You see an inverted version of this in medical, with the patient in the center and various departments discussing how to address concerns (it is also left open for anyone related to take part in the meeting). A missing aspect would be someone whose sole role is adjudicating if proposed ideas meet functional criteria. Benefits are it gets everyone on the same page information-wise and allows different department to collaborate differently (as well as giving the patient the opportunity to express deficiencies globally). Drawbacks are it often turns backbiting of finger-pointing behind the scenes.
Sociocrocy and heirachy still have the problem of delay creating compounding energy expenditure in error minimisation due to the difficulty of asynchronous delay in scheduling budgets to meet kpis. A solution would be a weighted point based voting system for nonpayroll budget expenses allowing for real time feedback control responses, would work better with priority scheduled model predictive controls but pid would do fine for a test. Collective intentionality from Lisa Feldman Barrett's work on emotions but by assuming the agentiality of cells referencing institutions, institutional change and economic performance as well as thinking in systems by Donella H Meadows as well as Moral Man and Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebhur a similar intuition reveals the computational boundary limitations of leadership and the need for multistage competency and distributed control as described in Michael Levin's work on cognitive lightcones.
Am I crazy for thinking this sounds a lot like Gaddafi's Third International Theory; People's Committees and People's Congress seem to map pretty well? His theories where mainly centered on third world governance and tailored to overlay tribal societies, but I think there are enough similarities to make some inferences at the least.
I was thinking about this a few days ago! This division between "Consent" and "Consensus" as a base for some form of getting pass a stalemate of ideas to move forward. Interesting Ashley!
I think part of your concerns would be address by taking a closer look at how people get into circles. To avoid gerrymandering type of behaviors and group think, you need a strong cultural framework to get a healthy group working together. Diversity and cultural overlap should be 2 big factors. Just like in any team, really.
I like your ability to unpack concepts. The "outer-inner" can refer to irrelevant to relevant like hitting a target. Sometimes the guy on top is not the most relevant. It means a good "hiearchy" from top down will always seek bottom up refinement and subject matter experts. Merge them together and its a pyramid. The outer-inner is simply the pyramid being observed from above.
it's not weird to pay people to participate, in fact we pay quite large salaries to representatives now in america. actually this entire vid seems to be an explanation of chinese representative gov't tho you didn't mention them once.
Consensus oriented systems have remarkable durability but they lack mechanisms to cut out the rot that every system aggregates upon itself over time. All systems consolidate power, this concentration of power can be concealed or obfuscated but it always happens even in consensus systems where the power tend to concentrates into a evaporating pools of people that set policy. A hierarchical system can aggressive cut itself lopping of entire parts of itself and still maintain the overall order of the system. In autocratic and aristocratic orders heads can be cut off and replaced rapidly with less disruption to the overall system indeed the occasional replacing of heads appears to reinvigorate the system as a whole... A consensus system cannot replace or lose its head becouse the power centers are redundant and distributed. These resilient traits mean that consensus based systems tend to rot away slowly losings toes and fingers at first before feet and legs and other appendages until the entire body succumbs.
Interesting! I love hearing the critiques (both strengths and weaknesses) along with the explanations. Very clear and insightful, thank you.
You see an inverted version of this in medical, with the patient in the center and various departments discussing how to address concerns (it is also left open for anyone related to take part in the meeting).
A missing aspect would be someone whose sole role is adjudicating if proposed ideas meet functional criteria.
Benefits are it gets everyone on the same page information-wise and allows different department to collaborate differently (as well as giving the patient the opportunity to express deficiencies globally).
Drawbacks are it often turns backbiting of finger-pointing behind the scenes.
Sociocrocy and heirachy still have the problem of delay creating compounding energy expenditure in error minimisation due to the difficulty of asynchronous delay in scheduling budgets to meet kpis. A solution would be a weighted point based voting system for nonpayroll budget expenses allowing for real time feedback control responses, would work better with priority scheduled model predictive controls but pid would do fine for a test. Collective intentionality from Lisa Feldman Barrett's work on emotions but by assuming the agentiality of cells referencing institutions, institutional change and economic performance as well as thinking in systems by Donella H Meadows as well as Moral Man and Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebhur a similar intuition reveals the computational boundary limitations of leadership and the need for multistage competency and distributed control as described in Michael Levin's work on cognitive lightcones.
Am I crazy for thinking this sounds a lot like Gaddafi's Third International Theory; People's Committees and People's Congress seem to map pretty well? His theories where mainly centered on third world governance and tailored to overlay tribal societies, but I think there are enough similarities to make some inferences at the least.
I was thinking about this a few days ago! This division between "Consent" and "Consensus" as a base for some form of getting pass a stalemate of ideas to move forward. Interesting Ashley!
I think part of your concerns would be address by taking a closer look at how people get into circles. To avoid gerrymandering type of behaviors and group think, you need a strong cultural framework to get a healthy group working together. Diversity and cultural overlap should be 2 big factors. Just like in any team, really.
I like your ability to unpack concepts. The "outer-inner" can refer to irrelevant to relevant like hitting a target. Sometimes the guy on top is not the most relevant.
It means a good "hiearchy" from top down will always seek bottom up refinement and subject matter experts.
Merge them together and its a pyramid. The outer-inner is simply the pyramid being observed from above.
it's not weird to pay people to participate, in fact we pay quite large salaries to representatives now in america. actually this entire vid seems to be an explanation of chinese representative gov't tho you didn't mention them once.
What low brow school gave you a diploma in high school to rid itself of some who prefers miscommunication skills at all levels?
I think we have something kind of like this where the groups are formed based on address.. Like city councils, etc.
What do you think of horizontal structures Ashley?
Consensus oriented systems have remarkable durability but they lack mechanisms to cut out the rot that every system aggregates upon itself over time. All systems consolidate power, this concentration of power can be concealed or obfuscated but it always happens even in consensus systems where the power tend to concentrates into a evaporating pools of people that set policy.
A hierarchical system can aggressive cut itself lopping of entire parts of itself and still maintain the overall order of the system. In autocratic and aristocratic orders heads can be cut off and replaced rapidly with less disruption to the overall system indeed the occasional replacing of heads appears to reinvigorate the system as a whole...
A consensus system cannot replace or lose its head becouse the power centers are redundant and distributed. These resilient traits mean that consensus based systems tend to rot away slowly losings toes and fingers at first before feet and legs and other appendages until the entire body succumbs.
Like others may have said, this is extremely similar to democratic centralism! The main system of governance used by the USSR and China.
USSR and China were not democratic.
@@achinthmurali5207 Yes, that's the whole "centralism" part. Go search it up!
no
Anarcho-Capitalism for the win 🙌