How can representatives be representing the people if the people have no clear and organized way to voice their opinions? Collective intelligence systems solve for this.
You would hope that citizens develop an obsessive scrutiny over some family's life, every moment of the day, so that they completely understand the nuances of what their 'representative' said, to whom, why and what he meant, as well as what he did, and why didn't he do it differently. Then you would have people fight online over their opinions of what they saw, and split into 'believers' and 'non-believers' on social media.
That is your way of 'decentralizing governing' for optimal results?
Is all that, because you so strongly believe that, no matter what, people could never crowdsource information, listen to whostleblowers as well as experts, express all possible understandings of the ISSUE, discuss and prioritize solutions, then vote and decide on those issues?
Is that because people cannot, and should never make any decisions, without 'representatives'?
You have people running businesses.
You have parents making life-and-death decisions for their children.
Would you take that away from them, because 'they can't', or 'shouldn't, and have them watch the stream of someone else's life, instead of gathering and processing information and listening to experts and then deciding?
When you “vote” someone is giving you the choices of a multiple choice question. That makes it corruptible. It’s top down.
When you use collective intelligence systems you have a discussion with the people as one group, solve problems together, criticize, improve, and leave room for competing theories to arise.
They wouldn’t. I suppose we need to make the definitions clear then if that is where the multiple choice answer is coming from, then it is coming from collective intelligence.
There are a lot of questions here that don’t make sense to us. It sounds to us like you have not taken the time to understand collective intelligence systems at all, and are viewing them in some abstract way.
If you guys collectively found my 'lot of questions' complicated, let me rephrase them into one, easier to digest:
If we can make decisions on the things that matter to us, why do we need to spy on the lfie of a "representative "?
What might a representative do -in a corrupt way- against us, if they only represent our decisions and don't make decisions for us?
Was that still too abstract? Do you need to send me to study your version of collective intelligence before you acknowledge my capacity to ask this question?
Got it. We don’t. The problem is convincing the public to go from what we have now to no representation. They won’t accept it without steps in between that they can understand easily. Going direct comes with risks.
The USA, from the 1840s until some point after WW2 was politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system with its analytical, deliberation, and decision making functions diffused with deliberate redundancy across a large and very dense network of semiautonomous nodes
NO intelligence, no intellect. Incapable of learning from mistakes, learning from others, learning from history.
Literally just a few hours after I wrote last week to a friend that there's no point in moving to Spain or Portugal because the fascists, racists, bigots, and immigrant haters are gaining power everywhere -- I found an animal rescue in Tenerife and their first video spoke to me so loud I decided to sell my assets in this godforsaken shithole and leave.
I can't do anything on a national level and for 25 years watched my 80% MAGA county DESTROYED by corruption, embezzlement, power grabs ... But most of all people lacking empathy and compassion. The pain and suffering are killing me. So many old, poor, sick people! With no social services, healthcare, or anyone who gives a shit whether they and their pet live or die.
I want to be around GOOD people! People who care about their neighbors, the animals, the planet!
People who kick ass. Treehuggers, animal and people lovers.
Reading this ridiculous bla bla bla I know I need to get out while I can. Unfortunately, it will take a year or longer to sell my property.
Collective intelligence is an oxymoron. Collectives of any kind can be manipulated. They inspire group-think and indoctrination. And what does intelligence mean? A/i smarter than humans? A cat is smarter than a human.
Collective intelligence will be nothing more than more democracy where 51% decide for the minority 49%. It will collect opinions, hopefully not rooting out those its programming disagrees with, and then the winner takes all. The majority of opinions will rule or more likely be superceeded by the powers that be who will override the system if they don't like the results.
Also collective intelligence groups can and should have a constitution or code that protects the individual and individual rights. Also rather easy to solve.
You speak about it as if you have been part of such a group before. Have you? Because with our experience this is 100% not true, and it is testable. The problem you are identifying is real, yes. But 51% is just a number you are assigning to system that is not defined by numbers. It is defined by creative problem solving. The problem you are identifying is simply just solvable with a good system. You are having a conversation with a group. You do not have to give the group power right away to make decisions. But give it time and you will see the group is usually right. 51% means you are thinking in terms of binary voting. Solving problems in groups can take answers and criticize them, and it can take ideas and ask for confidence scores before implementing. 51% is a horrible confidence score. 95% is a better goal. And 95% with a constitution protecting the individual gets the best results. Also, skin in the game matters.
So, to understand this:
You would hope that citizens develop an obsessive scrutiny over some family's life, every moment of the day, so that they completely understand the nuances of what their 'representative' said, to whom, why and what he meant, as well as what he did, and why didn't he do it differently. Then you would have people fight online over their opinions of what they saw, and split into 'believers' and 'non-believers' on social media.
That is your way of 'decentralizing governing' for optimal results?
Is all that, because you so strongly believe that, no matter what, people could never crowdsource information, listen to whostleblowers as well as experts, express all possible understandings of the ISSUE, discuss and prioritize solutions, then vote and decide on those issues?
Is that because people cannot, and should never make any decisions, without 'representatives'?
You have people running businesses.
You have parents making life-and-death decisions for their children.
Would you take that away from them, because 'they can't', or 'shouldn't, and have them watch the stream of someone else's life, instead of gathering and processing information and listening to experts and then deciding?
When you “vote” someone is giving you the choices of a multiple choice question. That makes it corruptible. It’s top down.
When you use collective intelligence systems you have a discussion with the people as one group, solve problems together, criticize, improve, and leave room for competing theories to arise.
"When you “vote” someone is giving you the choices of a multiple choice question. That makes it corruptible. It’s top down."
If I'm part of a governing collective, who is that "someone giving me the choices"?
Why would a collective need someone for that?
Seems like we mostly agree but have different terms for certain things.
I think we disagree that we can go from one system to the other without a stop gap hybrid first that is less risky and still proves it works.
They wouldn’t. I suppose we need to make the definitions clear then if that is where the multiple choice answer is coming from, then it is coming from collective intelligence.
There are a lot of questions here that don’t make sense to us. It sounds to us like you have not taken the time to understand collective intelligence systems at all, and are viewing them in some abstract way.
If you guys collectively found my 'lot of questions' complicated, let me rephrase them into one, easier to digest:
If we can make decisions on the things that matter to us, why do we need to spy on the lfie of a "representative "?
What might a representative do -in a corrupt way- against us, if they only represent our decisions and don't make decisions for us?
Was that still too abstract? Do you need to send me to study your version of collective intelligence before you acknowledge my capacity to ask this question?
Got it. We don’t. The problem is convincing the public to go from what we have now to no representation. They won’t accept it without steps in between that they can understand easily. Going direct comes with risks.
The USA, from the 1840s until some point after WW2 was politically, economically, governmentally, and scientifically decentralized system with its analytical, deliberation, and decision making functions diffused with deliberate redundancy across a large and very dense network of semiautonomous nodes
NO intelligence, no intellect. Incapable of learning from mistakes, learning from others, learning from history.
Literally just a few hours after I wrote last week to a friend that there's no point in moving to Spain or Portugal because the fascists, racists, bigots, and immigrant haters are gaining power everywhere -- I found an animal rescue in Tenerife and their first video spoke to me so loud I decided to sell my assets in this godforsaken shithole and leave.
I can't do anything on a national level and for 25 years watched my 80% MAGA county DESTROYED by corruption, embezzlement, power grabs ... But most of all people lacking empathy and compassion. The pain and suffering are killing me. So many old, poor, sick people! With no social services, healthcare, or anyone who gives a shit whether they and their pet live or die.
I want to be around GOOD people! People who care about their neighbors, the animals, the planet!
People who kick ass. Treehuggers, animal and people lovers.
Reading this ridiculous bla bla bla I know I need to get out while I can. Unfortunately, it will take a year or longer to sell my property.
But at last, I have a PLAN.
Tenerife here I come!
Do you understand what collective intelligence is and the implications for humanity if it is true?
No. Most people are lacking individual intelligence and AI is no intelligence whatsoever, as has been documented over and over.
If you have any intelligence at all, you and your kind would buy a square mile and show us how it's done :)
I'm about as tired as it gets of bla bla bla with NOTHING to show for.
Collective intelligence is an oxymoron. Collectives of any kind can be manipulated. They inspire group-think and indoctrination. And what does intelligence mean? A/i smarter than humans? A cat is smarter than a human.
Collective intelligence will be nothing more than more democracy where 51% decide for the minority 49%. It will collect opinions, hopefully not rooting out those its programming disagrees with, and then the winner takes all. The majority of opinions will rule or more likely be superceeded by the powers that be who will override the system if they don't like the results.
Also collective intelligence groups can and should have a constitution or code that protects the individual and individual rights. Also rather easy to solve.
You speak about it as if you have been part of such a group before. Have you? Because with our experience this is 100% not true, and it is testable. The problem you are identifying is real, yes. But 51% is just a number you are assigning to system that is not defined by numbers. It is defined by creative problem solving. The problem you are identifying is simply just solvable with a good system. You are having a conversation with a group. You do not have to give the group power right away to make decisions. But give it time and you will see the group is usually right. 51% means you are thinking in terms of binary voting. Solving problems in groups can take answers and criticize them, and it can take ideas and ask for confidence scores before implementing. 51% is a horrible confidence score. 95% is a better goal. And 95% with a constitution protecting the individual gets the best results. Also, skin in the game matters.
Where is your website about your group?
What are you doing?
I'd love to visit!
Maybe move in if you accomplished what you claim :)
Where is your constitution?