5 ms·

The world doesn’t change by “getting things across” to CEOs and politicians. If a CEO’s enlightenment gets int the way of his fiduciary responsibilities, he wi

The world doesn’t change by “getting things across” to CEOs and politicians. If a CEO’s enlightenment gets int the way of his fiduciary responsibilities, he will simple be replaced. It’s about systems, not Great Men.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
People make the system. The CEO. The board. Your local city council. Your federal representatives. There is no smart contract, there is no code that evaluates the rules obediently without interpretation. Just people.
- trhway 8y ago
  Personally i'm with you on that. Unfortunately cold objective science says different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory "In terms of its effects, a system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. "
- PakG1 8y ago
  On a micro scale, yes. On a macro scale, it's easy to see that even the higher ups are just players in a bigger game, the rules of which they did not make. But the most successful ones (according to a specific definition of success) play the game well.
- ataturk 8y ago
  Right. And people are corrupt to their very core. I look at every state now working to abrogate our fundamental rights and wonder where it all ends. You think they're going to stop with gun control? Oh no, you are in for a huge shock. That is just the beginning of what the powerful are going to take. They whittle away and concentrate power and one day you're eating from a garbage can wondering what he hell happened (Venezuela). News flash: You were stupid! That's what happened. The wielding of power is a zero sum game and all the people you listed are all schemers, scheming their way into your life to take what they want. The only chance we might have at stopping any of it is to gain some technological high ground--or go full on Norseman. Funny you mention "smart contracts" because we used to have dumb ones, a written Constitution, a Bill of Rights, but that has all been washed away by human greed.
- SomethingOrNot 8y ago
  This is reductive. Systems are not merely sums of their parts (people): they have emergent properties. Systems don’t change because people as individuals decide to do things differently. That’s not sociology, that’s just individualism. Unfortunately(?) there is no way to avoid analysis at the systemic level. Neither individuals nor “smart contracts” can get around that.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  And yet ... there's a tremendous degree of variety between and among people, but it seems that certain archetypes tend to emerge time and time again in specific positions of power and authority, including in business and politics. One simply has to wonder if these systems either select for or change those they come in contact with. Which would then point to a systemic rather than individual responsibility role.
sooheon 8y ago
How do you affect change in systems if not by applying pressure and leverage against elements in the system?
- SomethingOrNot 8y ago
  You apply pressure to the system. Not just elements (individuals?) that make up the system. The most enlightened human being could become a CEO (insert your favorite mythical person) of an oil/coal company; they would still simply be fired if they didn’t do their job.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  See especially Donella Meadows "12 Leverage Points": 12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards) 11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows 10. Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures) 9. Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes 8. Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against 7. Gain around driving positive feedback loops 6. Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information) 5. Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints) 4. Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure 3. Goal of the system 2. Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from 1. Power to transcend paradigms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points Note that "members of the system" doesn't even make the list.
  - sooheon 8y ago
    This is cool. I'll note that "members of a system", implying individual focus, is a slight straw man of my argument, which is that elements such as "CEOs" or "boardmembers" could be incentivized with new knowledge. 5 and 4 seem relevant--new risks cause companies to restructure their processes all the time, it seems like making clear that backdoors can pose direct risks can cause systemic change.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

People make the system. The CEO. The board. Your local city council. Your federal representatives. There is no smart contract, there is no code that evaluates the rules obediently without interpretation. Just people.

trhway 8y ago
Personally i'm with you on that. Unfortunately cold objective science says different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory "In terms of its effects, a system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. "
PakG1 8y ago
On a micro scale, yes. On a macro scale, it's easy to see that even the higher ups are just players in a bigger game, the rules of which they did not make. But the most successful ones (according to a specific definition of success) play the game well.
ataturk 8y ago
Right. And people are corrupt to their very core. I look at every state now working to abrogate our fundamental rights and wonder where it all ends. You think they're going to stop with gun control? Oh no, you are in for a huge shock. That is just the beginning of what the powerful are going to take. They whittle away and concentrate power and one day you're eating from a garbage can wondering what he hell happened (Venezuela). News flash: You were stupid! That's what happened. The wielding of power is a zero sum game and all the people you listed are all schemers, scheming their way into your life to take what they want. The only chance we might have at stopping any of it is to gain some technological high ground--or go full on Norseman. Funny you mention "smart contracts" because we used to have dumb ones, a written Constitution, a Bill of Rights, but that has all been washed away by human greed.
SomethingOrNot 8y ago
This is reductive. Systems are not merely sums of their parts (people): they have emergent properties. Systems don’t change because people as individuals decide to do things differently. That’s not sociology, that’s just individualism. Unfortunately(?) there is no way to avoid analysis at the systemic level. Neither individuals nor “smart contracts” can get around that.
dredmorbius 8y ago
And yet ... there's a tremendous degree of variety between and among people, but it seems that certain archetypes tend to emerge time and time again in specific positions of power and authority, including in business and politics. One simply has to wonder if these systems either select for or change those they come in contact with. Which would then point to a systemic rather than individual responsibility role.

sooheon 8y ago

How do you affect change in systems if not by applying pressure and leverage against elements in the system?

SomethingOrNot 8y ago
You apply pressure to the system. Not just elements (individuals?) that make up the system. The most enlightened human being could become a CEO (insert your favorite mythical person) of an oil/coal company; they would still simply be fired if they didn’t do their job.
dredmorbius 8y ago
See especially Donella Meadows "12 Leverage Points": 12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards) 11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows 10. Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures) 9. Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes 8. Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against 7. Gain around driving positive feedback loops 6. Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information) 5. Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints) 4. Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure 3. Goal of the system 2. Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from 1. Power to transcend paradigms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points Note that "members of the system" doesn't even make the list.
- sooheon 8y ago
  This is cool. I'll note that "members of a system", implying individual focus, is a slight straw man of my argument, which is that elements such as "CEOs" or "boardmembers" could be incentivized with new knowledge. 5 and 4 seem relevant--new risks cause companies to restructure their processes all the time, it seems like making clear that backdoors can pose direct risks can cause systemic change.