[EM] language/framing quibble

[Raph Frank]

On 9/15/08, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> Good Morning, Raph
>
>  re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one
>      triad judge the other'):
>
>     "Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the
>      point is that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitness.
>      Basically, the six people would meet up and then after, the
>      judging triad would meet up."
>
>  This raises multiple points:
>
>  First, self-judgment is not germane.  The issue is not what we think of
> ourselves but what others think of us.  Whatever we may think of ourselves,
> if we cannot attract the support of others, our self-regard is meaningless.
> As a practical matter, I would recommend that we not be allowed to select
> ourselves; our role should simply be to select one of the two people we're
> grouped with, or neither.
>
>
>  Second, the remote nature of selecting candidates from another triad
> eliminates responsibility for one's actions.  If one is inordinately
> aggressive in examining members of a different triad, they pay no penalty
> for undue aggressiveness.

One possible solution to this would be to have the six people meet and
then have one triad judge the other.

In principle, they could do this while all together.  This would allow
negotiation between the two triads on who to appoint.

Also, it has a PR effect, which helps dull the amplity minority viewpoint risk.

>  Third, having one triad select a representative from another triad
> introduces an unnecessary level of complexity:
>
>  * It is not clear whether
>
>   a) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B' and triad 'B' selects from
>      triad 'A', or
>
>   b) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B', triad 'B' selects from
>      triad 'x', and triad 'y' selects from triad 'A'

My original suggestion was for a chain.

A selects from B, B selects from C and so on, and then Z selects from A.

However, I think having all six people meet and discuss their
selection together might be better.

>  * The concept demands triads be paired, which requires an even number of
> triads.  Since there may not be an even number of triads, we have the
> problem of providing an equitable arrangement for the odd triad.

Well, there is the same problem is the population is not divisible by 3.

>
>  * If members of one triad must make a selection from members of another
> triad, there are three people, each evaluating three people instead of the
> proposed arrangement where three people each evaluate two people. This
> increases the evaluation load for each participant by 50%.  Since there is a
> limited time in which evaluation must be completed, increasing the number of
> evaluation targets must reduce the depth and effectiveness of each
> individual's evaluation.
>

I don't really see that as a major issue.

>
>  Finally, we are discussing a concept.  The actual implementation can be
> expected to differ from the design for a variety of reasons, some practical
> and some ideological.  I will continue to provide a rationale for my
> perspective.  Whether or not that rationale is compelling is for those who
> implement the concept to decide.
>

Right, and in fact, getting something like this implemented would be
hard enough.

>  Although I personally prefer that participation be mandatory, I don't think
> it matters greatly.

By voluntary I meant that the decisions of the final council are only
binding on those who participate.

>
>  re: "... it would cause a stalemate if there was 2 people who
>      really wanted to be promoted."
>
>  The basic premise is that, after the first few levels, all members of the
> group "really want to be promoted".  That's why they reach their current
> level.  If a stalemate results, it is productive because eliminates
> candidates who cannot attract the support of two people.
>

You may seem the numbers being picked drop like a rock as the round
number increases.

>
>
>  re: "However, if only one of them really wants to be promoted,
>      then he is likely to win by putting his foot down.
>
>      Is a 'no compromise' person the type that we want to get
>      elected?"
>
>  How, exactly, is that person to 'put his foot down'?  In an environment
> where we are free to choose, others can earn our support ... but they cannot
> command it.  Any attempt by someone to 'put their foot down' will alienate
> the others, who are under no compulsion to be trod upon.  Our own nature
> ensures 'no compromise' candidates will be among the first eliminated.

Well, he can say that if they don't pick him, then nobody is being
selected.  He has little ot lose by doing that.

He probably wouldn't lead with that arguement though, but he certainly
isn't going to agree to appoint someone else.

>  re: "Under the normal system, people who really want to be
>      elected tend to be the ones who get elected.  Isn't that the
>      'bug' that random selection was supposed to solve?"
>
>  No. No. No. No. No.
>
>  We want people who want to be elected.
>
>  The 'bug' we seek to eliminate is the low quality of the people nominated
> as candidates to represent us in our government.  If we are to improve
> society, our first step must be to improve the quality of those we select to
> represent us in our government.

Fair enough.  However, the random selected legislature was aimed at a
different target.  It was picking people who are not power seeking.