Happy New Year, Josh,, I remember when I first got on Substack.. I was and still am very interested in your approach to Problem solving and Transparency. The TRANSPARENCY part is what reminded me of you. I wanted you to know I will giving your approach some NEW thought.. thanks and input thanks to the ICR.. which the Institute of Creative Research, which based Creative Intelligent Design by our Creator with many science contributors. One of the more fascinating subjects for me available. :) This week's issue discusses advances in Genetic research that are amazing to me. (new discoveries) which weren't known when I was a student; as I read it I realized why the advanced Cell Biology at the 400 level did not make sense: because it was INCORRECT. I will tell you more, but the article also brought up the cooperative behavioral insect societies like Ants, and Bees.. and I took advanced Insect Biology at the Graduate level at GMU (it was an elective for me to graduate) my B.S is in Molecular Biology I don't know if you remember that, but I started thinking about those "caste' systems in the Ant colonies.. really interesting. ANYWAY. I haven't been on Substack.. and if you go and look you will see I went to Antigua West Indies in October 2024 which more than ROCKED my world I came down w/ traveler's diarrhea.. two weeks later (parasites/amoebic water borne).. and I did a review of al my "Jungle microbiology".. let's put it that way. I am recuperating but it has been a slow recuperation w/my IBD. SO I AM WELL.. and I am really glad that PART OF YOUR MESSAGE ABOUT TRANSPARENCY in the PROCESS OPEN SHARED KNOWLEDGE IN TRUTH is MANIFESTING.. :) So take care,, Josh. and I hope you will have peaceful holidays.. :) Isabell
I agree with your values and goals. And though I agree with your "should" of human nature, I am more cynical of the "is" of collective human nature.
Historically, I am skeptical of any examples of systems or heuristics immune from the sociopaths among us. As the metaphor of a mandelbrot set illustrates., self-correction of some parts or processes necessitates self-destruction of others. Systems are both made and gamed by people, so anything made by people can be corrupted. If history teaches us nothing else, what can be weaponized will be.
If the best of your ideas can resolve the problem of "ponerology" (that Lord Acton thingy about "Power corrupts" and the flipside of how concentrations of power attract the corruptible), we may have a chance. Mechanical reductionism may be effective in the short term and for specific problems. Long term, I am less optimistic.
Despite it all, I wish you a late Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
Your skepticism is wise. The tyranny of the masses and the problem of centralized power are real threats to all systems of people. BUT All scientific studies of humans show that less than 5% want to rip others off. If given the choice with good systems it is much much less than that even. Most people want to cooperate.
However, our systems must be built to protect against that 2-5% of bad people. How? Decentralization of power and 100% transparent systems. A good system should be able to be turned over to your enemies and they still cannot corrupt it.
All of this is testable. And the goal of any new system should be to constantly have “red teams” who try to corrupt it and we constantly improve the systems based off of that.
I am also a fan of decentralization, maybe closer to a 'pro-social anarchist' (small, empathy-driven communities rather than large, rule-driven institutions) than a libertarian.
But that weaponization thing still seems to be lurking in that small percent. When systems fall into the wrong hands, decentralization slips so easily into compartmentalization. Thinking here of the corporate deep-state (military industrial complex, big pharma / big agra, etc.) and what is behind the plandemic, unnatural fires, the gutting of small scale farmers and the middle class, drones, and most recently the strange fog rolling into much of the English speaking world. Nothing would surprise me anymore. We are living in 'interesting' times.
'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?' — Robert Browning
And who invents the "better" systems? People of course or maybe we trust A/i to do it but even that is the same. The same corrupt people can invent the same corrupt systems. How are you going to keep corruption out of any new system invented by people? It's eventually the systems that make it easy for people to become corrupt. All government platforms attest to that. It boils down to that chicken or egg thing.
There are core principles that make systems harder to corrupt. Think of it like a house. Some houses are easy targets for criminals. Others have never been robbed.
This is not a chicken an egg thing. It is an understanding what makes systems hard to corrupt thing. In the case of systems that are supposed to solve collective problems such as governments, academia, media, science, medicine, etc. here are some key components that we are failing to use:
1) transparency - all systems should be radically transparent
2) decentralization - final power (the "last hand on the bat" theory of systems) should be diffused to the people, not to an easy to corrupt centralized entity
3) Error correction - does the system allow for competing theories to arise?
A good system should be able to be turned over to your enemies and they cannot corrupt it.
Happy New Year, Josh,, I remember when I first got on Substack.. I was and still am very interested in your approach to Problem solving and Transparency. The TRANSPARENCY part is what reminded me of you. I wanted you to know I will giving your approach some NEW thought.. thanks and input thanks to the ICR.. which the Institute of Creative Research, which based Creative Intelligent Design by our Creator with many science contributors. One of the more fascinating subjects for me available. :) This week's issue discusses advances in Genetic research that are amazing to me. (new discoveries) which weren't known when I was a student; as I read it I realized why the advanced Cell Biology at the 400 level did not make sense: because it was INCORRECT. I will tell you more, but the article also brought up the cooperative behavioral insect societies like Ants, and Bees.. and I took advanced Insect Biology at the Graduate level at GMU (it was an elective for me to graduate) my B.S is in Molecular Biology I don't know if you remember that, but I started thinking about those "caste' systems in the Ant colonies.. really interesting. ANYWAY. I haven't been on Substack.. and if you go and look you will see I went to Antigua West Indies in October 2024 which more than ROCKED my world I came down w/ traveler's diarrhea.. two weeks later (parasites/amoebic water borne).. and I did a review of al my "Jungle microbiology".. let's put it that way. I am recuperating but it has been a slow recuperation w/my IBD. SO I AM WELL.. and I am really glad that PART OF YOUR MESSAGE ABOUT TRANSPARENCY in the PROCESS OPEN SHARED KNOWLEDGE IN TRUTH is MANIFESTING.. :) So take care,, Josh. and I hope you will have peaceful holidays.. :) Isabell
Happy Holidays Isabell! Thank you, you gave me a lot to look into!
I agree with your values and goals. And though I agree with your "should" of human nature, I am more cynical of the "is" of collective human nature.
Historically, I am skeptical of any examples of systems or heuristics immune from the sociopaths among us. As the metaphor of a mandelbrot set illustrates., self-correction of some parts or processes necessitates self-destruction of others. Systems are both made and gamed by people, so anything made by people can be corrupted. If history teaches us nothing else, what can be weaponized will be.
If the best of your ideas can resolve the problem of "ponerology" (that Lord Acton thingy about "Power corrupts" and the flipside of how concentrations of power attract the corruptible), we may have a chance. Mechanical reductionism may be effective in the short term and for specific problems. Long term, I am less optimistic.
Despite it all, I wish you a late Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
Cheers from Japan
Your skepticism is wise. The tyranny of the masses and the problem of centralized power are real threats to all systems of people. BUT All scientific studies of humans show that less than 5% want to rip others off. If given the choice with good systems it is much much less than that even. Most people want to cooperate.
However, our systems must be built to protect against that 2-5% of bad people. How? Decentralization of power and 100% transparent systems. A good system should be able to be turned over to your enemies and they still cannot corrupt it.
All of this is testable. And the goal of any new system should be to constantly have “red teams” who try to corrupt it and we constantly improve the systems based off of that.
Happy new year!
Much thanks for your thoughtful response.
I am also a fan of decentralization, maybe closer to a 'pro-social anarchist' (small, empathy-driven communities rather than large, rule-driven institutions) than a libertarian.
But that weaponization thing still seems to be lurking in that small percent. When systems fall into the wrong hands, decentralization slips so easily into compartmentalization. Thinking here of the corporate deep-state (military industrial complex, big pharma / big agra, etc.) and what is behind the plandemic, unnatural fires, the gutting of small scale farmers and the middle class, drones, and most recently the strange fog rolling into much of the English speaking world. Nothing would surprise me anymore. We are living in 'interesting' times.
'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?' — Robert Browning
Take care, and keep up the good fight.
Bingo Bango!
Accountability VS Corruption!
(Transparency Required)
;-)
And who invents the "better" systems? People of course or maybe we trust A/i to do it but even that is the same. The same corrupt people can invent the same corrupt systems. How are you going to keep corruption out of any new system invented by people? It's eventually the systems that make it easy for people to become corrupt. All government platforms attest to that. It boils down to that chicken or egg thing.
There are core principles that make systems harder to corrupt. Think of it like a house. Some houses are easy targets for criminals. Others have never been robbed.
This is not a chicken an egg thing. It is an understanding what makes systems hard to corrupt thing. In the case of systems that are supposed to solve collective problems such as governments, academia, media, science, medicine, etc. here are some key components that we are failing to use:
1) transparency - all systems should be radically transparent
2) decentralization - final power (the "last hand on the bat" theory of systems) should be diffused to the people, not to an easy to corrupt centralized entity
3) Error correction - does the system allow for competing theories to arise?
A good system should be able to be turned over to your enemies and they cannot corrupt it.