Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Sustainable Social Selection, A Proposed Solution to the Worldwide Electronic Voting Fiasco

Posted November 19th, 2009 by Darrell Moneyhon
In Reference to:
2012, the Aquarian Age, and the Nature of Evolution

 Regarding Ken's very valid point addressed in his upcoming book, that indiscrimate democracy could be disastrous, given 70% of the population is at amber or lower, I think I have a solution - a broad strategy that could avert that catastrophe. I call it 3 S, for Sustainable Social Selection. It hinges on the idea that optimal human collective adaptation is based on effective utilization of human resources - no longer on selection via organisms dying off, the old "survival of the fittest" thing. 

 3 S adapts by finding the right person for the right "assignment", or "engagement". "Survival of the fittest is replaced with "survival of the fitting-est" - not meaning that whole groups of individuals (or even organizations or ideologies) will adapt or die from not fitting in with the requirements of the times (although such a selection may occur), but meaning that collectives which are able to get the right persons in the right job will adapt best. The ability to harness the various natural aptitudes and personality orientations, or roughly speaking, "gifts", is what helps social groups survive and prosper. When the right gifts are placed in the right niches, a kind of workable egalitarianism is formed. 

  Why? Because gifts will sort out the best thinkers for thinking tasks, the best dreamers/intuiters for creative tasks and early stage innovation, the best relaters for healing and facilitation of social well-being,  and the best do-ers for getting projects done in an efficient and effective manner. Those "gift" catagories are mainly types, but line competencies could also be used. Gift-in-niche assignments could be made based on performance (or observed proficiency) on certain lines of development, based on some form of multiple intelligence assesment, etc.. "Gifts" in general could include, then, a blend of type and line "intelligence" - a type-by-line "fit" factor. 

 Because all major types and all kinds (lines) of intelligences would be utilized, productively engaged, and cherished, no gift would be considered higher than other gifts. No gifts would be given better living standards than other gifts. To favor certain gift-sets would violate the very core of the Sustainable Social Selection strategy. All gifts, all people, would be needed in such a strategy. Every one would, therefore be "equal".

But equal doesn't mean everyone participates equally in all things. "Each according to her gift" is a 3 S motto. The foot of the collective body does not have the same (equal) access to forks as do the fingers. Nor do the fingers have equal access to shoes. Those would be poor "fits" in a survival-by-the-fitting-est scheme. The understanding and practice of intrinsic power would replace the lust for extensic power. A finger would not want access to shoes (except to help tie shoe laces!), nor would feet want to hold forks. Those "powers" would be extrinsic to the nature of the respective gifts.

Because of the respect given to all the gifts, and because of equal provisions, there would be no press for every person to have equal say in social problem-solving or social planning projects. There would be no advantage or incentive for a do-er to pretend to be a social mapper, etc. If the standard of living is equal, then do-ers would have no incentive to do what they don't do best! They would naturally prefer practical projects over big-picture pattern analysis, etc.

The whole collective (relaters, and intuiters, as well) would be glad for the gifted social problem-solvers to do most of the social problem solving. That doesn't mean that there would be no gift-crossover participation whatsoever. At-large committee members could act as consultants and laisons between social functions geared toward specialized gifts, to insure healthy variation, a kind of behavioral "gene pool".

As regards specialization and the potential ego-defensiveness of not being the very brightest in a given domain, even those who are not top of the charts in a gift domain, could be understood (by all in the collective) as being better at laison assignments (such as the afformentioned at-large committee assignmets) to other gift-sets or gift-domains. These hybrid gift-types would have the gift of not blinding/eclisping/intimidating others from outside specialty areas with their brilliance. Successful communication and effective social modeling happens when there is a proper blend/balance of brilliance (causing others to "look up to" or respect the speaker or model) and similarity (allowing the speaker or model to seem like "one of us"). 

One of the requirements for 3 S would be a very broad menu of gift-niches, or "assignments". Instead of a competition for a few slots, which would generate huge egos for the "winners", and "demoralization" (as well as low self-esteem, a build-up of resentment/jealousy, and a whole host of other "negative" emotions and compensatory addictive-like behaviors) for the "losers", the broad menu requirement of the 3 S strategy of collective adaptation would result in "re-moralization", by simply having the particpant shift to an assignment better suited to her/his gifts. Here the psychological effect of a good or bad job "fit" is understood to bring about good or bad overall levels of group morale.

  Also, the 3 S method leads to, and requires, an understanding that there is an intimate link between such individual and group morale and the overall "morality" of the participating members of the collective. True morale, gained from "good fit" and "meaningful engagement" automatically promotes "good character" and moral/ethical behavior. Not that no general social instruction for "character" or "morality" or "ethics" would be needed, but that not much of it would be needed.

  In the current competitive, Social Darwinism-like system, the converse is true. To compensate for the demoralizing effects, much additional effort to try to maintain good character, etc., is needed. This is because an accumulation of distrust occurs over time when there is a "survival of the fittest", rahter than a "survival of the fitting-est" strategy for collective adaptation. 

Darrell

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Why proper gift-by-niche assignments would offset the low stage problem

Posted November 24th, 2009 by Darrell Moneyhon

One thing I failed to address in the original post is the way that optimal gift placement is likely to deal with the problem of empowered low-stage participants in a strictly democratic system. Finding the right person for the right job would not magically stage-advance everyone, even though I think it would accelerate overall stage-advance to some degree, because of increased morale and motivation to grow. This, assuming that a fair number out of the 70% amber have current potential to be at orange or higher but may not strive, owing to social disenfranchizement and demoralization effects in a highly competitive and inefficient system. Yet I seriously doubt it would turn 70% into 49%. The voter pool of amber would have to fall below 50% (or lower, if the above-amber pool were split by amber opponents using divide-and-conquer techniques) if the above-amber crowd is to gain control of government. 

  What the  gift-efficient method is likely to do, however, is to positively exploit/utilize the highest lines of each person. Ken points out how the different lines develop at different rates in a given individual. She or he may be at green intellectually, but at amber spiritualy, or in terms of emotional intelligence, etc. Each type would tend to correlate with a profile of multiple intelligence.

  Thinker types would, of course, tend to score high on the intellectual line. Relaters would tend to score high on the emotional intelligence line. Dreamers/intuiters would tend to score high on measures of creativity (line?). Doers would tend to score higher on measures of organization (line?). If the healers were assigned to healing tasks, and given more votes in that domain, the stage would be significantly higher for the relevant line, than if non-healers were randomly included in the voting. The effect of gift specialization would be an overall elevation of appropriate stage per voting domain.

  The key is get a modified democratic system which gives wiegthed voting privileges according to gifts, according to the person's line strengths and/or type. This way, the "fingers" of the collective "body" aren't voting about shoes. And the"feet" aren't voting about eating utensiles. A thinker would have, say, one and a half vote, for big picture social policy votes. A relater would have, say, one and a half votes on specific issues related to health care.

   Specialized education completion may even allow for heavier wieghting in certain areas. A thinker may gain a vote-weight of two for general social decision-making votes if she completed designated civics classes. Extra education in one's gift area could increase the extrensic power of the intrinsic power of thier gift, similar to a microphone and amplifier increasing the volume of a gifted singer. This policy or procedure could actually be called gift amplification. Of course there would have to be great pains taken to insure that the vote-wieghting system itself isn't biased to allow for more amplification, or extrensic power, toward a given gift-set. Such a built-in bais would be like a parent favoring a specific son or daughter over the others. Continuous investigation of the vote-weighting system would need to be provided, and the results would need to be shared with the overall voters.   Here again would be the place/function for at-large committee members. At-large committee members would have to be given authority to check (literally as in "check out", and figuratively as in counter-balance) the vote-wieghting system - especially since the vote-wieghting system itself would tend to be governed more my thinker types, especially by scientific-minded or technical minded sub-groups of thinker types (or out of the pool of those who are assessed as being high scores on the intellectual lines in general). In other words, intra-gift bias would have to be investigated, as well as inter-gift bias.  

  The above considerations are just a few that would need to be made for the proposed "giftocracy" system. 

   Later (in upcoming comments), I will attempt to delineate differences between giftocracy and meritocracy. I see them as related, but I also see giftocracy as have advantages over meritocracy. In general, I sense that giftocracy handles both the genotype and the phenotype of what might be called "behavioral genetics", in which behaviors are seen as having enacting potentials, similar to genes. When one person, or many, do something (that is, act or behave) he/she/they are not "done" - they are only just beginning. Behavior begets behavior. But there is no garantee that the behavior is following an optimal course which is in line with a person's potential. Accordingly, both individual and collective behavior must be looked at in a dynamic, unfolding, genetic, sort of way, if we are to "behave" ourselves, and to live up to our potential. Behavioral genetics brings an inside-out, unfolding, view to the normally outside-in methods of behavioral management. Behavioral genetics adds depth to some of the scientific flatland. 

   Darrell