All posts in the topic How to accomodate a "meteor" that affects the consesus? (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation

Summary

There are 2 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Michael Allan at Feb 18 09:10 UTC

From: Robert Leming Date: Feb 18 00:05 UTC Short link

Hey,

This conversation has been dazzling for me. It is mostly beyond the scope of
my work (collaborative work / collaborative learning on a smaller scale ...)
- but I have been carefully archiving it for future reference and
consideration - thanks to all.

It strikes me as we go on that there is an assumption of "stability" in the
structuring of these solutions that might not adequately take into account
phenomenon that can tip the apple cart. A recent example here in the States
is the "Yes We Can" video that has swept through a broad swath of
the electorate and affected the dynamic.

A more cataclysmic example here was Katrina ...

What happens in these models of consensus if an event simply changes the
field? Is it back to start?

As I tried to indicate above I have not been attempting to grapple with the
fullness of the discussion that has been going on, so forgive me if the
answer is obvious.

Just thinking out loud


Bob Leming
Philadelphia



On Feb 17, 2008 12:28 AM, Michael Allan <> wrote:

> Ron Lubensky wrote:
> > But I don't agree that CE should generate a constellation of
> > documents that require aggregation through explicit voting. As a
> > medium for online deliberation, I don't believe that CE should be
> > fundamentally based on the primary tool of majoritarianism, that being
> voting.
>
> Is it voting, Ron, that ought not to be fundamental?  Or is it
> majoritarianism?  Voting is fundamental, certainly.  Without voting,
> it would be impossible to quantify the consensus.  (One consensus, one
> position, would be just as good as another.)  And consensus is the
> primary aim of the process, I assume.
>
> Majoritarianism is unwanted, I agree.  Wherever it occurs, it can only
> hurt consensus formation.  If a majority, for example, were to
> suppress the voices of a dissenting minority, the discussion could no
> longer proceed on a rational footing.  In the process I proposed,
> majoritarianism cannot occur.  No majority ever overrules a minority,
> and all minority decisions (even individual decisions) are immediately
> actionable.  Further, no minority action can ever be erased, or
> undone, except by the actor herself. (No other collaborative medium
> offers such strong protections of minorities, as does recombinant
> text.  It was originally designed for creative artists.)
>
> However, in your design sketch for CivicEvolution, there are places
> where majoritarianism threatens.  There any places, for example, where
> a majority overrules a minority, and the process then moves on to the
> next stage.  In moving on, if the minority position is then untenable
> (unactionable) it is effectively suppressed.  And if a majority (or
> agent of the majority) can erase the work of a minority, then this is
> suppression, too.  CivicEvolution definitely favours *action* by the
> majority.  Actions of the majority are favoured in the elevation of
> content and actors to the meta-levels.  This is not allowed to the
> minority.  This is one place (fundamental to your process) where
> majoritarianism holds sway.
>
> > Also, participants need to feel comfortable with the process and
> > their place in it. If it feels instead like a competitive
> > "marketplace of ideas", we will see aggressive behaviour that will
> > threaten the inclusive ideal of the system.
>
> I agree, and for additional reasons.  I agree, because an unforced
> consensus depends on rational discourse (as we are enjoying here).
> And rational discourse could not be maintained if the discussion were
> to become tainted by economic interests (as one finds in a competitive
> marketplace, or in the headquarters of a political party).  Nor could
> rational discourse be maintained if the discussion were to be
> manipulated by political powers (as one finds in the administration of
> a government, or a business firm).
>
> The process I suggested is free of economic interests, of course.
> True, there is a competition among ideas.  But the basis of that
> competition is *reason*.  As long as no external forces interfere with
> the discussion, then it will be more-or-less rational (depending on
> the capabilities of the participants).  In the normal course of that
> discussion, ideas that are reasonable will out-compete those that are
> unreasonable.  (I have the impression that you hope CivicEvolution
> will foster a similar competition.)
>
> As well, the process I suggested is free from political power.  There
> is no scope for coercion through the exercise of authority,
> priveledge, group pressure, and so forth.
>
> However, this last point is not true of CivicEvolution.  Your design
> sketch appears to be that of a virtual bureacracy, organized for the
> manufacture of an artificial consensus.  I say 'artificial', because
> it will be influenced by the management hierarchy; it will be
> influenced by the administrative rules, and the privledges of the
> specialized members; and it will be influenced, especially, by
> pressures to conform with the team.  Individual members will be
> reluctant to hold up the work of the team, even when they disagree
> with it.  (If a participant feels like a member of a bureacracy, or
> like a worker on an assembly line, then she'll rush to finish the job.
> Other considerations will take a backseat.)
>
> The process I suggested is, I think, a viable alternative to your own
> design sketch.  It is also radically different, which makes the
> comparison interesting.
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> http://zelea.com/
>
>
> Member profile for Michael Allan:
> http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/michaelallan
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult
>
> Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
> E-Participation with all posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/6Wkn25a6zW2uouTtVxGRrH
>
> For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
> E-Participation,
> email 
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by
> Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
>



--
The wind and the waves favor the skilled sailor

From: Michael Allan Date: Feb 18 09:10 UTC Short link

Robert Leming wrote:
> What happens in these models of consensus if an event simply changes the
> field? Is it back to start?

On the technical side, it's easy to answer (at least for a
systems-head).  Consensus is dynamic, so the model must be dynamic.
In society, consensus exists in human memory.  It forms and maintains
itself in response to a continual process of discourse.  It shifts in
response to external events (as you suggest), or reflexively, in
response to itself.  It is reinterpreted and renegotiated on the fly.
It eventually dissipates.

We can model memory as texts.  We can model consent as votes.  Changes
in textual content and/or movement of votes between texts would thus
model a dynamic consensus.  None of that is difficult, technically.

But what then happens on the social side?  Consensus will form,
persist, and adapt.  Every consensus that forms will find allies in
government (and elsewhere).  Action follows.  If action fails, then a
reason becomes known.  Consensus then self-corrects.  Over time, the
community attains competence.  Over time, the community attains
whatever it aspires to.

We know what government aspires to (power).  We know what a business
aspires to (money).  Who can predict what a community will aspire to?
(Not this systems-head.)

Posting

Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.

☺