ideologi: An Open Proposal for the Creation of a Universal Exchange of Ideas

An Introduction

 

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine, as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

Thomas Jefferson, 1813

 

________

 
 

So, what exactly is a universal exchange of ideas?

 

In lieu of a comprehensive definition, which has eluded me thus far, I have created this site to introduce you to what I believe is a conceptual framework for one.  The name I have given it is ideologi (pronounced "ideology").

 

First of all, let me put your mind at ease by telling you that what you are about to read does not include a list of dry technical specifications for some new type of software application.  Unfortunately, there are no visual aides like flowcharts to show you how it works or graphics to illustrate what its interface might look like on a computer screen, either.  For now, you will just have to rely on the use of your own imagination in the same way one would conceptualize a brand new board game by reading its rulebook.  And if that doesn't work, I am at your disposal to help answer any questions that you might possibly have about it.

 

So, if this is such a novel and unexplored idea, then why did I decide to post it for the entire world to see?  Because if it does work as I have envisioned, then it is of great importance that this concept be shared with as many people as possible.  And if it is as well-received as I suspect, then the next question we must ask ourselves is this:  do we want it to exist as separate, proprietary, or incompatible systems or do we want to experience it in its full expression, operating as openly and as ubiquitously as the Internet itself.

 

Therefore, I would like to formally extend an open invitation to anyone interested in helping me refine the concept, organize its development community, and ultimately create and distribute the source code freely (like Linux, Mozilla, etc.) throughout the online world.  I am asking you to consider the possibility that the idea of helping me turn this into a social project for the benefit and use of all, or none at all.  I hope that by starting dialogue with those who are already working on complimentary projects, that they, too, will begin to recognize its potential and choose to provide us with the wisdom and assistance we will need to successfully launch this project.  To begin with, the content of this site is available for republishing under a Creative Commons license.

 

As with any idea, the one before you is only as valuable as the quality and quantity of those minds that realize its value and communicate it to others.  If you know of anyone who might find this of interest, then let them know about it.

 

And do not hesitate to let me know what you think!

 

What is ideologi?

 

"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas."

Linus Pauling

 

________ 

 

 

► ideologi (pronounced "ideology") is an evolutionary collaboration methodology that facilitates the rational production of ideas by employing time-based, mass-participation brainstorming contests (called exchanges) for any subject matter (commerce, politics, arts, philosophy, etc.) using any type of electronic content (text, images, spreadsheets, etc.) with any population of online users (intranet, extranet or public Internet).  Users (called participants) can either submit answers (called directives) to an exchange or develop their own questions (called objectives) to initiate their own exchange for others to join.

In terms of the tangible forms in which it could be manifested, the possibilities are endless:  a web portal application, a web service offering for webmasters and their users, a network of peer-to-peer (P2P) clients, or even the subroutine for a neural network of cybernetic entities.  That choice is up to the ingenuity of those who wish to bring ideologi to life.

 

► If a participant is interested in creating an exchange with other participants of ideologi, then all they need to do is establish its objective and then publish it.  This makes them the initiator of that exchange.  It is up to them to determine whether their exchange will be open to all of ideologi's worldwide community or closed to an exclusive group of participants.

 

► The primary process by which ideologi operates is comparative evaluation.  Within each exchange, participants evaluate and score a sampling of anonymized directives submitted by fellow participants through a series of rounds called evaluation phases.  It is important to note that the initiator of an exchange does not determine the winner(s) of their exchange.  It's a "subjectively objective" battle of concepts set on an objective-driven terrain whose success depends on the judgment of an algorithmically-assigned jury of peers.

 

► The units used for scoring directives in each exchange are called ions.

 

► The directive that accumulates the highest score within an exchange is called the Prime Directive. Each participant receives their score in Ions, which also determines the allotment of any financial payout (called commission) established by the initiator of the exchange.  The portions of the commission given to each user is based on the number of ions they accumulate in an Exchange relative to the total number of Ions accumulated by all of the other participants.  Therefore, there’s never a "single winner" in terms of accumulating ions or receiving commissions.

 

► Participants may join or create as many exchanges as they want as often as they wish based on the availability of open exchanges or interest levels of other participants.

 

Initiating an Exchange (of Ideas) with ideologi

 

► In order to initiate an exchange with ideologi, an initiator must first configure the parameters by which the exchange will function.  The nature of an exchange (philanthropy, entertainment, commerce, etc.) greatly affects the way in which settings should be configured by the initiator.

While there are only 24 parameters listed below, it is the goal of ideologi incorporated to continuously add new parameters in the future as conceived and requested by the community of ideologi.

 

1. Objective:  The goal (or question to be answered) of a particular exchange, plus any reference material (documents, links, etc.) provided to participants by its initiator.

2. Initiator Identity (Public, Anonymous):  If “anonymous,” initiators are unidentified by both the participants of the exchange and to anyone reviewing the records of the exchange in the archives of ideologi.  In exchanges where commissions are involved (see below), then Initiator Identity is automatically set to "public."

3. Participation (Open, Closed):  If "open," then anyone can join (minus those that are registered as "blocked" by the initiator of the exchange).  If "closed," then only those occupying a fixed list maintained by the initiator may participate.

4. Communication Ethics Policy (Voluntary Observation, External Observation):  The ethics policy by which the submissions of participants must adhere to within the exchange.  If "voluntary observation," then observers chosen to officiate over any violations during the operation of an exchange will be selected from volunteer participants within that exchange.  Upon entry to an exchange, participants will be asked if they are willing to act as an observer of the exchange.  If "external observation," then observers will be selected by a pre-registered list of volunteers managed by an accredited third-party.

For more information, please review the posts entitled "Communication Ethics Policy" and "Participant-Based Policy Enforcement."

5. Auto-Translate* (Yes, No):  If “yes,” then ideologi will automatically convert the text of the exchange (objective, directives, scores, etc) into the native language of each participant (i.e. AltaVista, Google or some other third-party auto-translation service).

6. Commission Structure (Free, Initiator-Funded, Participant Fee, Shared):  There are currently four standard commission structures available for each exchange…

a) Free:  Initiators are allowed to create exchanges that do not require fees from either participants or initiators.

b) Initiator-Funded:   There is no registration fee for participants.  In order to have an exchange published for consideration, this amount must be put into escrow by an accredited third-party until the close of the exchange.  An initiator has the right to increase their financial contribution to total commissions until the start of evaluation.  An reason for this might be to attract more participants to an exchange.  However, the initiator cannot lower their contribution once submissions have been accepted for her exchange.

c) Participant-Funded:  The initiator of an exchange has the right to establish a participation fee.  It's primarily designed to be split-up into commissions for participants to share.  Initiators may also establish an initiator commission, which is a percentage of the participation fee that goes straight to the initiator.  In any case, each participant must pay this fee upon submitting their directive to the exchange.

d) Shared:  As a combination of both previous scenarios, there is both a participant’s fee, as well as an initiator-funded contribution to the total commission of the exchange.

7. Initiator Preference Bonus (No, Yes[percentage]):  If "yes," then the initiator of an exchange has the right to select one the directives of their exchange (which may or may not be the Prime Directive) to receive a bonus, which is a percentage of the total number of ions and financial commission (if any).

8. Evaluator Bonus (percentage):  In order to incentivise participants into scoring directives in an altruistic manner, a certain percentage of each participants' ions (and any commissions) accumulated from an exchange are transferred to the participants who helped scored their directives.  The amount given to each participant is based on the amount of ions (and thus commissions) given to a particular directive relative to all of the ions accumulated by that directive.

9. Maximum Number of Participants (#, Unlimited):  The maximum number of participants that can join the exchange.  If the maximum number of participants is reached, then no additional participants will be admitted.  An initiator has the right to raise the maximum number of participants as many times as she wants until the start of the evaluation period.  However, she can never lower the maximum number of participants once it has been raised.  If "unlimited" then the number of Participants within a given exchange is unlimited.

10. Maximum Number of Directives Allowed Per Participant:  If the initiator chooses more than one, then participants can submit more than one directive for a particular exchange.  As is the case in any exchange, participants will never be able to review their own directives.

11. Format Requirements (Open [file type, size limit, etc.], Fixed): If "open" then participants are allowed to create their own submission, provided that the adhere to the format requested by the initiator.  If "fixed," then the initiator will provide a list of fixed directives for participants to choose from.  In the latter case, a comment field (text-only) will be provided to accompany their selection

12. Evaluation Date:  The deadline for submitting a directive to an exchange.  It is also the start date for the first evaluation phase by participants, where they login to evaluate and judge directives from their fellow participants.

13. Participant Identity (Public, Anonymous, Initiator & Participant-Only, Participant’s Choice):  Initiators can choose from one of these four options in their exchange.  If “anonymous” is chosen, then a participant’s identification will not be revealed, even in the historical records of the exchange.  If “initiator & participant-only,” then participants will be anonymous to each other, but will be known by the initiator at the close of the exchange.  If "participant's choice," then the participant can choose during their submission whether to make their identity public, anonymous, or only known to the initiator.

14. Participation Requirements (Submit & Evaluate, Evaluate-Only [All or Elimination]):  “Submission & evaluation” means that participants must submit a directive as well as participate in evaluation.  “evaluation-only” means that a participant can be allowed to participate in evaluation to choose the prime directive of the exchange.  In addition, the choice of whether follow-up phases during evaluation includes all initial participants ("all") or just the semi-finalists of the previous phases ("elimination").  If “all,” then all participants will continue to participate in evaluation until the close of the exchange.  If “elimination,” then disqualified participants will be notified at the end of their final phase and will be notified at the end of evaluation to find out the outcomes of the exchange.

15. Initiator Participation (No, Yes):  If “yes,” then the Initiator is allowing herself to participate in the exchange by submitting her own directive as well as participating in evaluation.  If that is the case, then the initiator cannot receive any of the financial redistribution of commissions in the exchange.  However, their directive will still accumulate Ions, which will be discounted from the final calculation for commissions.
 
16. Creative License:  The initiator gets to choose the terms of intellectual property ownership (standard copyright, Creative Commons, GNU, etc.) that each participant must agree to in order to submit her directive to an exchange.

17. Valuation Methodology (Ions, Descriptors [Pure Comparison, None of the Above]):  If “Ions,” then all participants are given a random selection of directives from other anonymous participants to review and evaluate based on the intiator’s objective.  During each evaluation phase, participants are given a set number of Ions to distribute to the directives assigned to them as they see fit (see the post entitled “How ideologi Determines the Value of Ideas”).  If the initiator chooses “descriptors,” then participants will choose from a selection of descriptors provided by the initiators of an exchange.  This may include words (e.g. Plus, Minus, Interesting, Incoherent, etc.), symbols (+, -, *, /, ?, $) or any other type of media.
 
In addition to assigning Ions or descriptors to each directive, a wiki-like editing feature is available for participants who want to make voluntary edits to directives they are assigned to evaluate.  Providing this feedback is purely out of courtesy and is not required; the identity of participants making commentary is always anonymous.
 
18. Directives Evaluated Per Phase (# [Total, Minimum]):  The number of directives that each participant will be given to review per phase of evaluation.  If "total," then participants can only review that amount.  If  "minimum," then participants can request a new set of directives to evaluate until the time period of the evaluation period has elapsed.
 
19. Completion Term (Ion Accumulation, Descriptor Accumulation, Phases, Continuous [Half-Life]):  If "Ion accumulation," then the initiator sets the number of ions needed for a directive to become prime, thus completing the exchange.  If "descriptor accumulation," then the initiator sets the number of descriptors needed for a directive to become a prime directive.  Once a directive achieves that number, then the phase of evaluation in which it occurred becomes the final phase and the exchange is closed.  If "phases," then a certain number of phases will occur during evaluation.  Regardless of the ion accumulation, the exchange will close at the end of the last prescribed evaluation phase.

If "continuous," then the exchange is designed to never end -- the number of potential evaluation phases are infinite.  In addition, initiators determine the Half-Life of ions (the number of evaluation phases in the future until half of the ions accumulated during a particular phase will be deleted.  So, in the first half-life, 50% of the original ions will be deleted, by the second half-life, half of what is left of the original ions accumulated  (25%) will be deleted, and so on.  At the end of each evaluation phase, results will be determined and an ion/commission disbursement will take place for the participants (if necessary).  In this particular scenario, new participants can sign-up at any time before the evaluation period of each exchange.  Their submissions and their participation in evaluation will be included in the next evaluation phase.  Conversely, dropping out of the exchange (and the withdrawal of one's submission(s) can be done at the end of any evaluation phase.
 
20. Evaluation Time per Phase:  The total length of time given to evaluate the directives given to a participant during an evaluation phase.
 
21. Upgrading Between Evaluation Phases (No, Yes)*:  Gives each participant the right to update her directive if it makes it to the next phase of evaluation.  The implied benefit is that she can adapt her directive to incorporate any of the ideas uncovered in the previous phase, as well as any epiphanies experienced since submitting her directive.  If the option is “yes”, then an additional update phase will be made available after each phase of evaluation.  The time length of the update phase is determined by the initiator; the default time is equal to the length of time of an evaluation phase.
 
*Initiators are limited to using this option only when they choose an intellectual property arrangement that allows directives to be modified or mixed with content from other participants’ directives.  In addition, initiator anonymity will not be available if upgrading is allowed.
 
22. Publication of Directives (Participant’s Choice, Yes, No):  If “yes,” then each directive will be publicly viewable in the historical archives of ideologi at the close of the exchange.  If “no,” then only the participant who submitted the Directive and the Initiator will be able to view it.
 
23. Publication of Outcomes (Yes, No):  If “yes,” then the outcomes of the exchange will be available for public review in the archives of ideologi.  If “no,” then each participant will receive their portion of the Ions and/or payments once evaluation is complete, but will not be able to view the final results of the exchange.
 
24. Escrow Period (Days):  The results of the exchange, as well as the commission distribution of an exchange will be held in escrow by an accredited third-party for the time period following the close of the exchange.  This is in order for the initiator to investigate any rules or legal challenges to commissioning her Participants.  The escrow period can be no longer than one year (365 days).  If it's determined by either the initiator or a participant that a directive violates the creative licensing agreement for an exchange, or if all or part of the content comprising a directive violates the intellectual property of another party, then that directive will be disqualified.  At the end of this period, the exchange will officially be closed.

 

► Once an Initiator has finished establishing the settings of her exchange, it is automatically ready for participants to review their objective and enter the exchange.

► If the initiator requests it, ideologi incorporated will assign the exchange a universal exchange code by , which is a hybrid of a universal decimal classification (UDC) code and the ISO 8601 representation of universal time, or GMT.  This will make later searches for archived exchanges much easier to locate.  The publicly available outcomes may also be submitted and archived by ideologi incorporated.

► Here’s an example of the established parameters of an exchange published in ideologi:
 
1. Objective:  “Define the most interesting objective that other participants would want to have initiated as an exchange in ideologi.”

2. Initiator Identity:  mykljonzun
3. Participation:  Open
4. Communication Ethics Policy:  ideologi incorporated CEP (Voluntary Observation)
5. Auto-Translation:  Yes
6. Commission Structure:  Initiator-Funded
7. Initiator Preference Bonus:  No
8. Evaluator Bonus:  10%
9. Maximum Number of Participants:  150,000
10. Maximum Number of Directives Allowed per Participant:  3
11. Format Requirements:  Open (Text file; Maximum 20K)
12. Evaluation Date:  12:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada), 11 November 2007
13. Participant Identity:  Participant’s Choice (Public or Anonymous)
14. Participation Requirements:  Submission & Evaluation (All Phases)
15. Initiator Participation:  Yes
16. Creative License:  Creative Commons Deed (Attribution 2.0)
17. Valuation Method:  Ions (100, Pure Comparison)
18. Directives Evaluated Per Phase:  10
19. Completion Term:  Phases (6)
20. Evaluation Time per Phase:  5 Days
21. Upgrades Between Evaluation Phases:  Yes (Update Phase Added)
22. Publication of Directives:  Yes
23. Publication of Outcomes:  Yes
24. Escrow Period (Days):  15 days

 
► Until the evaluation date, a participant can submit, edit or even cancel their directive(s) already submitted to the exchange.

 

How ideologi Determines the Value of Ideas

   

► During the evaluation process of an exchange, all participants are given an algorithmically-selected group of directives from other anonymous participants to review and evaluate based on the initiator’s objective.  They are given a fixed number of ions during each evaluation phase to distribute amongst the directives assigned to them for review, as well as an option to distribute some, all, or none of the Ions to "None of the Above."  For example, if the number of evaluations per phase is 5 and the number of Ions per phase is 100, then each participant would distribute their total amount of 100 Ions to each of the 5 directives being evaluated by them (or, if the initiator of an exchange chooses, "None of the Above") as they see fit.

In order to optimize the level of conceptual coherency within an exchange, a distribution agent called MAIA (Metaheuristic Agent for Iterative Analogy) will increase or decrease the number of times a particular directive is distributed within each evaluation phase of an exchange based on the level of deviation in the scores it receives in the previous evaluation phase.  So, for example, if one directive receives almost identical scores from each of the participants who reviewed it in the previous evaluation phase, then the number of participants determined to review it during the next evaluation period could be reduced from the standard number of evaluations.  The system will then calculate the number of ions received by that participant based on prorating their score based on a standard number of participants.  Conversely, if the scores received by a particular directive during an evaluation phase has an excessively high level of deviation, then the number of participants assigned to review it during the next evaluation phase will be higher than the standard number.  In either case, the total number of evaluations made per participant will be equal to the number of directives evaluated per phase as established by the initiator of the exchange.

   

► Each participant also has the option to add helpful commentary along with their scoring, which will be viewable (anonymously, of course) to the submitter of the directive reviewed and the end of the evaluation phase.  Conversely, the participant can submit as to whether it was useful or not (Help:  Yes, No)

FYI:  Part of the sorting mechanism for the transmission of directives during subsequent phases of evaluation will be determined by whether commentary was sent by a participant and whether the submitter found it useful or not.

   

► At the end of each phase, the ions accumulated by each participant is added up.

Some possible additions:  (A) Each participant will then be shown their directive's rank relative to the directives that they themselves just evaluated. (B) Between phases, each participant gets to see their rank in terms of the quartile (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) in which they are in relation to the population of participants within the exchange.

 

► Initiators are also enabled with the facility to broadcast messages to all of their participants, even during evaluation.  Because of this, participants are allowed to send questions to the Initiator.

 

► If it is perceived by three or more participants that a directive violates the Communication Ethics Policy (CEP) established by the initiator, then the directive is rejected from the exchange at the end of that phase of evaluation.  The participant will be then be notified that their directive is being evaluated by a randomly selected group of volunteers equal to (3 x number of violation reports) called observers.  They will then review the directive in question, as well as the exchange's objective, to determine whether it can be identified as a violation (see “Policy Enforcement via Participation”).  If not, then half of all the ions received from the exchange by those who claimed that the directive in question was in violation shall be transferred to the participant falsely accused.  If they determine that the directive was in violation of the CEP, then the violating user shall be given one violation on their record, loose all ions (and commissions) accumulated from the exchange thus far, and placed on notice for the period stated within the CEP.  In the case of the CEP proposed for exchanges operated by ideologi incorporated, if participants collect three violations on their ideologi record within a single month, they shall be banned immediately for participating in all exchanges for one month.  The only exception to this rule is for participation in exchanges that are already in their evaluation process at the moment of ruling for the third offense.

 

► The order in which each sample of directives is listed for evaluation by participants is based on the order in which they were submitted.  If they choose to edit their submission before the beginning of the evaluation process, then the moment the edited directive is submitted will be identified as the actual submission date.  The order of directives will then be adjusted accordingly.

 

► If a participant does not complete evaluating and scoring their allotment of directives within the time allowed in a phase of evaluation, then her own directive is automatically rejected for that phase of evaluation and all of the Ions accumulated by her in that exchange will be eliminated.  Any directives left unevaluated shall be automatically receive the median of scores they received by other participants evaluating their directive during that phase of evaluation.  Then a new phase of evaluation will take place, and so on, until the last phase of evaluation has been completed.

 

► Once evaluation is complete and the escrow period has passed, then all transactions related to the exchange will take place:

1. The ions accumulated from each participant will be transferred to their accounts.

2.  Based on the commission structure of the exchange, all commissions will be transferred into the financial accounts of each participant based on their Ion accumulation.

3. The outcomes of the exchange will be published and made available through ideologi's archives (based on the privacy parameters established by the initiator and/or her participants).

 

Ensuring Fair Play with ideologi

► Anonymity and blindness are integral to the "subjective objectivity" inherent in the proper functioning of each exchange.  Therefore, the identities of the participants (as well as the initiator if they so choose) are not knowable to anyone (including the initiator) until the close of the exchange.  The only information that is allowed to be known in advance is statistical information about the population of the participants.  Both participants and initiators will be notified if the minimum number of directives were met before the evaluation date (see the post entitled, "Initiating an Exchange (of Ideas) with ideologi").


► Transmitting directives among participants during evaluation in a purely random fashion cannot ensure that trolls, unscrupulous initiators, or a virtual gang of cooperative (or uncooperative) participants won’t attempt to manipulate an exchange's outcomes in their favor.  In light of this, MAIA (ideologi's distribution agent) will ensure that the transmission methodology of directives is weighted by any and all historical contact between participants and initiators during past evaluation phases within an exchange as well as past exchanges.

Here's a sample of some of the information that ideologi will assess to determine how directives are transmitted among participants:

*Bell curve percentile ranking that the participants have attained in previous exchanges

*Average score that the group has received from other participants in each phase of evaluation in previous exchanges

*Average score that the group has given out to other participants in each phase of previous exchanges

*Average number of exchanges that all participants have previously joined

*Average number of times that each participant has played with the same initiator in previous exchanges

*Average number of times that each participant has played with each other in previous exchanges

*Average score that participants have given each other when they’ve played each other before in previous exchanges

*Contact information of participants (e-mail, addresses, surnames, etc)

*Time stamps of previous submissions of directives and completion of evaluation in previous exchanges, etc.

 

Communication Ethics Policy

 

► The following scenarios represent violations of a communication ethics policy ("CEP") which will be adhered to within exchanges initiated and operated by the staff of ideologi incorporated.  It's based on a philosophical theory of ascending consequential reciprocity.  Ultimately, ideologi incorporated's CEP will be defined by an ongoing series of exchanges open to all participants and coordinated by ideologi incorporated.

IMPORTANT:  In the case of exchanges that are independent of ideologi incorporated, initiators will be able to use or create a CEP of their choosing.
 

1. An initiator creates an exchange that could cause imminent harm to another person, animal, or species, or threatens ideologi’s ability to operate.  The exception for any of these scenarios is if the accused participant can provide an argument that her exchange is for the purpose of protecting a group, species, and biosphere or serve the greater purpose of aiding the participants of ideologi or protecting it from imminent harm, respectively.
 
2. A participant submits a directive that could cause imminent harm to another person, animal, or species, or threatens ideologi’s ability to operate.  The exception for any of these scenarios is if the accused participant can provide an argument that her exchange is for the purpose of protecting a group, species, and biosphere or serve the greater purpose of aiding the participants of ideologi or protecting it from imminent harm, respectively.
 
3. A participant identifies themselves directly or indirectly within the contents of her directive.
   
4. A participant tries to propose an offer to bribe the evaluators of her directive directly or indirectly either within the contents of her Directive or out in the Internet.
   
5. A participant publishes malevolent content (as defined by CEP) within the content of her directive that is not directly related to the associated exchange.
 

In addition, algorithms will be employed to detect malevolent "swarming” on the part of unscrupulous bands of individuals.  Sanctions to those participants involved will then be determined by ideologi incorporated.

 

Participant-Based Policy Enforcement

 

► Any participant of a particular exchange can volunteer to help enforce its CEP, provided that the initiator choses to make this available to their participants.  If so, then volunteers (called observers) will be randomly assigned to investigations regarding ethical violations detected by participants during the evaluation process of an exchange.

 

► If a submitted directive is reported to be in violation of CEP by three or more participants during a single evaluation phase, then a number of observers equal to three times the amount of violation reports come together to deliberate on the fate of the directive in question.

 

► Observers are then given 100 Observation Ions to be distributed among two judgment directives (Positive & Negative) as they see fit.

 

► The length of the observation phase is the same length of time as that exchange’s evaluation phase in which the violation occurred.

 

► If a majority of the Observation Ions accumulated are Positive, then the directive in question has been determined to be in violation of the CEP.  The participant who submitted the violating directive looses all Ions accumultated in the same exchange.

 

► If most of the Observation Ions accumulated are Negative, then the directive in question has been determined to not be in violation of the CEP.  Therefore, the participants that originally marked the directive as “Violation” will each forfeit half of the Ions they've accumulate from the exchange to the participant falsely accused of violating the CEP.  This is to designed to reduce the chances of accusations with low-confidence or to protect against cases of false accusation.

 

► If the number of Positive and Negative Observation Ions accumulated during observation are equal (a statistical rarity), then the participants who marked the directive in question as a violation of CEP go about their business and the user that submitted the Directive is allowed to keep any points scored in the exchange through that discovery phase.

About the Organization

 

► The name of the legal entity which will encapsulate ideologi and all of its capabilities is ideologi foundation. Organized as a massively-decentralized non-profit collaborative, it will operate under a uniquely developed system of distributed network governance managed by participant/directors of ideologi incorporated and a permanent staff.  In effect, ideologi incorporated will be engineered, both legally and technologically, to determine its goals and plan of action via collaborative exchanges run at www.ideologi.com.

   

► The organization will operate a primary instance of its application software at www.ideologi.com, which will be accessible to all users on the Internet.

 

► In order to optimize the software development path of ideologi, all of the application code developed by ideologi incorporated will be licensed under the Creative Commons GNU GPL License, Version 3 (when available).  Therefore, all of the code developed by ideologi, as well as any modifications made to that code by ideologi incorporated and third parties, will be freely obtainable and available for use and modification.  Doing so will serve the greater interests of its community, ensure the ubiquity of ideologi, and maximize its utility for both commercial and philanthropic interests alike.

 

► The organization will generate revenue in three ways: (1) fees for advertising placed on www.ideologi.com, (2) transaction fees collected through exchanges run at www.ideologi.com where commissions are involved, and (3) management fees associated with providing legal and business services for groups of participant/owners who wish to collaboratively develop intellectual property for sale or licensing to the public marketplace. This final method will be coordinated through a for-profit subsidiary of ideologi foundation will be called ideologi incorporated.

 
   

Iconography

"What's in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."

Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II

 

________

 

The word ideologie ("the science of ideas") was coined by the French philosopher Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century.  Thomas Jefferson was counted as one of his many admirers.  It was only after he fell out of favor with Napoleon Bonaparte–he called his anti-monarchical and pro-democratic views the work of "ideologues"–that the word succumbed to the value-neutral connotation we still know of today.

 

Two hundred years later,  the possibility of a universal exchange of ideas is emerging:  one in which the multitude of cooperative and competitive ideologies existing throughout human consciousness could be merged into an integral whole.  What better name could be used to identify a new class of large-scale, radically decentralized collaborative methodologies?  By slightly altering its spelling of "ideology" to emphasize the underlying symmetry of the phenomenon it would represent, the name ideologi was born.

   

► The type font used for ideologi's title logo is based on the lettering style of Dutch artist Mauritius Cornelius (M.C.) Escher.  He was famous for his geometrically surrealist artwork, especially that of physically impossible landscapes -- a perfect metaphor for a collaborative method that only exists through the shared interaction of its participants.

 

► The use of a lowercase title is designed to emphasize the humility of the organization; its outline form represents the fact that fate of ideologi will be determined by the collective efforts of the participants and not a secretive, proprietary cadre of insiders.

 

► The "iicon" (two opposing asymmetrical cones of red and green) encapsulates a myriad of meanings, including the following...

 

► The relationship between top-down objectives (questions) and bottom-up directives (answers) generated through exchanges in ideologi.

 

► The "despairing optimism" inherent in ideologi and all human endeavors -- that is to say, the number of positive sum scenarios (green) created through ideologi will far outweigh any of the inevitable negative ones (red).

 

► The abstract image of a rose, a longer green "stem" and a shorter red "bulb," tilted toward the beholder as an offering of peace and love.  According to J. E. Cirlot's A Dictionary of Symbols, "…a single rose is, in essence, a symbol of completion, of consummate achievement and perfection.  Hence, accruing to it are all those ideas associated with these qualities: the mystic Centre, the heart, the garden of Eros, the paradise of Dante, the Beloved, the emblem of Venus and so on."

 

_______

 

Libertes philosophica: “Freedom of Thought.” -- a phrase originally coined by the iconoclastic 14th century philosopher, Giordano Bruno, who challenged the authorities by making people think beyond the Church-mandated dogmas of their age.

 

MiX: Mobile ideologi Exchange

 
► Initiators can create telephony-based exchanges by employing a web service called MiX (Mobile ideologi Exchange).  Participants submit their objectives and directives via voice or text messaging, while evaluating directives are managed via keypad inputs or voice response.

 

► By providing this service to the mobile phone platform, the potential scale for participation via ideologi increases by a magnitude.  Mobile service providers ("MSPs") will see MiX as an entirely new way to increase activity from their customers.

A possibility for MSPs using MiX is that the transfer of commissions generated within an exchange could be routed through the credit accounts of mobile clients.  European and Asian MSPs are already offering financial credit services to their users.

 

► MiX-based exchanges can be reviewed via archiving web services as online audio files.

 

Then What is Brainstorming?

      
The following primer is provided to help explain what classic "real-world" brainstorming is in order to show the differences (and similarities) between it and ideologi...

 

________

 

Although most people understand the idea of brainstorming, very few have actually participated in a truly organized brainstorming session outside of an academic setting.  Many have never had the opportunity to experience the excitement and entertainment of participating in the creative process of a group.

 

► As a refresher, here are some of the basic rules that participants need to follow in order to have a successful brainstorming session:
 
1. Keep ideas brief, don't tell stories.

2. Give only one idea per turn.

3. Speak in the imperative ('do this, try that', instead of 'have you considered...?').

4. Make it safe by not criticizing or 'yes butting' anyone's idea (including your own) before you speak).

5. Make your thinking as outlandish or as silly as possible.

6. Piggyback (build) on previous ideas freely.

7. When it's your question, write down all ideas without evaluating them, and don't speak during the brainstorm.

8. Repeat as many times as necessary.

 

► After all of the answers have all been written down, a brainstorming group can then move into critique mode.  At this point, the session can become a “no-holds barred” free-for-all, provided that the following questions are thoroughly examined:

1. What's good about this idea?

2. What's wrong with this idea?

3. How can these problems be overcome?

4. What new ideas were discovered by this brainstorming session?

 

► When these basic rules of group brainstorming are followed, the rewards for participating are manifold:

*Accomplishment by having an outlet for creative expression

*Usefulness by sharing with others your insight into their issues and dilemmas

*Confidence that you truly have unique perspectives worth communicating

*Pride in being respected because of your insight and not because of your credentials

 

Business Scenario: The Trading Guild

 
At the dawn of each business morning, an intriguing game begins that will determine the stock prices of several public companies.  A financial entrepreneur has organized a contest for thousands of day-traders to pick the most volatile performing stock for that day.  There's a $100 per day fee to enter, but everyone involved knows that the value of participating is worth thousands!
 
Earlier that morning, each contestant is allowed to enter a stock pick, along with any pertinent data they wish to include to argue their case (charts, spreadsheets, links, etc.).  At 8:00 AM, participants are notified that the judging phase of the contest has begun.  By logging back to the site, participants now get to view five anonymous submissions from other day-traders.  They have 15 minutes to score the stock picks they have been given.  They are also allowed to attach commentary as to why they scored a particular stock that way.  Once finished, they wait for the system to tabulate their scores.
 
As a sorting engine eliminates the lowest scoring stock picks, many of the participating day-traders are already starting to place trading orders in advance of the opening bell.  Some of the stock picks are so compelling that they decide to not wait for the conclusion of the contest.  At 8:15, participants are given another five stock picks that they haven't review before.  The process continues until 9:15 AM when the reviewing phase is complete.
 
At that point, the system releases the ranking, itemized scores, and comments to all of its participants, minus their individual identities.  At 9:30 AM, it is posted publicly on the Internet for the entire investment community to see.
 
This particular "trading guild" (as some people are starting to call them) has become as influential as it is profitable.  Some argue that their success is only due to the volatility of so many many traders piling on to a particular stock.  Members argue that they are using fundamentals and their broad network of eyes and ears to see market opportunities better.  In either case, they have become a force to reckon with.  Many are beginning to suspect that their newer participants, as anonymous as they may be, must be employed by the major investment firms.  The subsequent trades that are beginning to take place in lieu of their stock recommendations have continued to increased, pushing several stocks to dizzying heights, as well as crushing those that are deemed "underperformers" by the collective assessment of independent traders.

 

And it's all perfectly legal...

 

 

Political Scenario: New Athens

 

With 60,000 residents, New Athens has become a model for civic involvement around the country.  As a city, it has the usual trappings of a standard municipality:  a mayor, a council, and other government organs.  However, the key to its success is largely based on a remarkable communications platform that does something that most political systems have never been able to do before -- dynamic, ad hoc synthesis of public opinion!

 

Like most tech-savvy communities, the residents can go online see the latest news and information related to their city.  But now, from the privacy of their own home, any resident has the ability (and therefore the right) to raise an issue of their choosing among their citizenry.  As succinctly as they can, they are allowed to post the reason as to why it should be discussed.  In order to foster the most open communications, their submissions remain anonymous to everyone, including the city council of New Athens. 

 

At a designated time, participants are alerted by an electronic method of their choosing of the start of the review phase of the issues submitted.  By receiving an alert from a now ubiquitous desktop application, citizens see that they have been given the right to review six anonymous submissions out of a total of 6,000 from other residents. They now have three hours to score them.  They are also allowed to attach an anonymous comment to explain the reason for their score.  Once finished, they await the next phase of the contest.

 

Many factors where used to determine the transmission pattern of who receives what anonymous submission:  city location, tax rate, age, sex, etc.  This is meant to raise the chance that citizens will get to review the issues raised by less like-minded residents.

 

A sorting algorithm retires the lowest scoring submissions, leaving 1,000 submissions still in the running for Prime Issue of the month for the residents of New Athens.  The submitters of the least interesting issues are not notified of their scores.  Like everyone else, they will still believe that they are in the running.  The next day, all participants get to review and score 6 more anonymous submissions that each hasn't seen before.  Once the sorting engine retires the next batch, only 165 submissions remain.  Two more judging periods will complete the review of issues.

 

In a matter of days, the results are posted on several web sites, including the local newspaper.  All of the issues of the city have now been neatly prioritized with a "grade on a curve" score by their fellow citizens with the participants’ identities still listed as publicly anonymous. However, each participant is able to see how she scored and also read the comments left by her anonymous reviewers.

 

Now that the issues have been prioritized, participants are encouraged to register in order to offer their opinions as to how the city should address the issues.  Utilizing the same system that was used to prioritize the issues, new individual exchanges are created to propose solutions for the top 20 issues prioritized by the citizens. 

 

In deference to the popular appeal of these virtual deliberations, the submitters of the highest ranking solutions for each issue are allowed to formally address the city council during an open session.  If they do not wish to speak or identify themselves, they are allowed to have someone else speak in their place, or to allow a councilperson to address it for them.  When the speaker arrives before the council, they will give the access code given to them by the system to verify their selection.

 

A "hyperpolity" is born.  Citizens normally separated by class, gender, age, income and status are starting to develop rational critical dialogue with each other about the issues, concerns and perspectives of their fellow citizens.  For the city council, managing their citizenry's passive ignorance is being replaced by managing their expectation.  It's not utopia, but it's far beyond politics as usual...

 

Gaming Scenario: A Glass Meme Game

 

Here's a demonstration of how an exchange can be configured to run an exchange that might be called a Glass Meme Game. Its inspiration comes from the game fictionalized in Hermann Hesse's Nobel Prize-winning novel.  While only the settings are listed, readers should be able to imagine the possibilities...

 

________

 

1. Objective:  Using the following image as the focus of the exchange, determine the most balanced set of interrelationships between artifacts across various disciplines for the purpose of demonstrating the universal comprehension of humanity.  Each directive submitted by a particular participant can inhabit diverse areas of knowledge (e.g. mathematical equation, painting, poetry, photograph, historical work, song, etc.) or all the same.  During the evaluation phase, participants must create "metalogues" that express the relationship between that directive and the subject of the exchange (in this case, the image of Pablo Picasso's Guernica).  The distribution of Ions by participants should be based on the relative novelty or coherency of the directive's expression.  Since the completion term of the exchange is continuous (never-ending), participants may join or fall out of the exchange at the end of an evaluation phase.

2. Initiator Identity:  mykljonzun
3. Participation:  Open
4. Communication Ethics Policy:  ideologi incorporated CEP (Voluntary Observation)
5. Auto-Translation:  Yes
6. Commission Structure:  Free
7. Evaluation Share:  50%
8. Maximum Number of Participants:  Unlimited
9. Maximum Number of Directives Allowed per Participant:  10
10. Format Requirements:  Open (Text file; Maximum 20K)
11. Evaluation Date:  12:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada), 4 June 2009
12. Participant Identity:  Anonymous
13. Participation Requirements:  Submission & Evaluation (All Phases)
14. Initiator Participation:  Yes
15. Creative License:  Creative Commons Deed (Attribution 2.5)
16. Valuation Method:  Ions (250)
17. Directives Evaluated Per Phase:  10
18. Completion Term:  Continuous
19. Evaluation Time per Phase:  5 Days
20. Upgrades Between Evaluation Phase:  Yes (2 Days)
21. Publication of Directives:  Yes
22. Publication of Outcomes:  Yes
23. Escrow Period (Days):  None

As you can see, there is far more to ideologi than deploying purely egoic mechanisms to produce intellectual property or generating political consensus -- its potential is only limited by the inventiveness of the initiator and the motivations of their willing participants (see the post entitled "Initiating an Exchange (of Ideas) with ideologi")...

 

Can Lyceum's Source Code be Reconfigured to Create ideologi?

 

The original intent of publishing this site two years ago was to enlighten and inspire those seeking new methods of collaboration on the web.  While the site has generated a great deal of interest so far (its Google PageRank is 4/10), progress on prototyping a demonstrable version of ideologi has been quite illusive--until until now.

 

   

 

 

A new open source development project sponsored by ibiblio.org is nearing completion of a new blogging publishing platform called Lyceum.  Because of its software configuration, specifically its unique database schema, it appears that Lyceum's source code could could serve as the software foundation for ideologi. 

 

The question then is the amount of code modification that this would require.  More will be known once Lyceum 1.0 is available for examination sometime in the next few weeks...

 

A Quote from Daniel Kahneman

 

“The question I'd like to raise is something that I'm deeply curious about, which is what should organizations do to improve the quality of their decision-making? And I'll tell you what it looks like, from my point of view.

 

I have never tried very hard, but I am in a way surprised by the ambivalence about it that you encounter in organizations. My sense is that by and large there isn't a huge wish to improve decision-making—there is a lot of talk about doing so, but it is a topic that is considered dangerous by the people in the organization and by the leadership of the organization. I'll give you a couple of examples. I taught a seminar to the top executives of a very large corporation that I cannot name and asked them, would you invest one percent of your annual profits into improving your decision-making? They looked at me as if I was crazy; it was too much.”

 

Daniel Kahneman, father of behavioral economics & Nobel laureate (2002)

 

A Call for Participation!

 

AS THE PRIME INITIATOR OF IDEOLOGI (pronounced "ideology"), I formally offer an open and unlimited invitation to participate in its first-ever simulation of a universal exchange of ideas!  For those of you who have been periodically watching this site for something to come out of it, I thank you for your patience.  For others who may have just stumbled upon it, welcome!  Your timing could not have been any better!  While many of the features and functions proposed on this site will not be possible during the simulation, it should still be able to demonstrate the axiom upon which the concept of ideologi is founded—that the true value of any idea is based purely on their relative value to all other ideas within the collective imagination of those who choose to freely join one another in dialogue.

If you would like to know more about ideologi before choosing to participate, CLICK HERE for a complete overview or e-mail us at info@ideologi.org.

 

Starting now until 10:00 AM GMT 6 November 2007, ideologi will be accepting submissions for the following objective:

 

In 100 words or less, state what you believe would be the most important topic for discussion today if you were given the power to conduct a brainstorming session simultaneously with every inhabitant on Earth.  Please explain the reason for your choice.  You may include web links to related information, if necessary.

 

Those interested in participating must fill out their name and e-mail address and enter their submitted answer (called a “directive”) in the Comments box below or send it to us via e-mail. The following are the time-based instructions as to what will happen next...

IMPORTANT: If a participant does not complete any of these tasks within the allotted amount of time, then their submitted directive will automatically be frozen in the evaluation process and their participation in the exchange will be terminated. With that being said, I urge everyone interested in participating in this first-ever exchange of ideas to make an honest assessment of their availability before volunteering to participate.

 

► At 10:00 AM GMT 11 November 2007, everyone who has made a submission will receive an e-mail containing three (3) anonymous submissions from other participants for which to evaluate.  All participants will then have until 10:00 AM GMT 13 November 2007 (48 hours) to decide how to distribute a total of 100 points (called “ions”) among the submissions they have received by replying to that e-mail with their scores.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 15 November 2007, a new e-mail will be sent out to each participant containing three (3) new anonymous submissions for which to evaluate.  Participants will then have until 10:00 AM GMT 17 November 2007 (48 hours) to decide how to distribute another 100 ions among these submissions.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 19 November 2007, a final e-mail will be sent out to each participant containing three (3) new anonymous submissions for which to evaluate. Participants will then have until 10:00 AM GMT 21 November 2007 (48 hours) to decide how to distribute a final 100 ions among these submissions.

 

At this point, the exchange will be completed and the scores of each submission will be tabulated.  the creators of the three highest scoring directives will be notified and asked if they would like their identity (name, pseudonym, etc.) posted alongside their submission.

 

► At 10:00 AM GMT 23 November 2007, the submission with the third-highest score will be publicly posted at www.ideologi.org for review and comments.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 25 November 2007, the submission with the second-highest score will be publicly posted at www.ideologi.org for review and comments.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 27 November 2007, the highest-scoring submission (the “Prime Directive”) will be posted at www.ideologi.org for review and comments.

 

From the information we collect from this exchange, we will have a much better picture of the functional requirements needed to develop a full-featured version of ideologi.  All of our findings and analysis of the exchange will be made public for review on this site.  If all goes as planned, those of you who do participate may be witness to something quite extraordinary!

 

What that is (Wisdom of Crowds? Collective Consciousness?  Emergent Intelligence?) is something that I am very excited to discuss with all of you at the end of the exchange.

 

For those of you who are now ready to merge their thoughts with the minds of others, allow me to offer you a most appreciative "thank you" and wish you the very best of luck!

 

 

AS THE PRIME INITIATOR OF IDEOLOGI (pronounced "ideology"), I formally offer an open and unlimited invitation to participate in its first-ever simulation of a universal exchange of ideas!  For those of you who have been periodically watching this site for something to come out of it, I thank you for your patience.  For others who may have just stumbled upon it, welcome!  Your timing could not have been any better!  While many of the features and functions proposed on this site will not be possible during the simulation, it should still be able to demonstrate the axiom upon which the concept of ideologi is founded—that the true value of any idea is based purely on their relative value to all other ideas within the collective imagination of those who choose to freely join one another in dialogue.

If you would like to know more about ideologi before choosing to participate, CLICK HERE for a complete overview or e-mail us at info@ideologi.org.

 

Starting now until 10:00 AM GMT 6 November 2007, ideologi will be accepting submissions for the following objective:

 

In 100 words or less, state what you believe would be the most important topic for discussion today if you were given the power to conduct a brainstorming session simultaneously with every inhabitant on Earth.  Please explain the reason for your choice.  You may include web links to related information, if necessary.

 

Those interested in participating must fill out their name and e-mail address and enter their submitted answer (called a “directive”) in the Comments box below or send it to us via e-mail. The following are the time-based instructions as to what will happen next...

IMPORTANT: If a participant does not complete any of these tasks within the allotted amount of time, then their submitted directive will automatically be frozen in the evaluation process and their participation in the exchange will be terminated. With that being said, I urge everyone interested in participating in this first-ever exchange of ideas to make an honest assessment of their availability before volunteering to participate.

 

► At 10:00 AM GMT 11 November 2007, everyone who has made a submission will receive an e-mail containing three (3) anonymous submissions from other participants for which to evaluate.  All participants will then have until 10:00 AM GMT 13 November 2007 (48 hours) to decide how to distribute a total of 100 points (called “ions”) among the submissions they have received by replying to that e-mail with their scores.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 15 November 2007, a new e-mail will be sent out to each participant containing three (3) new anonymous submissions for which to evaluate.  Participants will then have until 10:00 AM GMT 17 November 2007 (48 hours) to decide how to distribute another 100 ions among these submissions.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 19 November 2007, a final e-mail will be sent out to each participant containing three (3) new anonymous submissions for which to evaluate. Participants will then have until 10:00 AM GMT 21 November 2007 (48 hours) to decide how to distribute a final 100 ions among these submissions.

 

At this point, the exchange will be completed and the scores of each submission will be tabulated.  the creators of the three highest scoring directives will be notified and asked if they would like their identity (name, pseudonym, etc.) posted alongside their submission.

 

► At 10:00 AM GMT 23 November 2007, the submission with the third-highest score will be publicly posted at www.ideologi.org for review and comments.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 25 November 2007, the submission with the second-highest score will be publicly posted at www.ideologi.org for review and comments.

► At 10:00 AM GMT 27 November 2007, the highest-scoring submission (the “Prime Directive”) will be posted at www.ideologi.org for review and comments.

 

From the information we collect from this exchange, we will have a much better picture of the functional requirements needed to develop a full-featured version of ideologi.  All of our findings and analysis of the exchange will be made public for review on this site.  If all goes as planned, those of you who do participate may be witness to something quite extraordinary!

 

What that is (Wisdom of Crowds? Collective Consciousness?  Emergent Intelligence?) is something that I am very excited to discuss with all of you at the end of the exchange.

 

For those of you who are now ready to merge their thoughts with the minds of others, allow me to offer you a most appreciative "thank you" and wish you the very best of luck!

 

First Simulation: The Results

 

Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different. 

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (1937)

 

________

 

   

It's not everyday that one is asked to solicit their thoughts without first being given guidelines as to how they should think.  Yet twenty-one people still volunteered to answer the following request:  In 100 words or less, state what you believe would be the most important topic for discussion today if you were given the power to conduct a brainstorming session simultaneously with every inhabitant on Earth.  Please explain the reason for your choice.  You may include web links to related information, if necessary.

 

They were acquaintances, friends, family members to some and strangers to others.  They were computer engineers, lawyers, business owners, psychologists, college students, and housewives.  Some considered themselves more conservative than not, while others considered themselves more liberal than not.  The one thing they had in common was their willingness to participate.

 

Their names were removed from their own submissions and replaced with a serial code identifier.  Each of them were given a random selection of three answers from other participants.  They were asked to decide how to distribute a total of 100 points among the entries they received in any manner or methodology they saw fit:  all 100 points to one answer and zero to the other two, 34/33/33, etc.  After each of them completed this task three times in a row with three unique sets of answers, the exchange was closed.

   

Each answer had the potential to receive a maximum of 900 points and a minimum of 0 points.  The average score was 300.  The median score was 331.  The submission with the lowest score accumulated 137 points;  the submission with the highest score accumulated 435.  And here's where one of the most striking pieces of data from the exchange has appeared:  The participant who created the submission with the highest amount of points received their lowest score from the participant who created the submission with the lowest amount of points.  This is magnified by the fact that each had slightly less than a 50% chance of seeing each others' submissions during the exchange.  The participant who created the submission with the highest amount of points did not have the opportunity to evaluate the participant who created the submission with the lowest amount of points.

 

Here are the top three scoring answers, as selected through the process of ideologi:

 

#3 (403 points):  How do we decide, as a society, or group of societies, when to use our economic or military dominance to initiate change in another society. Put another way, where do we draw the line between celebrating and respecting the differences in cultures, and forcing the newer "western style" of living onto other countries?

 

#2 (430 points):  Considering the immense wealth of the developed world, and the extreme poverty that exists in it and outside it, how can we as a humanity make efforts to meet the basic human needs of people everywhere.  Population expansion, lack of resources, difficult logistics, politics, war, and nature can be listed as hurdles, if the voice we choose from within is "Us vs. Them".  My challenge is to think as one, that extreme poverty and malnutrition is a cancer within our own body - which we need to heal.

#1 (435 points):  How can “empathy” and “connection” be fostered as core values around the world?  This question is universal and can be tied to every issue we currently face.  For example, how could war in Iraq be justified if each American felt true empathy for each Iraqi?  (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths)  Similarly, would a parent buy that GAP sweater for his/her 10-year-old if s/he felt empathy for the 10-year-old in India being forced to manufacture it and recognized the connection between making that purchase and contributing to forced child labor? (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1215501,00.html)   Corporate interests, valuing only making a profit, breeds indifference, obscuring the universal truths of connection and empathy.

 

Next, we will post all of the submissions alongside their scores and discuss the usefulness (or limits) of ideologi.

 

The Results (cont'd)

 

And here is a list of all 21 submissions, ranked in ascending order by their accumulated scores.

#21 (134 points):  The psychological process of human beings creating a preference for goods and services.  It's been mind-boggling to me why some businesses fail and some simply take off.  This discussion can encompass topics as simple as choosing to frequent one restaurant over another, to researching an Angel investor's decision-making process in who they decide to provide capital.  I know some may think this is a topic that has large amounts of research to back it up, but it interests me greatly.  Show me the research!

#20 (163 points):  It would probably be a question like "What do you think of America, and American citizens, in terms of health, habits, culture, equality (races, women, classes), etc, in comparison with other countries? And leave out the typical...such as wealth, freedom, democracy.

#19 (165 points):  What comes to mind for me would be to have a discussion about tolerance and learning to be open to other's ideas without judgment.

#18 (193 points):  I would like this community to brainstorm for a diplomatic solution for the war in Iraq. This could be a forum to exchange ideas and to develop a proposal for a withdrawal of troops from the region.  This is obviously a very complicated issue but members of this community will unencumbered by self-interest. The development of sort some strategy which would be a marked improvement to the current situation.  Actually, the simple act of stating that this is an important problem to be solved and enlisting the help of as many people as possible seems to be a step in the right direction.

#17 (211 points):  The elimination of weapons is vital.  There is no reason for a human to maim or to kill another human.  Pride, fear, jealousy, rage, greed, etc. are not reasons to kill another human.  Yes, this is stated simplistically, but it is nonetheless true. [How do we achieve it?]

#16 (213 points):  Why is there so much hatred towards others of different religious beliefs?

#15 (230 points):  Democracy.  "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."-Thomas Jefferson.  And now we're there.  My question:  Given the current state of affairs in this country and all that entails, what next steps can be taken by citizens to decentralize power and, by consequence, corruption.  Is there a way out of here for the US?  The answer cannot contain any reference to Democrats or Republicans.  "A government of ideas, not parties".  Guess who said that?

#14 (263 points):  I believe that the most important topic would be how to attain complete emotional/psychological/physical wellness.  Global climate change, poverty, politics etc. are all extremely important, but all the big problems stem from collective fear, ignorance and mistrust.  Those in turn come from individual fear, ignorance and mistrust that tend to be "wired" into our earliest emotional makeup.  I believe that we won't make progress on the big issues until we can make progress on our own individual/internal consciousness.

#13 (308 points):  Environmentalism is "in" right now and many people are taking some measures to reduce their environmental footprint.  Real reduction of environmental damage, however, will theoretically call for much greater sacrifice than most people are currently making.  How much of a real, concrete, financial sacrifice are you willing to make in aid of the environment in terms of higher taxes, increased fuel prices etc.  $0 [per month?]  $100 [per month?]  $500 [per month?]  More?

#12 (315 points):  Ask each person: how can we best address the concerns of your community (community in this context can be as broad or narrow as the participant chooses--nation, city, religion, ideological) in a manner that allows others communities to fulfill its own needs.  A recurring issue seems to be conflict resulting from competing agendas.  In many cases, these agendas need not battle it out in a zero sum game.  Thinking of the environment vs. the economy, the emerging markets vs. the "first world" (particularly the displaced workers of the west), religious belief vs. the secular culture, economic growth vs. fair distribution of wealth, national identity vs. global interconnectedness.  It seems that issues are being discussed primarily in the context of each group's immediate interest, leaving little room for reasonable compromise which would allow for all to benefit.

#11 (331 points):  The prime issue affecting humans from this point forward is the Malthusian dilemma applied to not only food but also resources.  That theory postulates that humans will burn themselves out over time due to the decoupled rate of population growth versus food growth.  However, it is even more exacerbated when applied to a geometric population growth and a diminishing supply of fossil fuel, iron, tin, copper, etc... How will humans divide up resources like food, water, ore, oil and other rare materials?  Can we escape the dilemma or will simply mold to it through war or starvation?

#10 (333 points):  The most important topic for discussion today is: "How do we live in the world with integrity?"  Interestingly, "integrity" means both structural wholeness AND moral soundness.  So the "we" in the question is both global and individual.  Do they have the same answers?

#9 (339 points):  How do we really solve the hunger problem?

#8 (346 points):  The topic would be two-fold... Abject poverty and poor parenting/child abuse.  On an individual level abject poverty fosters a permanent cycle of hopelessness which crushes the human spirit and deprives one of even the most basic dignities.  As a societal issue, a permanent underclass will certainly be an unnecessary and costly burden.  It is my understanding that the basic psyche and personality are formed around the age of 5 or 6.  If you've ever seen one the many prison documentaries on cable these days and they ask the inmates to describe their childhood, it's almost never good.  Abusive and neglectful parents produce damaged children who become dangerous adults.  Both Hitler and Saddam had insanely violent father-figures ... the hostility never dies, it just festers until it's unleashed on the next guy.

#7 (347 points):  Our lives utterly depend on the communication of information just as bodies need blood to circulate. Just as blood moves in a particular way to operate successfully, information needs to move strategically to be effective. [How can that be achieved?]  Divided & fragmented information expressed by divided & fragmented minds disallows the public to defeat being ill-informed & defeat the waste & lost opportunities that come with that.

#6 (372 points):  We need to talk about the unduly large role that religion continues to play in our post-Enlightenment world and all the havoc that is wreaked in the name of God.

#5 (380 points):  Question:  Regardless of religious affiliation do you think it is possible to know your Creator in this lifetime?  To explain further, do you believe that you can know or become more like your God through actions that you perform in this world?  Included in the answer should also be the following clarification: Do you believe that the religious guidelines that you have been given were given to you as a means of becoming more like your creator or are simply a rule set that he wishes you to follow?

#4 (388 points):  If I was given the opportunity to have a discussion with all the people in the world, the topic I would choose is World Peace! [How do we achieve it?]

#3 (403 points):  How do we decide, as a society, or group of societies, when to use our economic or military dominance to initiate change in another society. Put another way, where do we draw the line between celebrating and respecting the differences in cultures, and forcing the newer "western style" of living onto other countries?

#2 (431 points):  Considering the immense wealth of the developed world, and the extreme poverty that exists in it and outside it, how can we as a humanity make efforts to meet the basic human needs of people everywhere.  Population expansion, lack of resources, difficult logistics, politics, war, and nature can be listed as hurdles, if the voice we choose from within is "Us vs. Them".  My challenge is to think as one, that extreme poverty and malnutrition is a cancer within our own body - which we need to heal.

#1 (435 points):  How can “empathy” and “connection” be fostered as core values around the world?  This question is universal and can be tied to every issue we currently face.  For example, how could war in Iraq be justified if each American felt true empathy for each Iraqi?  (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths) Similarly, would a parent buy that GAP sweater for his/her 10-year-old if s/he felt empathy for the 10-year-old in India being forced to manufacture it and recognized the connection between making that purchase and contributing to forced child labor? (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1215501,00.html) Corporate interests, valuing only making a profit, breeds indifference, obscuring the universal truths of connection and empathy.

 

To be continued...

 

July 13, 1986

 

On July 13, 1986, I stumbled upon a story written in the San Francisco Chronicle's weekend magazine.  The reason why I still know that date is because the page it was on now sits in a file next to my desk.

The story was about an organization called The San Francisco Brain Exchange.  Every Wednesday night, a few dozen people gathered together at a community center to freely assist people who needed brainstorming help on any problem.  Their methodology for accomplishing this was brilliant in its simplicity:

(1) Place everyone's chair in a very large circle with the person asking for advice at the "top" of it.
(2) The person asking for ideas give a summary of their needs and then sits down with a notepad and prepares to write.
(3) Going in a circle, each person speaks out loud their best suggestion.  No one else in the group can speak can comment or criticize the suggestion.  Brainstormers are encouraged to add on to a previous brainstormer's suggestion, as well as to provide an alternative solution if they didn't like a previous brainstormer's suggestion.  The only cross-communication that can occur is if the person asking for ideas needs clarification on a suggestion from a brainstormer.
(4) The cycle is repeated twice and the brain exchange for that person is complete.

To a person who finds pleasure in talking about ideas, it was pure nirvana!  The room was filled with people from all walks of life.  Their only thing they seemed to have in common was the courage (or naivety) to give their thoughts on topics that were neither their expertise nor their profession in front of strangers.  There is one small piece of information that I hesitate to add due to my inability to deduce any cosmic sig