs are. Diversity in student travel during their critical periods of cognitive development, their formative years?</i></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmeetville.com%2Fimages%2Fquotes%2FQuotation-Alfred-Korzybski-philosophy-Meetville-Quotes-218160.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjMj45-_fTEpoAOBYSPZxuSII7DmHCJUDtcE22_2m8KmkjR8XO3D-rRmqJ0brrrEe8feBfssF3Azd5kadLvuZR5olRerGe15P70XrRXzvbtSaBJsMOOyZ04zGmS-G7Hqz-u2_L6Kk3BfvqmBfMinNHFAb5doY3vmq_Xwuxr9NZz4J11zWgJHZkqPlXqZmQx8VfcuNOwHhyphenhyphenstzElNh5Bu1aK0uaDiA=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.energizedwork.com%2Ftech-on-deck%2Fmechanics-of-meaning%2Fscience-and-sanity.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEh8XvF4r-n4gtjtk8R2wHuPlV0a4q3JRSob9MXwrF-g9bmr6d1Y18tiJJd8bmGmjU4qtLK3HpUaqzh4_daZmrprwKfeYXl3bFMND5f6gB_aITDJEmd098en1M1vNKbTduad33JCsbKxDX6ngJpxDqwsZVNgkI5qpbKdOJdRXsA4J-nx6OnNOUT8l5sNs0tu4CNXW-1Vs7xQ-g=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-16100600712376362352014-11-07T02:39:00.002-08:002014-11-07T02:39:52.747-08:00How Does A V330million Cultural Engine TUNE Itself? Cultural Adaptive Rate And Public Discourse Bookkeeping.<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://clubcriticaltheory.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/culturalengine1.jpg?w=499&h=498"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEi6EC43mX5MfEoA6Gg8uE_pNU8q8A3zrCys3ROJTLBSuIw3kJ387i07Xyy989EyR1hBMJp5U1qoX1nDiNqnvwoDttTq7EgDXwWem1sEf8PNEWQR684JSs11e1JHTz19iLFfsXOxrZaFTum6IPZlzAw_obFIJya-RcPKEpOE1SUXHMu7rXF1BWcxccVTMXnEkF9B6IDHWg=" width="398" /></a></blockquote>
<br /><br />A bit of yellow journalism triggered the following tongue-in-cheek discussion with colleagues, which quickly ran into a bigger question. Maybe all discussions do, when we take a moment to actually think?<br /><br /><b>First, the trigger.</b><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://rt.com/op-edge/202259-brics-us-information-war/"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">[Russia Says] "It’s now total war against the BRICS"</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
Maybe. Or maybe this just propaganda meant to counter <a href="http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-cia-running-defamation-campaign.html">OUR propaganda against Russian policies</a>, funded by our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex">MICC</a> (indirectly of course). Anything goes, but just don't try bombing or otherwise meddling in any country not called Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.*<br /><br /><i>(* note; this list may be altered w/o warning :( )<br />(** we [& <a href="http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com/2014/11/assault-on-liberty-revisited.html">Israel</a>] reserve the right to attack anyone we like, including ourselves)</i><br />One response, from a US journalist & engineer: <div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"This RT article is so full of half-truths that anyone who read it is now dumber" </i>Steve H</blockquote>
Another recent comment, from a colleague in Lithuania: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I'm more worried about the <a href="http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/11/magical-fairyland-corporate-tax-scams.html">ECB</a> than about Russia."</i></blockquote>
<div>
<br /><b>Follow up, and the immediate question "How could we be smarter?": </b><br />Yes, & well said, Steve! :)<br /> <br />If this increases RT's viewer base in the USA ... that'll probably be a maladaptive outcome overall.<br /><br /><a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/foxnews/a/Stupid-Fox-News-Quotes.htm">Good thing Fox News is so much better!</a> :(<br /><br />Between our existing media factions, we might well end up with an effectively misinformed electorate. <br /><br />Who gains then, however transiently (as the parasites slowly kill their host)?<br /><br />Meanwhile, it's a good thing that adaptive people (mostly youth) are abandoning archaic forms of media, and turning to the increasing diversity of blogs to post & sample bigger samplings of our emerging distribution of public feedback & discourse.<br /><br />If it weren't for public forums & public blogs, most of us would never have met an increasing proportion of the people we now know. Yes, we as a people are STILL increasingly moving on-line.<br /><br />Yet there are PhD scientists who loftily proclaim that the internet can never replace academic journals - and that blogs should therefore be outlawed. <i>[Same outlook that once said battle-tanks couldn't replace horses?]</i><br /><br />Just because evolution isn't finished yet, that's no reason to not participate in it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In fact, we need to focus much more on our own adaptive RATE.<br /><br /><b>This whole topic of journalistic quality runs immediately into a bigger question:</b><br /><i><span style="font-size: large;">How can we materially improve the QUALITY <u>(including both participation rate and tempo)</u> of <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html">distributed decision-making?</a></span></i><br /><br />As just two little, suggested points of bookkeeping, wouldn't it be useful to keep a real-time tally of all the newly emerging FUNCTIONS clamoring for our attention - AND, to provide real-time access to notices of said events, to all people?<br /><br />Let's look at it this way. Biology, business & military thinkers mostly seem to agree that evolution involves a constant, known cascade of events:<br /><br />1) context always changes;<br />2) systemic awareness of things WE have to start doing differently;<br />3) systemic spawning of NEW FUNCTIONS to address new demands;<br />4) adjusting all OLD/NEW FUNCTIONS (& sometimes eliminating a few), in order to tune all to common task [cultural evolution].<br /><br />If we're always struggling so much w #2, how the hell is group intelligence ever supposed to accelerate handling of #'s 3 & 4? <br /><br />No wonder there's so much friction ... and attendant mayhem. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If distributed feedback on net outcome lags ... then there are distributed frictions, and net tuning lags. That's a given.<br /><br />To focus more group attention & effort on #'s 3 & 4, surely we need to make #2 a much more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_stabilizer">Automatic Stabilizer</a>. That's a given. Nothing we didn't know in 1776 (i.e., a more informed electorate). We've been spinning our wheels, for 229 years?<br /><br />A group brain is a terrible thing to waste, but that's what we're still over-focused on doing - by default.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://image.slidesharecdn.com/supplantthemodernworld-culturalengines-120717082328-phpapp02/95/supplanting-the-modern-world-ecosystemic-succession-through-cultural-engines-3-728.jpg?cb=1342531754"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgp7yw9iYlj-TRS77r0zJ_suL8pvCM0i9SW9VlaGYygLI8RZiFjlOLHhDu0sEE6dusKFwAdoFI6WU99CE-QMytvXUPemB65MYT3NGWPGNikfh-wU-BJfmKtKPFHIFFT92uzfswjmTPbNC9nGV3I28DJbzwBRyU_3sSskhQYgkNakGbBrVGwsY2wh-p7bowOXM8_k2YdFyaAF0cFyReGaL96hqpT6cCntwEEpOb5BITn4Ly9JvpMHZx3maJk6U-FN9ZnAd0OpOCi4_miXg0KEwzPcS9tkc2fMmb3spgjEMOCRHLjxQG6zlYTcJLshI7LfHVJ0lcpAw_kL3-wAl22MGHiMT_dd-0=" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />What defines "cultural health?" How about retention & growth of net Adaptive Rate? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace">Wallace</a> & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin">Darwin</a> pointed that out 150 years ago. Is anyone listening?<br /><br />How do we maintain & grow Cultural Adaptive Rate, if we don't practice measuring it? Here's one quick suggestion. We may need far more Public Discourse bookkeeping.<br /><br />Couldn't every person's day start with access to a chart SUMMARIZING the entire spectrum of FEEDBACK on a hierarchy of "Emerging National Options To Explore?"<br /><br />Not everyone would look every day, but at least everyone would always know that some attempt at hierarchical rankings of that still-cresting river of group options was always there?<br /><br />That might even restore faith in the utility of having a US Congress. :(<br /><br />Maybe more of us would periodically dip their toe in that river, & get sucked into participating in #s 3 & 4, on the basis of some hierarchical feedback ranking. That way we'd at least attempt a continuous ranking that systematically reduced frictions, rather than one that constantly increased frictions, via purely random, un-tuned participation?<br /><br />How else does a V330million cultural engine TUNE itself, if not by seeking a constantly changing, dynamic balance between the full spectrum of enticing new options and the full spectrum of emerging frictions?<br /><br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fsupplantthemodernworld-culturalengines-120717082328-phpapp02%2F95%2Fsupplanting-the-modern-world-ecosystemic-succession-through-cultural-engines-3-728.jpg%3Fcb%3D1342531754&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgp7yw9iYlj-TRS77r0zJ_suL8pvCM0i9SW9VlaGYygLI8RZiFjlOLHhDu0sEE6dusKFwAdoFI6WU99CE-QMytvXUPemB65MYT3NGWPGNikfh-wU-BJfmKtKPFHIFFT92uzfswjmTPbNC9nGV3I28DJbzwBRyU_3sSskhQYgkNakGbBrVGwsY2wh-p7bowOXM8_k2YdFyaAF0cFyReGaL96hqpT6cCntwEEpOb5BITn4Ly9JvpMHZx3maJk6U-FN9ZnAd0OpOCi4_miXg0KEwzPcS9tkc2fMmb3spgjEMOCRHLjxQG6zlYTcJLshI7LfHVJ0lcpAw_kL3-wAl22MGHiMT_dd-0=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclubcriticaltheory.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F02%2Fculturalengine1.jpg%3Fw%3D499%26h%3D498&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEi6EC43mX5MfEoA6Gg8uE_pNU8q8A3zrCys3ROJTLBSuIw3kJ387i07Xyy989EyR1hBMJp5U1qoX1nDiNqnvwoDttTq7EgDXwWem1sEf8PNEWQR684JSs11e1JHTz19iLFfsXOxrZaFTum6IPZlzAw_obFIJya-RcPKEpOE1SUXHMu7rXF1BWcxccVTMXnEkF9B6IDHWg=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-48332621338003148692014-10-14T06:12:00.001-07:002014-10-15T17:03:12.204-07:00Just Do The Little Things That Make It Harder For All Citizens, Everywhere, To Work At Cross-Purposes?Periodically, we can't help seeing all the way through.<br />
<br />
When that happens, it's always a bit deflating to see even revered elites revealed as logically challenged at times. Yet even that shouldn't scare us. We need our audacity as much as our security.<br />
<br />
What are we seeing through this time? Several items, through the eyes of one man, as well as his known history. It's a compelling, revealing snap-shot, with multiple elements of partial truths compromised by a history of countermanding errors - by many people.<br />
<br />
See the photo and URL. This approach sees part of the problem, but misses the point.<br />
<br />
There is a better way.<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i>"Just do the little things that make it harder for citizens to work at cross-purposes." Col. Casey Haskins (US Army, Retired)</i></blockquote>
That's what evolution, aka Natural SELECTION, aka <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=OBT%26E&oq=OBT%26E&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.951j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8"><b>OBT&E</b></a> is all about.<br />
<br />
It is NOT about kicking anybody out. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(A portion of all people everywhere, at all times - even a portion of ourselves & our own kids - are always misbehaving, and misguided. Do we kick them all out, and swap 'em for those that other countries kick out? No matter WHAT we do, we'll just recreate a similar range of challenges and options, in one generation. That's the penalty for enjoying the benefit of massively parallel recombination, cultural or sexual.)</i></blockquote>
Instead, it's about listening to our own logic, instead of to pea-brains, and practicing forbearance while exploring - and selecting - better options. How? We always need even newer methods to do just that, & can discover them ONLY by initiating enough distributed trial & error. It's not about having insights, or being partially right. It's about seeing all the way through, to even better options, plus better methods for achieving those Desired Outcomes.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>"One day after I am long gone, you will remember me and say, we should have stopped the nuclear program of Israel, abolished the Federal Reserve and kicked all secret societies, occultists, usurpers and Zionists out of our wonderful country, to keep it that way, but it is never too late, just remember that."</i></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i>[I don't know who that's from, but it's not from JFK, as some have claimed. It doesn't matter, since it misses the deeper point altogether.]</i></blockquote>
<br />
Trading Royalty for Banksters for Racists for Trusts for Nazis for Zionists for Banksters for Neo-Liberals? Is that the national process history of the USA, and what our electorate argues itself to a standstill over?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Isn't there a better way than just enduring a cyclical trap of orienting to create, then combat, then re-create successive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economics_of_Innocent_Fraud"><b>Innocent Frauds</b></a> & overt <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud"><b>Control Frauds</b></a>? We're afraid of our own shadows, and panicking, instead of just managing our constant combination of fears and options.<br />
<br />
Which approach do we choose?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://www.peacefulnoncompliance.com/uss_liberty_israel_attacks_american_ship.html"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Passive NonCompliance</b></span></a> - <b><u>after</u></b> ceding tempo?</i><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i> Or</i></div>
<i><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=OBT%26E&oq=OBT%26E&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.951j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Active Outcomes-Based Practice</b></span></a> - while seizing & maintaining initiative?</i></blockquote>
<div>
<br />
Why are a tiny # of sociopathic pea-brains usually able to keep 90% of humanity confused, divided & conquered?<br />
<br />
Only because we're not aggressively PRACTICING listening to all of ourselves, all of the time - so that an adaptive hierarchy of options worth exploring is always and automatically sorted and distributed, soon enough to matter?<br />
<br />
Mal-adaptive ideas are never our core problem. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>In fact, the combination of having them and then trying to eradicate them instead of just ignoring them is our greater failing, and a self-inflicted wound! </i></blockquote>
<div>
Mal-adaptive ideas are a constant, from an infinite source. </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Success lies in constantly & QUICKLY surrounding mal-adaptive ideas & outcomes with enough adaptive ideas to make the distinction obvious, early and often enough to steer ongoing outcomes.</i></blockquote>
After all, our goal is to SELECT more adaptive ideas than mal-adaptive ones.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just make it easier to bias our selection in one vs the other direction.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Doing the little things that make it harder for citizens to work at cross-purposes ... is the same as doing the little things that make it easier for citizens to coordinate, at any scale.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Those two, desired practices support both goals, and reduce to the same practice set.</div>
<div>
<br />
We need a <b><i><u>Bias To Adaptive Outcomes</u></i></b>, from coupling a <b><i><u>Bias To Action</u></i></b> PLUS a <b><i><u>Bias To Full-Feedback Selection</u></i></b>.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-62975137172514253232014-10-13T09:50:00.001-07:002014-10-13T10:02:32.298-07:00New Methods Will Allow Us To Be Not Just Eukaryotes, But "Eu-Culturotes" Too. So What Would A Eu-Culturote Human Aggregate Look Like?<div>
We know quite a bit about our own ancestry now, yet we don't often stop to think about the implications, and the options we have when considering where to go from here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/1600/endosymbiotic-transfers.5.jpg"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/1600/endosymbiotic-transfers.5.jpg" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.meetyourbrain.com/userfiles/life9e-26-1.gif"><img border="0" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg9vw80iKv-Jx21BaqPj6MQum939aaKU0A9vbnpJg1X7MKoThbFBTPHV0RtspoWpgA0PCMq7Ow3uclp8h_-6zerLUOmypdhpC-FKX9Lng2RlkY5WE6Jb9OGOVtd1H9TMH6O3GvTQWh-yfuOH5Jn48YxF45unP0r=" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Ever wonder what the next step will be in biological - and human cultural - evolution?<br />
<br />
If you review our history, you'll instantly consider how we'll transition to massively multi-cultural aggregates, not just massively multi-cellular physiologies.<br />
<br />
Are we there yet? Not even close, yet there are clear signs that we're bumping up against the limits of our old, cultural methods. Take academia, PLEASE! :)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/how-academia-resembles-a-drug-gang/"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang</span></i></b></a></blockquote>
Why? An old joke has it that the reason the infighting and backstabbing in academia is so vicious ... is because the stakes are so small. :( Yet that only begs the question of why things got that way.<br />
<div>
<br />
So why are the stakes so small, and dwindling, not just in academia, but in many other necessary but not sufficient <a href="http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2012"><b><i>existing and constantly emerging disciplines</i></b></a> too, each with diverging, academic training sub-professions? <br />
<br />
This academia question is just a perennial one of a nested series of questions. Why do the past decisions of any complex system end up dictating subsequent adaptive paths?<br />
<br />
It seems that we have "building codes," licenses & standards protecting every institution and discipline EXCEPT the institution of coordinating a whole greater than the sum of ALL regulated parts.<br />
<br />
You couldn't make this problem up, partly because it's causes are so simple, well studied, and well-neglected. <br />
<br />
Without universal feedback & regulation (everything connected to everything), it soon doesn't matter HOW MUCH local & regional cross-talk, feedback & self-regulation there is within silos. The mounting <b><i><u>aggregate_dysfunction</u></i></b> degrades all silos indirectly, no matter how much we overspend & overbuild some components, while letting aggregate coordination degrade. <br />
<br />
And yes, we're full of contradictions. We've learned that lesson deeply for, say, manufacturing cars, but won't apply it to our own national policy and culture.<br />
<br />
What was that Irish proverb?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i> "It is in the shelter of each other that the people live."</i></blockquote>
And without that shelter, it doesn't matter how much we try to protect ourselves FROM one another? Right? Just like with cars. There's no point in building, say, SUPER-RADIATORS into cars, when it's so much more adaptive to simply adjust all the other car components, so that a mundane radiator never receives that much stress. Distributed tuning always trumps local heroics. Or, the <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html"><b><i>return-on-coordination</i></b></a> is always the highest return of all.<br />
<br />
How is it that 7 billion people can no longer retain "knowledge" that all tribal sub-sections "knew" all along? Not to mention all the implicit corollaries, traditionally left unstated, as rather obvious?<br />
<br />
Somehow, it's our own scale-dependent practices that are limiting us. Only ecologists (& internet engineers, & OpenSource chums, & circuit/chip designers) seem to teach that un-coordinated extensions cause more risk than reward to the parent system producing the spawn.<br />
<br />
All other disciplines seem to live in a world blind to the fundamental need for recursive tuning of all our selves as a whole, not just our various parts in isolation. Why we're continuously tempted to allow ourselves to do that to ourselves ... is a mystery to me.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">A bias to adapt = <i><u>a bias to recombinant action</u></i> .. CLOSELY COUPLED ... <i><u>to a bias to recursive tuning</u></i>. </span></blockquote>
And yet that coupling is NOT as closely regulated as all sustainability theorems expect. Either Darwin missed a subtle point, and over-stated his case ... or combinatorial approaches to spawning/mobilizing/selecting/leveraging leave unexamined process-control challenges, which escalate faster than aggregates can - until the next novel breakthrough occurs.<br />
<br />
Which leaves us with several, initial, intriguing responses to our initial question. The sky's the limit, folks.<br />
<br />
<b><i><u>First</u></i></b>, maybe all human suffering, waste & lost output ... is simply the truly expendable noise in our selection process? Perhaps there's really not enough selective pressure to demand higher levels of performance. Thus maybe we're just not yet adequately prodded us to SELECT the next level of <b><i><u>self-process-control</u></i></b> invention? Not prodded? Or simply not motivated, or bright enough recognize and explore existing options? That reality cuts both ways. We can adapt voluntarily, out of curiosity & drive, or wait until we're forced to, kicking & screaming.<br />
<br />
So far, most humans take the easy way out, and sit in over-built professions producing an excess of stuff which we really don't need .... while their pod of perceived safety inevitably (but slowly) degrades around them. Others go for broke, and are surfing disciplines more aggressively. Surfers have more fun? And trade more fun for less security, noting that "fun" = degeneracy = behavioral variance?<br />
<br />
<b><i><u>Second</u></i></b>, some breakthrough organizational method will eventually occur, equivalent to cultural-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_interfering_RNA"><i><b>siRNA</b></i></a>, that will allow us to coordinate our growing numbers better/faster/leaner. Then we'll become a massively parallel multicultural entity, expressing recombination on yet another scale. Not just <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote"><b><i>eukaryotes</i></b></a>, but "eu-culturotes" too! :)<br />
<br />
What will the cultural analogues of prokaryotes, archaea and eukaryotes be?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are key, methodological steps which allowed the differing capabilities of our ancestors. <i>(For those interested, the archaeal genetic replication elongation complex, which is known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replisome"><b>replisome</b></a>, is eukaryotic in nature, allowing the beginning of more complex genomes, more complex membranes, and single cells with more features. Google archaeobacteria for what's known.)</i> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What will be the key methods allowing further diversification of human aggregates in the future?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.world-builders.org/lessons/less/les4/genes/domains_a.gif"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiJjZOpiPzMIHR1xMOv7zao03V8Mqt67wDutUIHnjLEkvy300zexPxCj_DD_8TV6xVA4X8R9615UyElsa7tGFp0AXyEYunTT5qeT3JlMDzofFtZftdVgaNlaZZxARavQdpLhnPXRB2oosQex5rkZkDyNZt2fL4OAeACgfFtgMR0R__wTw=" /></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://biochemanics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/125817436.png"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhVKkI9nuLzikkNIvCIopG27HD0aB6SqJuMbIVoarFZlo580pZvV686KOf_kRYnbNvAESBesynzSTYqplxek6lzYcXmkG-kO9jtDyy6rTiJItG9nEVz5ciWM_b5IDbqMaTAFj7MX-_Omg7sMZeJ4R4smZ5t6EYYUKKSezF62w=" width="400" /></a></blockquote>
What would a Eu-Culturotic human culture look like?<br />
<br />
As one analogy, perhaps human tribes are "pro-culturotes?" Nation-states are "archae-culturotes?" :) And eu-culturotes are ..... ? Your guess is as good as mine.<br />
<br />
So. How would we go about making and testing prototype eu-culturotes, out of prior pro-culturotes and archae-culturotes? We have theoretical options to build upon.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/7b.%20Eukaryotes_files/7%20euk.gif"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg7zye8jyxAxVSzUNPU5kpKJlXDYxA6P9sn_FtRU16HFwMl8wBay7Cs5WGJlmQWAG2VbAbvz-r2AisgIgfC5QWHJt1QdclUTgkDj4OSXKZdooOo_AbZAobdixyODKWqupy9k4H7q_YPMVc_q-hMz5N0XboO7y0YjzFpWj75v0LC6mt8PLorzwidk5b10Ibe=" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
And LOTS of methods to work through!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When hosts engulf competitors or parasites, the host, the parasite, or both usually die. If the host successfully captures and fully regulates or domesticates the parasite, however, novel vistas open up.<br />
<br />
Has YOUR community engulfed a bankster, or entire banks, yet, and lived to tell about it? How about some lobbyists? Or a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex"><b><i>MICC</i></b></a>? It'll happen, one way or another, if we're to survive. The only question is who will find new methods, and a way to make it happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How do YOU define <i>li</i><b>CFRM</b>?<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">*</span></b><br />
<br />
The glory really will go to those communities that find a better way.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">*</span></b><span style="color: red;"><b> </b></span><i>lean, inhibitory Control Fraud Regulatory Method</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meetyourbrain.com%2Fuserfiles%2Flife9e-26-1.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg9vw80iKv-Jx21BaqPj6MQum939aaKU0A9vbnpJg1X7MKoThbFBTPHV0RtspoWpgA0PCMq7Ow3uclp8h_-6zerLUOmypdhpC-FKX9Lng2RlkY5WE6Jb9OGOVtd1H9TMH6O3GvTQWh-yfuOH5Jn48YxF45unP0r=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbio.sunyorange.edu%2Fupdated2%2Fpl%2520new%2F7b.%2520Eukaryotes_files%2F7%2520euk.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg7zye8jyxAxVSzUNPU5kpKJlXDYxA6P9sn_FtRU16HFwMl8wBay7Cs5WGJlmQWAG2VbAbvz-r2AisgIgfC5QWHJt1QdclUTgkDj4OSXKZdooOo_AbZAobdixyODKWqupy9k4H7q_YPMVc_q-hMz5N0XboO7y0YjzFpWj75v0LC6mt8PLorzwidk5b10Ibe=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiochemanics.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2F125817436.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhVKkI9nuLzikkNIvCIopG27HD0aB6SqJuMbIVoarFZlo580pZvV686KOf_kRYnbNvAESBesynzSTYqplxek6lzYcXmkG-kO9jtDyy6rTiJItG9nEVz5ciWM_b5IDbqMaTAFj7MX-_Omg7sMZeJ4R4smZ5t6EYYUKKSezF62w=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-builders.org%2Flessons%2Fless%2Fles4%2Fgenes%2Fdomains_a.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiJjZOpiPzMIHR1xMOv7zao03V8Mqt67wDutUIHnjLEkvy300zexPxCj_DD_8TV6xVA4X8R9615UyElsa7tGFp0AXyEYunTT5qeT3JlMDzofFtZftdVgaNlaZZxARavQdpLhnPXRB2oosQex5rkZkDyNZt2fL4OAeACgfFtgMR0R__wTw=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fblogger%2F4566%2F894%2F1600%2Fendosymbiotic-transfers.5.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/1600/endosymbiotic-transfers.5.jpg" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-84805386722210689202014-10-08T10:12:00.001-07:002014-10-08T13:42:56.484-07:00MacroEconomics: The Simple PRACTICE Of Re-Orienting All Eyes Onto Emerging Aggregate Options.Is it just rigorously managing the supply of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2013/01/08/all-money-is-fiat-money/">transaction denomination units</a>? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://blogs.psychcentral.com/humor/files/2011/01/2011-Mental-Health-humor-snow-hoarding.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiUDGW9VXLwd066V7V5qlgBe8XDiTgqn3-k_872KRGk4Ztd9m9QrlJOpGnDMnAN2g7zikfUg9WlHPhHqSqS2cSDBmE666h9-W35sZVRK11nYkV9nMl1PALIRmdkPmz78nvsCbha2ASyQI_MbTDKtpNfA3f9DKxdUvVgBHmjPJCajCew2orAKo5vuhK8rvNKRp46eXrnhBlAxspLOZ0=" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
Every time I read some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS%E2%80%93LM_model">dimwit, orthodox macro-economics discourse</a>, I still end up wondering what it is, exactly, that we're running out of.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A line from one of the "Change" songs keeps coming back at that point too.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"I been around the world once or twice before,</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><i>and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkWKdkN-CM&index=1&list=RDKrkWKdkN-CM">the answer ain't found in seeking more [stuff] ... I promise you that</a>"</i></i></div>
<i>
</i></blockquote>
And there's an old Irish tribal proverb that also fits. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJtq6OmD-_Y&list=RDKrkWKdkN-CM&index=6">"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live."</a> Well Duh! That's what social species do, and in fact, all members of all ecologies.<br />
<br />
So suddenly, once there are too many of us for our own wits to handle, we're no longer shelter to each other? Something doesn't add up here.<br />
<br />
It must be our wits and behaviors, not our physical capabilities, or possessions that are degrading our median quality of life.</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm">"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at will [appear to] change."</a> Max Planck(?)</span></b></i></blockquote>
<a href="http://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/falling-buttresses-beauvais-cathedral-and-the-limits-of-gothic-architecture/">It's the scale, dummy?</a> The more people we have, the bigger the tent we can hold up? Yet cultural tent design at one size does NOT scale, unchanged to provide cultural tent design at a different cultural scale.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Much of the difficulty in </span><span class="il" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 204); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">reconciling</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> </span><span class="il" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 204); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">scale</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">-</span><span class="il" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 204); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">related</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> </span><span class="il" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 204); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">axioms</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> arises from </span><span style="background-color: yellow; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">CONFUSING MICRO-<span class="il" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 204);">SCALE</span> AND MACRO-<span class="il" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 204);">SCALE</span> INTER-RELATIONSHIPS</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">.</span>" Max Planck</span></i></b></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
It's a mystery to me why we as a people struggle so much to see the superior value of more coordination, rather than more stuff.</div>
<div>
<br />
We're so close!<br />
<br />
How? Because almost everyone I meet already values their learned knowledge of how SOME relatively complex process works, and hence they don't sweat the ingredients. Ever seen a homemaker hoarding flour, or yeast, or salt, or ovens ... to ensure forever their capability to make bread? They know that that don't make no sense. Or mechanics trying to corner the market on nuts and bolts, for their retirement? No. They all grasp process scale, at least to some degree.<br />
<br />
And yet we're still so far! <br />
<br />
How? Because, to a person, those same people:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><u><span style="font-size: large;">they just don't see our nation and electorate as just another process! </span></u></i></b></blockquote>
They just haven't gotten used to seeing the bigger scale. It only takes practice, but they aren't getting enough of that practice yet.<br />
<br />
Hence, they get sidetracked and completely swallowed up in hoarding, to gross excess, various ingredients that go into making "us" - a dynamic human culture that is much more than the sum of it's parts. For example, they all foolishly agree to hoard each other's transaction denomination units, for retirement - like athletes trying to hoard the "scorekeeping points" which their leagues create at will. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<br />
Weepin' Jesus! Can't see dessert for all the Ding Dongs? Join the throng failing to recognize itself in the mirror.<br />
<br />
It's astounding.<br />
<br />
It's not the parts, dummy, it's the whole! Perhaps another addition to the <i><u>books for dummies</u></i> series might help.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Wholes, for Dummies!</u> :)</span></i></b></blockquote>
Perhaps, but only if it was embedded in every year of our K-12 curriculum.<br />
<br />
The backlog of stuff we already know about current human-culture recipes is so astoundingly large that it's either ignored or it actually gets in the way as institutional momentum or bureaucracy, as does our stockpile of ingredients.<br />
<br />
Offer people a little bit of corn or butter, and they'll buy it all up. Give them unimaginable <a href="http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/how-our-government-incentivizes-overproduction-junk-food"><b>corn surpluses</b></a>, or <a href="http://www.ecpa.eu/information-page/agriculture-today/common-agricultural-policy-cap"><b>Butter Mountains</b></a>, and they'll pay to have it hauled away for compost ..... and never examine the change in logic that accompanied the change in scale.<br />
<br />
Every nomad understood this implicitly, 100,000 years ago. Say there are are 4 food sources, which appear at 4 times of the year, in 4 different places. First, ACTIVE nomads quickly find them all, and optimally use those resources. Is there enough for all, and excess? Always, but it required some travel. <br />
<br />
You can picture that eventually, some lazy idiots started building fences around every new, transient resource discovered, in attempts to corner that market. Most would sit on it all year, trying not to starve between times it would blossom. Economic civil warfare began, along with leverage and enslavement. Local outcomes sometimes looked good to the dimwits withholding from the aggregate, rather than helping to keep the aggregate eye on aggregate options. Soon the net <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Output_gap"><b>Output Gap</b></a> was recognized, and it began to steadily grow.<br />
<br />
The ongoing outcome? New layers of nomads eventually realize that their food source has become the people sitting behind the fences. Hence, the proverbial barbarian waiting at every misguided gate. Aggregate civil war escalated into unending civil war. Amazingly, aggregates grew despite themselves, but always slower than they could have. Sometimes MUCH slower, even briefly reversing the course of cultural evolution. Nevertheless, even our own genius idiots can't keep our resilient Middle Class down forever, no matter how hard they try.<br />
<br />
This pattern continued until we witnessed the inevitable next link in that chain of idiocy. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><u><span style="font-size: large;">Neo-Liberals attempting to build fences around distributed, public fiat, so they can sit on it.</span></u></i></b></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.acronymfinder.com/Banging-My-Head-on-the-Keyboard-(BMHOTK).html"><b>BMHOTK!</b></a> That's the final stage of "perfecting" the theory of idiocy, before it's tossed in the garbage bin, for good.<br />
<br />
All our resources - including our denomination units - are all meaningless, without ability to see our emerging context.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i>"Those cultures are richest who can best explore emerging options soonest, with the least of their old baggage."</i> </span>That's my take.</blockquote>
Yes, countless superficial thinkers keep insisting on simple changes to our imagined cultural recipe - even though it's obvious that there cannot possibly be any isolated, simplistic solutions.<br />
<br />
Yet there is nevertheless always something simple that's missing. It's just too subtle for most people, but ONLY because we don't teach the obvious. In fact, we train people out of seeing the obvious! <br />
<br />
To make things easier on ourselves, we just have to re-orient our orientation coordinates to see our own evolving culture in a simpler light. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant#Planck_units"><b>No context seems simple until a context-specific coordinate system is adopted.</b></a><br />
<br />
To re-orient whole cultures faster means a higher Cultural Adaptive Rate - despite our numeric growth. We have to face the fact that we're not doing the simple things that will cause a phase-change in the structure and process of existing human culture. <br />
<br />
What does it take to transition a cultural engine from low potential to achieving more of it's potential? Tuning? Based on feedback from expanding system instrumentation? Requiring expanding investment in ourselves? That means realizing that the <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html"><b>return-on-coordination</b></a> is the only revenue that can cover our expanding cost of coordination. The only other option is slow suicide.<br />
<br />
What part of tuning is it that's missing the most? Mostly the action, more than the analysis?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiUqnifCD_qaV1ZC41d3yEGxUlWME2C5H_QVfQe1McC-pRdoBFmYLfiRznQJrgtYMmht6aEBAe-ZWagVasRA0sKUqHFrSwUmaATzN3F5G2Nf5olRs3c6dxuckT3_PDlRV2JHZMXbnrj23HfT4XAnTa-edF1vHl_m_WIAEnKXwJ8URlogx256zv42LvEYqYOzki7l_ENFSaKO0B7xjrFdRP3PibxrRNDzdDcV7QnLenRrQ=" /></blockquote>
<br />
Both experimentation and imagination are necessary, but not sufficient. We need both. So far, we're constraining ourselves with austerity habits and hoarding stuff that in reality is only useless baggage, and that is keeping us from exploring options that are even more exciting.<br />
<br />
To keep adapting and surviving, a culture needs to keep the entire electorate's eye on the NEXT prize. The idiocy of trying to sequester and bury Public Initiative (fiat) in the ground and hoard it is just another form of suicide. To leverage the distributed fiat we have, we first have to keep enough of it distributed. Then we need ever newer methods for driving better/faster/wider appreciation of context, throughout our electorate, no matter how fast it grows.<br />
<br />
Aggregate Methods drive Aggregate Results.<br />
Aggregate Results are measured against Aggregate Desired Outcomes.<br />
Aggregate Desired Outcomes drive Aggregate Methods.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Or, if you will, Aggregate Practice Makes Aggregate Perfect.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-_okm3OsrYDy2-dLXSAJN4CRZJiAC7Q7x9efeA99cmGW5Tzsxtvb8zqnd11bZu01CnC38eg98fY837J0zHJfaN8sRx816yx76ErtkK9bE_2gypgbj3krc5T5VWLog9k8-saowz3cJ-YDj/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-_okm3OsrYDy2-dLXSAJN4CRZJiAC7Q7x9efeA99cmGW5Tzsxtvb8zqnd11bZu01CnC38eg98fY837J0zHJfaN8sRx816yx76ErtkK9bE_2gypgbj3krc5T5VWLog9k8-saowz3cJ-YDj/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
That's why I prefer <a href="http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/ecctes33.pdf">Marriner Eccles'</a> actual <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51046418-82/eccles-economy-president-federal.html.csp">operations</a> over all subsequently published theories. We can always learn more from experiment than theory alone.<br />
<br />
Eccles & FDR practiced exploring options. Then, too many bookworms spent subsequent decades theorizing about what Marriner & Franklin once did, instead of just helping us stay on our Economy Bike, exploring newly emerging options - by rushing to see the aggregate outcome of DOING things!<br />
<br />
What other field rides a bike once, then retreats to book-reading instead of aggregate group bike riding? My head is spinning, just thinking about the ironic lunacy of it all.<br />
<br />
Can we just <a href="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25121">close down every economics department in the country</a>, talk less, and get back to MORE action and less theorizing, while utilizing inter-connected <a href="http://www.usma.edu/cfe/Literature/Borce_12.pdf">OBT&E</a>?<br />
<br />
That is, get students - & the whole Middle Class - back on the damn aggregate bike, and just let 'em PRACTICE riding it? ASAP?<br />
<br />
So what view of context is it, exactly, that we aren't enunciating clearly enough to ourselves and teaching to our children .. that would allow us to do far more for ourselves, and make life more fulfilling for more of us?<br />
<br />
The only conclusion I come to is that we always need even more thorough distribution of all human feedback, derived from maintaining fully distributed, full human activity. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><i><u>First</u></i></b>, feedback minus diverse experiments is useless theory. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><i><u>Second</u></i></b>, given the limited bandwidth of human components, useful feedback comes down to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)#Systematic_sampling">adequate, systematic re-sampling</a>, to assess external change, changing internal capabilities and potential for further internal change. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Everyone has a responsibility to broadcast key info to key receivers.<br /> <br />We all have a responsibility to also adequately sample the entire spectrum of human feedback.<br /> <br />Simultaneously, to do either, we also have a responsibility to ensure that diverse feedback is allowed to be both broadcast and reviewed, by all.</i></blockquote>
None of us can be as smart, or active, as all of us. It's not even close.<br />
<br />
"Organization" means getting key info to key people in key positions in key institutions, within critical time windows. All that, or nothing.<br />
<br />
A healthy brain is one that's been nurtured adequately, developed through practice, and trained to rapidly analyze all emerging data.<br />
<br />
Similarly, a healthy Group Brain - a human culture - is one that's been nurtured adequately, developed through practice at group discourse, and gets adequate practice at rapidly analyzing the changing spectrums of internal/external data. Leveraging that full spectrum of data/actions is what defines our emerging cultural response options. That's how we'll survive the unpredictably changing contexts we must face.<br />
<br />
We can look either direction up and down that axis: as component "neurons" looking at their shared Group Brain ... or as the Group Brain looking at how it trains its component neurons (our individual brains).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-01-10/feature_dunbar03__01__405inline.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEheDDZXb__Zqr2IS_a6duuuP4lK4CZVX_txLWGsYP0AVJatttuAOtBe-FhgLEHFvwhgMmhnmHepAfp-roy8IUyQkWoAVWxjuF3RDqmoUY38mlJoFL7lJFbM0pE56f8tnZWk3DX1apqp-ohcJ4fb5Gy-T2OrXlzKKVrkCPEs6GXi-4YooS0b9B7f=" /></a></blockquote>
<br />
Then, of course, we need national practice at generating alternative aggregate responses, and comparing them to our Aggregate Desired Outcome. <br />
<br />
Did I mention that we need formal processes for continually re-estimating Aggregate Desired Outcomes, honestly? Instead of trying to rely upon the disproven process of <a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/central-planning/"><b>Central Planning</b></a> by too few Neo-Liberal, capitalist "elites" instead of communists? Big Difference, right?<br />
<br />
A group has a Group Brain only if all parts talk to one another. What good is a Democracy if we don't USE it? System intelligence is actually held in an aggregate's Body of Discourse, and expressed in aggregate actions. The more aggregate agility, the better, and aggregate agility is defined as the outcome of aggregate practice - aka, the <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html">Quality (including tempo) of Distributed Decision Making</a>.<br />
<br />
Where to start? You want specifics? Just generate more activity, everywhere you look, at every scale, among all citizens. And then get 'em all practicing coordinating across existing and emerging scale. If we don't, what's left of our grandchildren will, if THEY'RE left.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2IRdW16rSvA%2FVDVXNWnd3tI%2FAAAAAAAACKI%2FuKoy_7dYKSA%2Fs1600%2Fstatic_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-_okm3OsrYDy2-dLXSAJN4CRZJiAC7Q7x9efeA99cmGW5Tzsxtvb8zqnd11bZu01CnC38eg98fY837J0zHJfaN8sRx816yx76ErtkK9bE_2gypgbj3krc5T5VWLog9k8-saowz3cJ-YDj/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.psychcentral.com%2Fhumor%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F01%2F2011-Mental-Health-humor-snow-hoarding.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiUDGW9VXLwd066V7V5qlgBe8XDiTgqn3-k_872KRGk4Ztd9m9QrlJOpGnDMnAN2g7zikfUg9WlHPhHqSqS2cSDBmE666h9-W35sZVRK11nYkV9nMl1PALIRmdkPmz78nvsCbha2ASyQI_MbTDKtpNfA3f9DKxdUvVgBHmjPJCajCew2orAKo5vuhK8rvNKRp46eXrnhBlAxspLOZ0=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.bwbx.io%2Fcms%2F2013-01-10%2Ffeature_dunbar03__01__405inline.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEheDDZXb__Zqr2IS_a6duuuP4lK4CZVX_txLWGsYP0AVJatttuAOtBe-FhgLEHFvwhgMmhnmHepAfp-roy8IUyQkWoAVWxjuF3RDqmoUY38mlJoFL7lJFbM0pE56f8tnZWk3DX1apqp-ohcJ4fb5Gy-T2OrXlzKKVrkCPEs6GXi-4YooS0b9B7f=" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmeetville.com%2Fimages%2Fquotes%2FQuotation-Max-Planck-imagination-knowledge-poetry-Meetville-Quotes-227301.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiUqnifCD_qaV1ZC41d3yEGxUlWME2C5H_QVfQe1McC-pRdoBFmYLfiRznQJrgtYMmht6aEBAe-ZWagVasRA0sKUqHFrSwUmaATzN3F5G2Nf5olRs3c6dxuckT3_PDlRV2JHZMXbnrj23HfT4XAnTa-edF1vHl_m_WIAEnKXwJ8URlogx256zv42LvEYqYOzki7l_ENFSaKO0B7xjrFdRP3PibxrRNDzdDcV7QnLenRrQ=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-23970696908175780662014-09-28T10:40:00.002-07:002014-09-28T10:40:49.473-07:00How To Do More Than Just Carp Uselessly From The Sidelines?Complaints are, after all, an admission of weakness, and an appeal to the admitted victor.<br /><br />Yes, these types of policy statements are a significant problem, since they attempt to reverse the meaning of insult and reason.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">"It's an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the </i>[Assad]<i style="font-weight: bold;"> regime carried out this </i>[Sarin gas]<i style="font-weight: bold;"> attack </i>[in Syria]<i style="font-weight: bold;">."</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-speech-at-the-un-general-assembly/2013/09/24/64d5b386-2522-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_print.html">address </a>to UN General Assembly, Sept 24, 2013</div>
</blockquote>
And it gets worse, now that <a href="http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/25/obamas-propagandistic-un-address/" target="_blank"><b>Obama is roped into talking about the Ukraine</b></a>.<br /><br />Time to reassess context? Let's back up to find a point of consensus. We're each bystanders lost somewhere in a rapidly growing culture, wondering how to catalyze <b><a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/09/whats-dividing-line-between-cultural.html">Cultural Growth </a><a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/09/whats-dividing-line-between-cultural.html">vs terminal mistakes</a></b>. If answers were easy to find, we wouldn't need to think so hard.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/assets/images/book-images/protein.gif"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgPtH3uTQMykCL1H2coyrakoP-gte42g0NJf1SiwrusXV-jTOEJxbfhdFGYfw3gTiymlZCQqAXulz1_IsDOJtLWXvUh0Nj0fMkvYH-fHfU_qBhCI-kwaXZSfKOf54knrtnt7cP042dEeP5MUxAKGEJ9su_dHCfOaFSWUSsQLIXnTKj-UmvG=" width="400" /></a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>How would YOU best catalyze <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/return-on-coordination.html" target="_blank"><b>coordinated</b></a> growth in a LARGE set of interdependent automata?</i></blockquote>
So what do we actually DO about this disorganized context we're in, stuck with increasingly inept bureaucracies?<br /><br />First off, what's the key friction?<br /><br />My first guess is that there are now too many layers of credibility and missing communication between political offices and the various subsegments or subclasses of an electorate now exceeding 320 million current/emerging voters. <br /><br />Call it a problem in marketing or propaganda or lack of honesty ... the fact is that it's not currently possible for any politician to convince a majority of the electorate to swallow any one, simplistic story. Using present methods alone, that defines organizational breakdown, and growing incoherence. There a better way, and we have to select it.<br /><br />Honesty obviously seems like the safest course, but apparently those currently at the top haven't been trained or selected well enough to sense that. Hence we're <div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">squandering the very strength of a democracy - the ability of the whole to use, better/faster/sooner, a BIGGER PROPORTION of what its distributed components collectively know!</span></b></i></blockquote>
Seriously. What's the wisest way to start or select a reform movement able to chart a survival course that veers away from our current warning signs?<br /><br />We have some past examples, but they're just that, examples from a different context.<br /><br />Well before the start of the American Revolution, distributed efforts called "<a href="http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/committees-of-correspondence"><b>Committees of Correspondence</b></a>" spontaneously formed, in anticipation of replacing the bureaucracy of Royal dictatorship. That was followed, later on, by the centralized "<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html"><b>Federalist Papers</b></a>," to articulate one focused version of an idea that had already grown to near consensus. Formal political parties didn't even appear until after the Declaration, Revolution, Constitution, and George Washington's first 2 terms in office!<br /><br />One modest goal at this time? Anticipate </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">replacing our current political parties with a more open process that acknowledges, generates, samples and leverages far more distributed feedback ... faster.</span></i></b></blockquote>
Many of my economist friends harp on the vague concept of capitalism being dead. My best interpretation of what they're trying to say is that a strategy of over-reliance on accumulating Static Capital is no longer agile enough, and that steps to even further embrace Dynamic Capital (coordination skills) are long overdue. </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Hoard coordination skills, not static capital?</span></b></blockquote>
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYF5ijIj7P0AVW29E4CXHSqQxsKy6thEAjxA1p6Q_p_HC5rwsVJSieOIx4RSwWsGOettwnNQtUc9R-htKizLXTRAnWCRb6UgpvpyAISPhGARnEgTyKJsvIfVOYqI7I9H2KY74kPmU7dbhV/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYF5ijIj7P0AVW29E4CXHSqQxsKy6thEAjxA1p6Q_p_HC5rwsVJSieOIx4RSwWsGOettwnNQtUc9R-htKizLXTRAnWCRb6UgpvpyAISPhGARnEgTyKJsvIfVOYqI7I9H2KY74kPmU7dbhV/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><br />Yet promoting even such a simple concept doesn't look likely, using ONLY our present institutions. My gut feeling is that, as always, we need a few NEW institutions to rapidly promote growth of methods allowing a bigger Policy Space and more Policy Agility.<br /><br />When we're continuously tuning complex systems, there's an inevitable string of milestone goals - <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">finding the next subtle, buried tuning step that unleashes the most additional system agility. </span></b></i></blockquote>
It's all about the indirect subtlety.<br /><br />Any serious suggestions about the LEAST number of subtle, new institutions to launch? I know that's a lot to ponder, but please comment or <a href="mailto:rge@OperationsInstitute.com"><b><i>write</i></b></a>, AFTER sleeping on it awhile.<br /><br /><br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-RIgpB0Xyu5s%2FVCg_5rfbWLI%2FAAAAAAAACIc%2Fxp-Wpg28mag%2Fs1600%2Fstatic_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYF5ijIj7P0AVW29E4CXHSqQxsKy6thEAjxA1p6Q_p_HC5rwsVJSieOIx4RSwWsGOettwnNQtUc9R-htKizLXTRAnWCRb6UgpvpyAISPhGARnEgTyKJsvIfVOYqI7I9H2KY74kPmU7dbhV/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_assets.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ascentofhumanity.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fbook-images%2Fprotein.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgPtH3uTQMykCL1H2coyrakoP-gte42g0NJf1SiwrusXV-jTOEJxbfhdFGYfw3gTiymlZCQqAXulz1_IsDOJtLWXvUh0Nj0fMkvYH-fHfU_qBhCI-kwaXZSfKOf54knrtnt7cP042dEeP5MUxAKGEJ9su_dHCfOaFSWUSsQLIXnTKj-UmvG=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-88482111440972703422014-09-07T19:01:00.000-07:002014-09-07T20:16:12.548-07:00What Part Of Distributed Tuning Of Some But Not All Complex Systems Do People Have A Mental Block About?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/dns-rev-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/dns-rev-3.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/08/20/from-ceo-takers-to-ceo-makers-the-great-transformation/"><b><span style="font-size: large;">From CEO 'Takers' To CEO 'Makers': The Great Transformation</span></b></a></blockquote>
<div>
<br />
This article suggests that capitalism should transition it's key management metric from shareholder value to customer satisfaction. ..... Uhhh, be still my beating heart?<br />
<br />
In an email, <a href="http://www.idealist.org/view/socialenterprise/3TtzwZzgFkMD/" target="_blank"><b>Casey Haskins</b></a> states the obvious response by pointing out that for such complex tasks, <i><b>"no SINGLE measure will work."</b></i><br />
<br />
You'd think that would be obvious for everyone, but it's not! What is it about tuning of some but not all complex systems do people have a mental block about?<br />
<br />
What happened to the concept of distributed solution sets for complex tasks? Don't stop doing nested polynomial N(i), wherever appropriate? That's what we do all the time, but just not consistently.<br />
<br />
Ignorant citizens all over the country are quite comfortable using multiple parameters to tune engines, or card games or to "solve" video games. Then they turn around and can't yet apply the same logic to tempering their ideology, politics and policies.<br />
<br />
Isn't diversity that what makes democracy so resilient? Cultural recombination is as useful as sexual recombination. What's missing? Just practice? Just practice at managing enough outcomes to know how many variables have to be juggled?<br />
<br />
Sure, all people get experience handling a wide spectrum of processes which they presume depend upon one to many control or feedback parameters.<br />
<br />
It seems overwhelmingly clear, however, that many of the presumptions people make about MANY of the processes they utilize are, in fact, grossly erroneous. The bulk of humans in a crowd - or mob - are remarkably cavalier about monitoring the variables which co-effect their personal-+-group outcomes.<br />
<br />
The concepts of central or distributed CONTROL of experimental variables is ostensibly taught as a fundamental axiom for use of the scientific method ..... but I can tell you by experience that remarkably few supposed "scientists," ever actually learn that axiom in undergrad courses, graduate schools or other training programs. Even fewer citizens, scientists or not, ever get enough practical experience at managing massively parallel "combinatorial" experiments, of the sort faced daily by individuals, electorates, economies, nations and cultures. In combinatorial evolution, there is no control, only accelerating outcomes to surf. And only the agile aggregates survive.<br />
It's ironic that attempted utilization of the scientific method itself has become largely <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/09/unfortunately-formulization-of-other.html" target="_blank"><b>formulized</b></a>, as more of a ritual than an honest act of exploratory logic.<br />
<br />
If formulization of the scientific method itself has become ritualized, why is anyone surprised that faux disciplines like our various policy ideologies are steadily drifting further from common sense or relevant reality?<br />
<br />
The big question is what to do about this recognized problem.<br />
<br />
Where are the key places to intervene?<br />
What are the key methods for gracefully intervening?<br />
What type of key people are able to use these methods to gracefully intervene at key places?<br />
How do we get the right key people with key skills into key places in key institutions?<br />
<br />
For get the Dem and GOP parties. Maybe we need a MACS party - for Multivariate Adaptive Common Sense? Jane and Joe Sixpack might sign up, if the party platform presented a combination of engine tuning, card games and computer games as their political platform. :(<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-2803180383320447662014-08-25T10:20:00.000-07:002014-08-25T10:39:23.778-07:00Summary Fusion of OBT&E, OBCE, Credit, Currency, Criminology & Policy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn8.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Amoeba.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhOY8Ic3IO3A4WbliWh3VSLTRqx-KFcjdR0ye3EI-tIgYydxRfdLgsWnbbOva0EHgSGpA6NT-Ob9vibo5msoiL_QIsjACT9Fhire5yXdh04QIRBM6RzL_5H-5odgIXP_c_Qhqr5ma5ZtFJDhxyq58BzZ1IdUSm21lqBY63fwTzaeJ6I=" /></a></div>
<a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/08/outcomes-based-cultural-evolution.html" target="_blank">OBCE</a> distilled to 4 points:<br /><br />1) Aggregate progress means local habits have to give way to emerging, aggregate habits.<br />2) The habit of coordinating Cultural Recombination is mightier than competition.<br />3) Public Discourse defines Desired Outcomes and drives coordination.<br />4) Practice drives agile Public Discourse.<br />
[Any comments? Feedback is absolutely required, as you'll see, below. :) ]<br />
<br />
<div>
Let's start with a challenging axiom.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is no distinction between leading, policy, economics, and operations ... there is only staging, linking & sequencing of distributed actions, to explore emerging options.<br />
<br />
Next, let's jump right in by noting that aggregate success, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Output_gap">Output Gaps</a> are gated primarily by outmoded, persistent local habits of <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2014/08/outcomes-based-cultural-evolution.html">dominance & subjugation</a>, ... with no aggregate goal in mind.<br />
<br />
The real kicker here is that the vast majority of self-defrauding behaviors, from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economics_of_Innocent_Fraud">Innocent Frauds</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_fraud">Control Frauds</a>, are expressed as insufficiently examined habits, among people who are not are not getting enough practice at thinking anywhere hard enough to sense the aggregate outcome of their personal compulsions.<br />
<br />
In short, frictions and output gaps are manifestations of lagging coordination.<br />
<br />
And the frauds that supposedly sap coordination? Frauds are just random agents following random actions - SANS ADEQUATE PATTERNS OF AGGREGATE FEEDBACK!!!<br />
<br />
There is a better way. We can call it Evolution, and it's core methods are coordinating on a greater scale.<br />
<br />
How does coordination grow? Via inevitable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis#Role_in_origin_of_life">autocatalysis</a>. If it can, it eventually will, simply due to statistics. So if it can happen, why not sooner rather than later ... which may be too late?<br />
<br />
How does a human aggregate catalyze it's own coordination? First, by adequate preparation. Group Intelligence is always held in the BODY OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE. We have to generate an adequate sampling of aggregate discourse, before we can tune and leverage it to fit a given context (aggregate regulation). So the key, underlying process always requires practiced familiarity at changing methods for continuously generating & re-shaping adequate patterns of distributed feedback. That requires agile Public Discourse in it's broadest sense.<br />
<br />
That's what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart">Walter Shewhart</a>, 80 years ago, called the <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Cost%20of%20Coordination%22">"Cost of Coordination."</a> Any biologist, ecologist, physicist, chemist or statistician would agree with Shewhart's statement.<br />
<br />
"In all .. systems, the highest cost, by far, is the cost of coordination." W. Shewhart<br />
<br />
Shewhart, and later students of his <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=pdsa%20cycle">PDSA cycle</a>, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming">Deming</a> & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)">Boyd</a>, considered the immediate corollary so obvious that they never bothered to state it in print. However it's useful to state it for beginners, simply to prime their learning curve. "The highest return, therefore, is always the return-on-coordination."<br />
<br />
Jumping ahead, one can readily see from this that It really does ALWAYS come down to saving aggregates (not just frauds) from themselves. And saving our nation along the way. How? By indirectly tricking any and every size aggregate into actually exploring coordination on a larger scale. Humans are inherently exquisitely cooperative, but coordinating their constantly emerging diversity creates a continuously growing need for NEW coordination triggers, moderators and practice methods.<br />
<br />
Call it <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2013_12_01_archive.html">Cultural Recombination</a>, or something else, depending upon <a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-wef-optimal-way-to-optimize-cultural.html">who's listening</a>, and why. :)<br />
<br />
Cultural Recombination is an extension of the same process that occurs during Sexual Recombination and embryology. We need social catalysts that drive and shape Cultural Recombination as much as we need the proteins and nucleic acids that catalyze sexual recombination.<br />
<br />
Just adequately reconnect everything to everything to master context, and then - for resiliency - relax to what's minimally needed for a given context. Aggregate resiliency means actually keeping enough in adequately distributed reserve, to enable re-mobilization for changing contexts.<br />
<br />
Cultures just do that continuously, in interleaved, asynchronous patterns. That always makes me think of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_chemistry">Combinatorial Chemistry</a>. In "Combinatorial Culturary," we're throwing more stuff together all the time, whether we will or won't. Our task is to select an aggregate adaptive signal from the changing aggregate noise. Luckily, that's all we have to do, and we're very good at it, when we bother to try.<br />
<br />
Have analog computing system, must use it.<br />
<br />
The only analog computing system more massively parallel than the human CNS is the human culture. Both are terrible things to waste.<br />
<br />
ps: There's also one, undeniably inevitable "economic" corollary to all this. Growing aggregates must devote higher proportions of their time to aggregate coordination. The ratio of "dedicated work" to "dedicated coordination" is a function of aggregate size. Simply put, that means that the AVERAGE hourly work week should be continuously declining variable, co-yoked to population size and aggregate agility. If we're to maintain a functioning democracy, then our hours of work per week absolutely cannot be a fixed constant. To reap the insane return on coordination, we have to dedicate increasing proportions of our time to distributing, analyzing and testing the implications of our own, distributed feedback - instead of just working harder at what we're already doing wrong. It's that simple. Less work, more discussion & coordination.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn8.triplepundit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2FAmoeba.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhOY8Ic3IO3A4WbliWh3VSLTRqx-KFcjdR0ye3EI-tIgYydxRfdLgsWnbbOva0EHgSGpA6NT-Ob9vibo5msoiL_QIsjACT9Fhire5yXdh04QIRBM6RzL_5H-5odgIXP_c_Qhqr5ma5ZtFJDhxyq58BzZ1IdUSm21lqBY63fwTzaeJ6I=" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-49770602084566363162014-03-21T01:41:00.000-07:002014-04-22T13:04:11.006-07:00How to best help shape aggregate success? NEVER tell an aggregate HOW to do things? Instead, help RECRUIT its members both to an enticing aggregate CHALLENGE, and then also to grant itself distributed PERMISSION to surprise all members with its distributed ingenuity?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgua-E-XlW0f89lJ9Lpf9-z_z0C88kkd9Qe8N80I_yKaM7603N48dJ5zgcrY4zlUhmGUm3QQ5nQxlSDQJSk5JsVq0QBVp-APhE3yQkMteGvqSQMupWUMRiooF6RVH4yMEsjEZHCBXlt2hYI/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgua-E-XlW0f89lJ9Lpf9-z_z0C88kkd9Qe8N80I_yKaM7603N48dJ5zgcrY4zlUhmGUm3QQ5nQxlSDQJSk5JsVq0QBVp-APhE3yQkMteGvqSQMupWUMRiooF6RVH4yMEsjEZHCBXlt2hYI/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
<div>
There always seem to be endless discussions going on, about countless proposed ideas and suggestions, for all policies, not just fiscal and tax policies.</div>
<div>
<br />
Perhaps there's no problem with that, except that there is not enough discussion? Also, there are not yet enough methods for convincing our aggregate to quickly test and assess enough of our present ideas?<br />
<br />
So let's take another approach. Let's connect all such policy discussion to more ancient lessons, by trying to stand back and look at our situation from the outside in, as if some alien visitor were observing planet Earth & the USA. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"When you see a planet full of humans, digging themselves into a hole, and you offer to help ..... they'll invariably ask you to jump in and help them dig."</i></blockquote>
<div>
So of course it's no wonder that our SETI isn't succeeding yet. :) Maybe ETI is waiting for us to grow up and express a "Saii" - the Search for Additional, Intra-Aggregate Intelligence?</div>
<div>
<br />
Why would alien visitors abstain from any of our ongoing arguments? Maybe because they'd quickly recognize - or already be universally familiar with - a universal reference for evaluating our efforts?<br />
<br />
What is that reference? The members of all aggregates VOLUNTARILY swap SOME local degrees of freedom, for SOME uniquely aggregate degrees of freedom, exactly because of the net BENEFIT of that exchange. That's what we call a SOCIAL species.<br />
<br />
Recognizing, staging, linking & sequencing the (distributed) behavior of an aggregate, in order to take ADVANTAGE of that exchange is obviously quite complicated. It has to evolve by trial and error. We have tangible records of that occurring in seemingly countless species, and certainly also in the history of our own human, cultural aggregates.</div>
<div>
<br />
Hence, at this time, maybe we need to something parallel to all of our discussion details, just to make our next decision. Why? When viewing any social species anywhere, or any aggregate anywhere ..... an overriding ratio always stands out, separating adaptive aggregate-signal from ongoing aggregate-noise. Maybe we're simply not allowing ourselves to see it?<br />
<br />
If there is not a net, distributed gradient of detectable success vs failure, the components of all aggregates cannot and do not make that voluntary exchange in enough proportions to continue tuning the aggregation process. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If a growing aggregate is not actively tuning itself to organize & aggregate on a greater scale - i.e., <i><a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html" target="_blank">"TO MAKE A MORE PERFECT UNION"</a></i> .... then it is, by definition, turning to inter-component competition instead, and wavering on the cusp of dissociation and dis-aggregation, instead of further aggregation.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Without a steady sequence of adequately enticing, aggregate challenges, it is mathematically improbable to even maintain, let alone improve aggregation, i.e., teamwork, aka "union".</i></span></b></blockquote>
The political process of all human cultures has always revolved around this fact.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Further, those humans involved in the politics of human culture have always HAD to employ an endless series of invented, often diversionary, challenges, in a desperate attempt to keep enough team members motivated. We've known this very clearly, ever since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles#Rivalry_with_Aristides" target="_blank">Themistocles tricked the citizens of Athens</a> into investing public wealth on a bigger/better state navy - around ~483BC!<br />
<br />
Today, however, it seems rather clear that the art of politics may have reached it's limit?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Adaptive politics is classically defined as the art of having supposedly gifted individuals attempt to trick an aggregate into adaptive, aggregate action sooner than it would have otherwise acted - or in other words, the pursuit of successful, Central Planning.<br />
<br />
Yet we already know that Central Planning cannot scale as fast as aggregate demands. Hence, politics as is DOES NOT SCALE! Well Duh!<br />
<br />
I only bother stating all this so indirectly so as to drive home the point that WE, as a growing aggregate, will ALWAYS face this task. How do we keep our changing team motivated, no matter how big, successful & complacent we get? That organizational task COMPOUNDS, as a function of both population numbers and citizen capabilities.<br />
<br />
It always comes back to the mathematics of distributed motivation among the aggregate of citizens?<br />
<br />
If there isn't a palpable distinction between more/less enticement (or survival/failure), then there is no net maintenance & growth of democracy - which we can call further aggregation of the binding ties of a social species? So far, we just connecting already well-known dots.<br />
<br />
So it is always necessary to invent new methods for recruiting citizens to keep organizing, to continue making an even more perfect union, and to continue exploring novel opportunities to voluntarily swap less enticing local options, for more enticing aggregate options?<br />
<br />
Isn't that why straw men arguments and false flag operations are so common in history? An adequate enemy always helps? Yet we're simply running out of them - in a tragecomedic sense - to the point that a melting pot is trying to convince itself that all contributors to the pot now harbor enemies. That process is degenerating to worldwide fratricide. Surely that pond is nearly all fished out, and we have to look elsewhere, just to keep feeding ourselves?<br />
<br />
What will become of this growing population of humans? All prior examples of other social species either die out, stall or invade yet untapped niches. Sci-fi writers have explored this domain for decades - although a bit haphazardly.<br />
<br />
Those social species that DO manage to aggregate on a larger scale, all seem to do so by an analogous process, regardless of the specific details. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They permanently capture a new state of aggregation ONLY when they add something subtle to their aggregate-regeneration process. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That "subtle something" is always some completely unpredictable pattern of distributed influences that somehow BIASES the entire aggregate to further aggregation, i.e., organization on a greater scale.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Absolutely nothing that an existing aggregate does guarantees this or makes it inevitable!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It only occurs as the result of increasingly distributed trial and error. However, the process actually seems to accelerate, since a growing aggregate always spawns it's own selection machinery as a function of the very diversity that it spawns. To select it's own next step, it needs only to stumble into also listening to the added parts of it's growing self. Simply hearing and using all of the constantly expanding feedback always seems to allow self selection.<br />
<br />
Humans are already remarkably, FANTASTICALLY biased by physiological nature to aggregate and pursue return-on-coordination. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Worldwide, we've resorted to actively trying to beat that innovative spirit out of kids, through "education," to the point that active tensions between our existing physiological and cultural biases are rising, worldwide. Our obvious options are piling up faster than our willingness to explore them!<br />
<br />
It is NOT AT ALL CLEAR how to further grow our historic bias to further return-on-coordination!!!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
a) endless warfare?<br />
b) endless random political diversions, tricking us into lemming-like mass manias?<br />
c) instilling a cultural bias, through subtle tweaks to our education system?</blockquote>
Perhaps we do NOT need to over-argue the details, other than to use them to orient to the big picture, and recognize our aggregate context. <br />
<br />
We DO need new methods for adequately biasing our millions and billions of citizens to pursue return-on-coordination as a Desired Outcome that is more enticing than competitive dis-aggregation.<br />
<br />
As always, <b><i><u>methods drive results</u></i></b>, but ONLY after net motivation or enticement is established.<br />
<br />
In our case, that <b><i><u>ALWAYS</u></i></b> comes back to methods for increasing the distributed motivation of our existing aggregate.<br />
<br />
We already have mathematical proof that our survival path requires methods for increasing our cultural bias to further return-on-coordination. You can look that proven premise up in the established literature of multiple disciplines.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b><i><u> UNFORTUNATELY, NOT ENOUGH CITIZENS KNOW THAT</u></i></b>, and certainly haven't learned it early enough in life to help their aggregates fully leverage the potential impact. <i>[Sadly, 40% or more are currently actively opposed to that conclusion, and are indoctrinating their children to do so as well. Hence, our union isn't as perfect as it once was.]</i><br />
<br />
In summary, we are facing an aggregate tuning task, one that is conceptually rather simple in theory, and even in practice. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><i><u>Perhaps the greatest hurdle is our existing bias to RESIST being tuned by others.</u></i></b><br />
<br />
Rather than trying to beat our aggregate self into submission ..... it might be easier to join our growing, aggregate self?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hence, one - very old - suggestion is to task all teammates with equal responsibility for aggregate self tuning. No surprise there.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Historically, we've called that either tribal membership, or democracy. Whatever it's called, we now need to do it - <b><i><u>EVEN MORE EFFICIENTLY</u></i></b> - on an even bigger scale.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When will that happen? Perhaps exactly WHEN an adequate majority agree on it as a consensus goal? When we do have agreement, then all individuals can sit back and let their aggregate impress themselves with IT'S distributed ingenuity.</div>
<div>
<br />
To paraphrase <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa106027.html">General Patton</a>, </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">"To help shape aggregate success, NEVER tell an aggregate HOW to do things? Instead, help RECRUIT it's members both TO a consensus Desired Outcome, and then also to ALLOW itself distributed permission to surprise all members with it's distributed ingenuity?"</span></i></b></blockquote>
Patton had the beginnings of a generalized idea, but he didn't extend it to a 2-stage optimization process for an entire national culture.</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Methods for recruiting citizens to continuously select their own enticing, new, Desired Outcomes, worthy of their aggregate capabilities. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Methods for recruiting citizens to allow themselves to succeed more through aggregate hoarding (of coordination skills as <i><u>dynamic assets</u></i>) vs individual hoarding (of crude <i><u>static assets</u></i>).</blockquote>
And, ultimately, to a 3-stage optimization process, adding one more step.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Methods for adding a developmental bias, so that all three steps become an ingrained habit.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
These 3 steps conform pretty well to the steps in both <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Shewhart%27s+PDSA+cycle&oq=Shewhart%27s+PDSA+cycle&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.440j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank"><b><i>Shewhart's PDSA cycle</i></b></a>, and Boyd's altered, extrapolated version, the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Shewhart%27s+PDSA+cycle&oq=Shewhart%27s+PDSA+cycle&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.440j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=Boyd's%20OODA%20loop" target="_blank">OODA loop</a>, and also to the general tenets of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=OBT%26E&oq=OBT%26E&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.556j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">OBT&E</a> - or "Outcomes Based Training & Education."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-SgaGoKx1i5k%2FUyvkem-_BPI%2FAAAAAAAABmo%2F6alWPkSnrKg%2Fs1600%2FRoger_Logo_finch.JPG&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgua-E-XlW0f89lJ9Lpf9-z_z0C88kkd9Qe8N80I_yKaM7603N48dJ5zgcrY4zlUhmGUm3QQ5nQxlSDQJSk5JsVq0QBVp-APhE3yQkMteGvqSQMupWUMRiooF6RVH4yMEsjEZHCBXlt2hYI/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-80398041544805904252014-03-16T00:16:00.000-07:002015-06-06T08:36:52.038-07:00The Pattern Of Process Flow<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBJURCQJcgt-vMeEWX5xF61sW2bYZH4zbSsj3pJ9ypf3TFvvbTGri-uFJrhMzEJFHHtH9jJ2ExCRqVk22tVsvUFtB-7H3OBhmG3jNehMxr4SVG8ZpKeScWtyx39iB_kNOxqyk0FoZCIF40/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBJURCQJcgt-vMeEWX5xF61sW2bYZH4zbSsj3pJ9ypf3TFvvbTGri-uFJrhMzEJFHHtH9jJ2ExCRqVk22tVsvUFtB-7H3OBhmG3jNehMxr4SVG8ZpKeScWtyx39iB_kNOxqyk0FoZCIF40/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
Consider, just as one of many examples, <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/silvercyril/aviation-disasters-due-to-mechanical-failures?utm_source=slideshow&utm_medium=ssemail&utm_campaign=weekly_digest">Aviation Disasters Due to Mechanical Failures</a>.<br />
<br />
Now please consider this question. Do the following statements NOT sound vaguely familiar, for anyone who's observed multiple screw-ups in any discipline whatsoever?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"visual inspection by crew not required"<br />
<br />
[one passenger's visual inspection noticed crack]<br />
<br />
[possibility of cracks joining, to exceed limit, "not considered"]</blockquote>
<br />
Surely that makes one ponder the PATTERN OF PROCESS FLOW, across any and all examples of adaptive systems making context-specific adjustments.<br />
<br />
Yes, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard#Themes_and_interpretation">for adaptive rate to stay the same across multiple, transient contexts, EVERYTHING must continue to change</a> (at different rates).<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is a timeless PATTERN always evident in those few systemic changes which are adaptive, vs the many optional changes which are NOT adaptive. If we have to select how to survive, surely there are some basic patterns that define our selection process? Sounds obvious & easy, once stated.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/10/avoiding-culturalautoimmunesocialdiseas.html">Just let easy happen?</a> The solution to every declared challenge is eventually quite easy, but because we no longer provide ourselves ADEQUATELY DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE at letting easy happen, we quite literally have raised billions of PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT LEARNED TO ACCEPT DISTRIBUTED EASY, and insist on individually working themselves to death doing what's systemically wrong. <br />
<br />
In fact, we've come to the insane condition of despising those who resist industriously over-working at doing random wrong. (It usually involves personally, stupidly stockpiling static assets, while ignoring the far more valuable dynamic assets. Take our rampant individual capitalism ... PLEASE!)<br />
<br />
Isn't it curious how the causes of disasters ..... are usually obvious in hindsight?<br />
<br />
And how the generic solution is usually so insanely simple? They're always a reminder to simply seek, or actually re_sample - <i><u>AND ACTUALLY LISTEN TO</u></i> - all emerging feedback?<br />
<br />
Is this not a basic part of the 150-year old theory of adaptive evolution?<br />
Shouldn't the default biz-card logo for all humans read:<br />
<div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><u>"HAVE SENSORY INSTRUMENTATION. WILL LEVERAGE IT."</u></i> ?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The behavior of all adaptive systems always comes down to sampling theory? <br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Expressed by all the nested layers of the analog-computing systems that make "us"? Aka, multi-atom molecules, multi-molecule cells, multi-cellular bodies, multi-body cultures and multi-cultural federations?</span><b><span style="color: red; font-size: x-small;">*</span></b><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span></i><br />
<br />
Whichever changing, total sum is appearing ... <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>... out of all the changing sensory/analytical/testing/ processes that we possess at a given time .... </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>... then success simply means arriving at the obvious after we just adequately sample all permutations of "options space" that can be sampled? </i></blockquote>
What part of routine don't growing populations teach themselves, sooner rather than later?<br />
<br />
i.e., <b><i><u>TEST ALL BOUNDARIES</u></i></b> ... to see which ones have moved?<br />
<br />
How simple can this <b><i><u>PATTERN OF ADAPTIVE PROCESS FLOW</u></i></b> get, in operational practice?<i><b><span style="color: red; font-size: x-small;">*</span></b></i><i><b><span style="color: red; font-size: x-small;">*</span></b></i><br />
<br />
Isn't that what all humans do naturally as kids - until our various "education" processes beat it out of them?<br />
<br />
Somehow, we are trying to make our current bureaucracies enforce <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite">Ludditism</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b>And damned if "WE" are not succeeding!!! </b>(at current failure)</i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
###</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">*</span></b><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Say, even a multi-cultural federation? :) Even a European 'Union' might work - if it is federated as an agile union of differing parts, rather than a naively rigid union of presumed clones.<br /><br />Businesses, corporations & institutions are cultural subunits, rather like organs in your body? They don't HAVE to be the same. In fact, they must NOT be. Rather, to create net agility - our required diversity absolutely must be allowed to operate within policy tolerance limits broad enough to allow return on agile coordination.</span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
###</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i><b><span style="color: red; font-size: x-small;">*</span></b></i><i><b><span style="color: red; font-size: x-small;">*</span></b></i> <i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Several patterns of fully inter-dependent and fully interleaved, adaptive process flows are continuously proceeding in real-time, across all the multiple, nested layers in our national system. Our usual net description of the net process is called net <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis">auto-catalysis</a>, and our standard view of the layered, repetitive applications are:</span></i></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>a)</b> Context instrumentation and sampling (that covers constructing and using all means of adequately sampling distributed data, external as well as internal feedback, SOON ENOUGH TO MATTER).</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>b)</b> Context modeling (all means of adequately sampling recognizable patterns, "correlatable" to context-options, across all data flows, SOON ENOUGH TO MATTER)</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>c)</b> Context exploration (all means of adequately sampling distributed tests of our context-models, i.e., adequately re-exploring the changing range of emerging options, SOON ENOUGH TO MATTER)</span></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>d)</b> Context updates (all means of re-assessing a-c, and starting again, WHILE making all suggested, distributed, adjustments, SOON ENOUGH TO MATTER).</span></i></blockquote>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />Which adjustments? How soon? How?<br /><br />Which adjustments: </span></i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Those dictated as most important, by the sum of distributed feedback. Presuming that there IS enough feedback to <u>identify and construct a clear hierarchy</u> .... in net, systemic benefit .... defined as <a href="http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.com/2013/10/tricks-and-common-pitfalls-of-adaptive.html" target="_blank">increasing systemic options</a>. <b><u>The actual pattern of adjustments will be entirely context dependent</u></b>, but the METHOD for selecting them will always be net auto-catalysis.</span></i></blockquote>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">How soon? </span></i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">As soon as available feedback PLUS available adjustment methods allow. The tempo of distributed adjustments will always vary in different populations, but the METHOD for achieving that speed will always be the sub-methods that support net auto-catalysis.</span></i></blockquote>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">How? </span></i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">By ALL emerging means possible? The sustainable glory really does go to those aggregates who find a systemically better way to steer systemic autocatalysis - and KEEP using it. All newly nested layers of auto-catalysis which occur, will always depend on the same a-d cycle, just expressed in the resilient diversity of nested "instrumentation" built into prior, nested, system layers:</span></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">- systemic self-instrumentation,<br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">- systemic self-modeling,<br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">- systemic option-exploration, and<br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">- systemic self-assessment.</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Yes, there really is no exact answer, only a call for an adequate, distributed, probability function - of achieving <u>"barely adequate"</u> solutions to each context, while also maintaining </span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">adequate reserves</span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> - </span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><u>by scavenging & re-purposing all supposed "failures"</u> - </span></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">to face the next context.</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Do we have too many unemployed? <u>Or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy" target="_blank">ARE WE EXPLORING TOO FEW AGGREGATE, EMERGING OPTIONS?</a></u></b> Glass half full, or half empty? It's the same situation, regardless of which perspective you choose to view it from.</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Practice making distributed, systemic adjustments to teamwork, often enough & soon enough that it remains the fall-back habit when surprises occur? And, then also always juggle enough time and resources and <u>practiced staff</u> in reserve, so that novel openings can be quickly & effectively pursued when they are finally recognized? That concept, of keeping adequate reserves, is ancient and uniform, from ant-nests to archaic armies. It's not just uninformed populations which fail. Overly-exhausted individuals or populations can also miss opportunities, and then must endure the agony of helplessly watching them go by (if they even recognize them at all).</span></i></blockquote>
We can’t predict what adjustments we'll have to make, to survive future challenges, but we can determine what adaptive kinetics we can generate - AND VIGOROUSLY PURSUE - when unpredictably distributed solutions to novel group challenges are recognized. [paraphrasing <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joshua_chamberlain.html" target="_blank">Joshua Chamberlain</a>]</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, all cultural evolution boils down to just adequately re-mapping minimal patterns of net, adjustable cultural options .... to continuously changing contexts?<br />
<br />
Re-sample context, re-sample optional (& increasingly distributed) adjustments. That's the endless race we're in. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">May the most agile populations stay in the race.</span></i></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-1wRorEt-fzg%2FUyUwefuHxDI%2FAAAAAAAABks%2F-gyOc0h1wpw%2Fs1600%2FRoger_Logo_finch.JPG&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBJURCQJcgt-vMeEWX5xF61sW2bYZH4zbSsj3pJ9ypf3TFvvbTGri-uFJrhMzEJFHHtH9jJ2ExCRqVk22tVsvUFtB-7H3OBhmG3jNehMxr4SVG8ZpKeScWtyx39iB_kNOxqyk0FoZCIF40/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8325915926287957370.post-17981596690309843822014-03-02T18:35:00.000-08:002014-03-15T22:01:34.444-07:00More Evidence That The Entirety Of Orthodox Economics Is Simply An Extension Of Class Hegemony - Maintained As A Cultural Habit<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKtD4LeAUfzGhEEgM8fajTyKlgsw25GuP56QDbR8g6mHFnmcpvL10f3kBbt6sdWwmcAtAUlqKcuZId6F6Wo96zEs-owBKP_5jIkksn9y7f9UORgGU9Oxf0wN7Z1e3gNp0L1R7-4YSA8A-j/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKtD4LeAUfzGhEEgM8fajTyKlgsw25GuP56QDbR8g6mHFnmcpvL10f3kBbt6sdWwmcAtAUlqKcuZId6F6Wo96zEs-owBKP_5jIkksn9y7f9UORgGU9Oxf0wN7Z1e3gNp0L1R7-4YSA8A-j/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
Consider the latest missive from the Congressional Budget Office.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45140-NSPDI_workingPaper.pdf"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Long-Run Effects of Federal Budget Deficits on National Saving and Private Domestic Investment</span></b></a></blockquote>
After reading this several times over, a simple question has to be posed.<br />
<br />
If [someone] starts with a big enough myth, can they get whole populations and disciplines to go along with nonsense? The answer throughout history is .... <i>"sure!"</i><br />
<br />
Yet where does that leave us? Before even considering the CBO's data, please consider the following questions, to establish and orient to context. After all, without context, data is meaningless.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Questions:<br />
<br />
1) Is the entirety of orthodox economics simply an extension of class hegemony - maintained as a cultural habit? <br />
<br />
2) Is it actually a generally agreed upon <b><i><u><span style="font-size: large;">cultural taboo</span></u></i></b> to question the nonsensical axioms of orthodox economics? <br />
<br />
3) Is orthodox economics inseparable from "court" management theory, used by aristocrats to manage "their" assets?<br />
<br />
While pondering that context, consider the reality that there is a gulf between fiat currency operations (e.g., MMT) and orthodox economics, simply because any aggregate, operational approach, by definition, is tuned to SOME stated purpose - aka, group policy.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Orthodox economics, on the other hand, steadfastly refuses to accept national policy as a reference axiom - maintaining that it is merely a set of tools, or methods. Yet no tool users set down their tools at the end of the day without considering what they were using them for, and why.<br />
<br />
That claim of being a method divorced from purpose ought to set off warning bells. <b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU">"Danger Will Robinson. Danger Will Robinson. Control Frauds are running loose in our Policy Staff!"</a></b><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><u>Orthodox economics is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli" target="_blank">Machiavelli's Economics</a>, by any other name?</u></i></b></span><br />
<br />
All functional diversions of patterns of tool-use from consensus purpose, constitute - by default - various shades of Control Fraud. Simply because special interests will always fill a policy void left dangling, lacking aggregate purpose.<br />
<br />
The result? <i><u>Innocent Frauds</u></i> may practice only <i><u>Innocent Control Fraud</u></i> (ICF) by default, but it is control fraud nonetheless. The concept holds, even if you prefer to call it <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/napoleonbo130787.html"><b>incompetence</b></a>.<br />
<br />
Is there any resistance to this widespread lack of aggregate purpose for economic theory? Perhaps. See the following article.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbos-rigid-scoring-is-holding-us-government-back-in-long-term-programs/2014/02/28/d445b3b0-9f02-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_print.html"><b>CBO’s scoring system holds U.S. government back on long-term programs</b></a><br />
<br />
However, this text is so long-winded that it's difficult to fully discern whether the author's Context Awareness is consistently rooted in allegiance to public purpose, fraud or incompetence. Maybe a bewildering mix of all three? :(<br />
<br />
Back to the CBO article. Let's now get to their treatment of data.<br />
<br />
They soon get right to their beginning myth, then base all economic modeling around this assumption.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i>'Deficits thus “crowd out” private domestic investment in the long run.'</i></blockquote>
And how do they get their conclusions to support their premise? With the rudderless tool of <i><u><b>"orthodox economic theory"</b></u></i> of course! Starting with a definition connected to no context whatsoever:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<i>"The sum S + (T – G) equals national saving"</i></blockquote>
<br />
They're referring to a common, presumed notation. I = S + (T – G) – NFI</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rearranging, we get: S + (T – G) = I + NFI<br />
<br />
So for the CBO, "national saving" = (priv+biz saving) + (taxes - total spending). In other words, "national saving" = (Public Investment) + NetForeignInvestment.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just as an aside, how does a growing nation "save" Public Initiative? Beats me. For the sake of the CBO's lunatic ramblings, however, let's ignore that functonal sanity test, and go back to considering the form of their policy delusion.</div>
<div>
<br />
Next, note that I + NFI = trade balance (pos or neg), in econ jargon.<br />
<br />
So far, so close.<br />
<br />
Yet one implicit point becomes clear, though unstated! Managing the trade deficit is their implied control variable? Their "objective?"<br />
<br />
<i> (For Pete's sake! That is gold-std thinking. It's like the CBO office is staffed by blondes listening to a variant of the "breathe-in, breathe-out" tapes.)</i><br />
<br />
First off, they're treating the sum of pub+priv savings as a static asset. There's no presence nor discussion of sinks and sources in their model?<br />
<br />
What is the reality? </div>
<div>
* return-on-coordination = a net source of real + nominal dynamic assets;<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(which counts more than the possession of any static assets)<br />(and don't forget compounding; </span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">some teamwork really is more useful than other teamwork)</span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></i>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></i>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIwp8lJVp3CLDI7hdgi2h5Vi71D4Bu4E0RfS-xlJwZOK4n1FhObfu9FOxsK81MagjPtJUtaxePPOwWTLKa7dcww12KkOJrcT9nVPRvO-t5SZrZmWt2yH0Oa_eJCAGg2KntDU3cWi4vEzax/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_resources.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIwp8lJVp3CLDI7hdgi2h5Vi71D4Bu4E0RfS-xlJwZOK4n1FhObfu9FOxsK81MagjPtJUtaxePPOwWTLKa7dcww12KkOJrcT9nVPRvO-t5SZrZmWt2yH0Oa_eJCAGg2KntDU3cWi4vEzax/s1600/static_vs_dynamic_resources.jpg" height="300" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>
* conversely, net stupidity or net ignorance easily produce a net sink of both dynamic and static assets;<br />
<br />
We have a key problem in using macro-economic theory to shape national policy. Regardless of all the definitions & rhetoric, there is no formal acknowledgement of Public Purpose in orthodox macro economics!<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">What is our national objective? Our Public Purpose?</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">..Which economic model variable TRACKS that objective?</span></b> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">..Which methods drive variables to push economic models in the direction of that objective?</span></b></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Orthodox macro economists can't answer those questions because asking them is NOT allowed in the framework of orthodox macro economic modeling! It's a theoretical accounting method that refuses to acknowledge any purpose OTHER than ex post, static asset accounting.<br />
<br />
At the same time, economic theory studiously ignores the evolution of banking operations!<br />
<br />
You couldn't make this up. A management theory that refuses to consider aggregate purpose and also ignores evolving operations. <i><u>What could go wrong?</u></i><br />
<br />
Again, merely for the sake of tempo in this comedy routine, let's continue anyway.<br />
<br />
Does anyone see a <b><i><u>National Assessment System</u></i></b> at work in any of this?<br />
<br />
I'm getting the feeling that it's all implicitly biased to make & keep key political constituents rich, no matter what happens to our country. Smells like teenage aristocratic philosophy? The CBO really is advising us to manage <b><i><span style="font-size: large;">currency_issuer</span></i></b> finances just like <b><i><span style="font-size: large;">currency_user</span></i></b> finances? We need an electorate which knows the difference, so we can maintain a policy staff which knows it.<br />
<br />
Let's reconsider something that is implicit in our National Policy Guide: <i>"Assume some myth or propaganda, then see what our macro economic models mean ... relative to that myth."</i> [Alrighty then! Werks fur mi!]<br />
<br />
That's no way to run a family, a company, an army, or a nation - all of which set AGGREGATE objectives first, and then explore all options for achieving them.</div>
<div>
<br />
Our curreny National Policy Guide is, however, how royalty look at the serfs in their various "possessions." If citizens and aggregate don't matter, then of course orthodox macro economics works. Just treat humanity as another variable to manipulate [without their will]. The simple question is "who does it work FOR?"<br />
<br />
To me, the CBO's logic is NOT a model for managing national development.<br />
<br />
It IS, however, a model for managing who privately owns any and all declared static assets (or thinks they own them).<br />
<br />
We need an electorate, Congress & CBO that puts out a yearly report entitled:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>"The Long-Run Effects of</i></b></span><br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Federal Thinking Deficits</span></i></b><br />
<b><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">on Adaptive Rate Of The USA"</span></i></b></b></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span></div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wcBkx8deXf0%2FUxPWP25IIWI%2FAAAAAAAABjI%2FpZ4fHekXYJo%2Fs1600%2FRoger_Logo_finch.JPG&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKtD4LeAUfzGhEEgM8fajTyKlgsw25GuP56QDbR8g6mHFnmcpvL10f3kBbt6sdWwmcAtAUlqKcuZId6F6Wo96zEs-owBKP_5jIkksn9y7f9UORgGU9Oxf0wN7Z1e3gNp0L1R7-4YSA8A-j/s1600/Roger_Logo_finch.JPG" -->Roger Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.com0