Category Archives: economy of scale

Origin of human rights

While usually difficult to view, the collective conscience is civilizations shield.

How behavioral pairs work

Both human intelligence, and civilization is in critical part created by behaviors.  Behaviors that are unique to humans who are not psychopaths, and all animals as they are, in the natural world.  These behaviors are not simply very fast rational thought.  “I think therefore I am” is inadequate.

This can be seen by comparing unique human behaviors to their closest animal kingdom counterpart.  This comparison provides another critical service.  A science based foundation for human rights.   Beginning with the most basic building block of society, the sovereign self.

Self Sovereignty – Behaviors unique to humans in nature,  following a path least intrusive to other humans, forms civilization.

CORE RIGHTS

The conscience is comprised of emotional metadata which is a fast risk engine that has emergent behavioral properties. Humans display testable (falsifiable) behaviors, that form a subconscious wisdom of future good, not expressed by other animals (or psychopaths)

Property – Identity of an place, object, or accomplishment belonging to a being or a group. Honored and understood as a provision of autonomy to a distant time.
Territory – Control of a place, object, or role by a being or group. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Currency – A convenient object or idea, representing and interchangeable with property or caloric expenditure, held with expectation of said returns upon exchange.
Favour – A treaty, a yield of territory to display deference to hierarchy.

Freedom – A cooperative model of non interference. The perpetual expectation of non-interference in exchange for a return of the same.
Treaty – A stalemate, a mutual temporary cessation of conflict to avoid over exertion.

Friendship – The expectation of continued freedom between parties, despite periodic violation of it, for the purpose of communicating risk subconsciously in diminished samples of harm.
Alliance – A temporary teamwork towards and depending on a common goal. Restricted to roles.

Investment – Dedication of time and calories into a being’s or a groups creative development. Requires property and currency to realize return.
Assignment – Dedication of time and calories into another’s territory with the expectation of favour.

Justice – Revocation of the rights of someone who curtails the rights of others, for a time reflecting the loss. A corrective act to shape societies conscience, to lower the risk of loss of rights.
Fairness – Enforcement of equal outcomes for individual by role. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Insight – Subconscious messaging describing super-sense attributes not previously connected. Instantaneous like instinct, but presenting novel information, so selection pressure or experience can’t program them directly. Emergent.
Instinct – Instantaneous recall of appropriate action to reach/avoid emotional primitives (despair, bliss, and will to action). Based in direct or genetic experience.

.
Civilization – An organization including insight, property, freedom, friendship, investment, currency and justice. Characterized by trust. Allowing investment (manufacture, farming, storage, trade), and subsequently specialization, and it’s side effect, economy of scale.
Pack – An organization based on instinct, territory, treaty, alliance, favour and fairness. Structured by assignment of roles. Role based equality(fairness). Transient.

DEDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Faith; Knowing something you can’t prove: Insight, Freedom
Ignorance; Reacting to something you don’t know: Instinct, Treaty

Money; Liquid property: Currency, property
Debt; Mobile territory: Favour, territory

Specialization: Investment, freedom, insight
Compliance: Assignment, treaty, instinct

Markets: Freedom, property, currency
Subsidies: Treaty, territory, favour

Free speech: Friendship, currency, justice
Directives: Alliance, favour, fairness

Sexual preference: Freedom, property(of self)
Provisional autonomy: Treaty, territory

Innocent until proven guilty: Freedom, friendship, justice
Continuity: Treaty, alliance, fairness.

Right to exit; Moving away from oppression: Justice, Investment, Freedom
Banishment; Rejection from hierarchy: Fairness, Assignment, Treaty

Right to fork; Creation of new competing hierarchies: Property, Investment, Freedom
Deposal/Regicide; Temporary ascension to top of existing hierarchy: Territory, Assignment, Treaty

Religion: Faith, investment, property(of self)
Cult: Ignorance, assignment, territory

Beneficence; Serving human rights: Freedom, Justice, Friendship
Utilitarianism; Appearing good: Treaty, Fairness, Alliance

INDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Threats in absence or conflict(waste) of core human rights. Threats include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster.  These threats present a danger to civilization and other rights.

Self defense: Property, currency, freedom, friendship, investment, justice
Fitness; (natural selection): Packs enforce their fairness, territory, favour, assignment, treaty, and alliance, through violence

Economy of scale: Investment, markets, faith
Stagnation: Assignment, subsidies, instinct

Privacy: Property, currency, freedom, investment
Narrative: Territory, favour, treaty, assignment

 

This version 2.  See ‘Behavioral pairs‘ for it’s origin and version 1.

Update v2.1:  Unpacked conflation of ‘The right to fork’ and ‘the right to exit’   More accurate.

Corruption of the invisible hand

Recently I shared an older animated graphic on social media, demonstrating how animal kingdom psychopathic work alike behaviors which seem similar to empathy based behaviors will crush economic growth.  Link to article follows.

Got a great response roughly saying, ‘This invalidates Adam Smith’s invisible hand.  It can’t be valid.’  Simple but substantive retort, and an awesome opportunity.  My response as follows.

 

Countries and economies collapse! Even the United States founders knew this, hence the second amendment. They just didn’t know why. They only had symptoms.

Smith formulated the invisible hand on the idea that errors(mistakes) were the primary negative effect on markets, not defectors (aka:sabotage). Hence it only applies to non-defectors.

Defectors, driven by growing populations of differently behaved psychopaths, use variations on moral hazard to game people’s consciences against them to set up rewards for bad behavior as pointless consumption gigs for themselves. Bounties(we call them subsidies) for ghosts. People invest in garbage because their market data is intentionally garbage. Calls to authorities to gatekeep information (to control quality and distribution) are erected with graft in mind. The intent to fund a loss leader with an artificially boosted outcome to enslave the consumer to a fabricated risk model, be it capital, information, or any behavior that does not comply with the top down authority that must pervade a psychopaths life.

For example Smith is naive on foreign actors interfering in other countries public schooling (an important topic for him), a regular practice even among allies, for at least 100 years. No fault, but no accommodation. Contrast that with moral sentiments. Describing empathy and it’s human specific behaviors. Like most (all?) great thinkers before 1970 psychopathic defectors are just not on his mind.

Again he does describe grift, but as an error.   Not a way to reorganize, game, intentionally topple or otherwise distort a capitalist system.  It is not discussed as a tactical or strategic way to wage war.  Most importantly for my understanding of the cause of collapse, intelligent actors without any empathy are never considered.  Much less breeding more quickly than those with empathy, or being magnetically attracted to the centers of power and public trust.

Few people understand inflation as taxation or the potential logarithmic supernation sized gains from economy of scale on a planet with billions of consumers. These ideas and others are used against them. Further psychopaths as science are only 50 years old. Smith could not have known these things without seeing his creation in action.  His massive enhancement to economic science was observation based, but in whole he described a largely new system with it’s own new properties.

Psychopaths operating in growing quantities, in Smith’s system, are externatlities to his time, age and data set.

 

If this interests you you may enjoy my critique of Marx from the same time period.  Smith is discussed as well.

 

 

Axis of Human rights v2.0

Creating a framework for further social commentary on both tyranny, and human rights collisions.  A firm foundation to identify misuse of language to further tyrannical ends.

Landscape of economy of scale (the primary benefit of aligns with traditional centrist positions leaning toward Individualism.

Notice that left vs right are completely non-informational at this level of detail.  Claims of left or right tyranny in this language set are disingenuous at best.

Update 2/26/21: Understanding ideas graphically allow new ideas emerge.   I now know that focusing on what rights a law grants instead of what rights a law takes is corrupt and authoritarian.  A short path to a psychopathic government.

Update 2/26/21: Added ‘Bolster Prejudice’

Update 2/27/21:  Version 2.2 Annotated all sections with likely examples.

Update 2/27/21: It quickly becomes clear why Nationalism (a form of tribalism) is so revered.  It’s is a bellwether for the slide into Authoritarianism.  When it is no longer tolerated, the Overton window has moved toward tyranny.  BTW ALL authoritarian regimes pay homage to these levels of rights, even if they actively block citizen choice.  Try flying unofficial flags for your nation for example.

Update 2/28/21:  Version 2.3:  Been getting great feedback and that in turn is leading to my own ideas.  It seems left vs right is at it’s core a liberty level dispute over which natural human right is more important, property or currency.

Hegelian dialectic can be used to manipulate voters into tyranny

 

The deeply unscientific idea that all people are potentially ‘good’ undermines and distorts modern societies.  While many conflicts between humans are learned, some are genetic and can not be unlearned.   At best they can often (not always) be restrained with continual effort.

With the shelter of the inaccurate pure ‘nurture’ or pure nature, intractable differences in behavior beget intractable differences in opinion.   Including in matters of life and death.  Like any systemic lie an opportunity for the unscrupulous (and a trap for the unskilled) is presented.

Hegelian dialectic can be used to manipulate voters. Here is how.   

1. THE LONG CON (perform infrequently):  Two groups of voters who oppose each other on life or death issues are needed.  Create a 2 way false dilemma with life and death stakes.  The stakes should be real, their opposition to each other (or exclusivity) need not be.  You can’t keep a group together on the premise of opposition alone, they must also have their own equally grave identity.  One group is for A and against B and the other is for B and against A.  Use guilt based on their own culture against them to manage defection rates.

2. REINFORCE CONFLICT:  Since most politicians will support either A or B to win the entire voting block, the only group in play are independents.  It doesn’t matter who the independents are or how many there are, just that roughly equal parts consider A and B ‘their one issue.’  Ideally A and B should not reflect your meaningful goals.

3. ATTRACT ATTENTION:  Independents inherently reject A and B as a valid dilemma, since that’s what makes them independent.  Poll independents to find out what their current common desires are.  Big events may be needed to quell their typical skepticism of authority.

4. CREATE/ALLOW A STRAWMAN:  that wants to take away independent desires. Keep a bullpen of strawmen are always ready.  This may take a while as independents are more savoy and will reject a cartoonishly evil strawman.  Their motives and their threat must look real.  A real but manageable threat is just as effective with less risk of discovery, so if one does arise, allow it.

5. PRESENT THE RINGER:  Present the actual target politician or law as a solution to the strawman.

6. PERFORM MAGIC:  All magic is distraction or misdirection.  The politician(s) will openly advocate for more power in the sectors LEAST important to independents at the time.  This needs to be presented as winner take all or a prisoners dilemma.  The core idea is if you don’t support the the Ringer, you support the strawman.

7. CONSOLIDATE POWER, REASSESS: ‘Vanquish’ the Strawman.  Verify the long con is still viable.  Work to preserve it as long as you can, as a new long con may take an entire generation to become stable.  If the long con is viable return to #2.  If not build a new long con.  Return to #1.

8. CONQUEST:  Eventually independents will have cycled through the all the powers that matter to you, the would be dictator/oligarch, and the system, their power, and rights will be yours.  The entire system will now be pegged at authoritarianism, and left/right swings will be at your discretion.

Voters can beat this slow march to tyranny.  

A. NEVER BECOME A SINGLE ISSUE VOTER:  (A not B, or B not A).  The A/B group (often single issue voters) have NO influence unless extraneous events end the effective dilemma.  If you can’t manage this, don’t vote.  A vote for externality is a vote for fantasy.  Deny the temptation at simplification.  Always be an independent.  Always have AT LEAST 3 key issues define who and what you will vote for.  There are hundreds with life or death stakes, you can find three.

B. REJECT BINARY CHOICES:  Always demand a third way.  A third bill.  A third party.  Alternatively, not now, later, is also a third way.  Procrastination has power.  Deadlock can stall the machine on step #7 IF the strawman is not a real threat.  Demand more information. Democracy dies in darkness, sometimes from stalled strawmen who turned out to be a legitimate threat after all.  Approval voting can greatly reduce winner take all, gerrymandering, and negative character (potentially strawman) politicking.

C. REJECT CALLS TO AUTHORITY AS VALID ARGUMENT:  The purveyor of an argument should have NO bearing on it’s qualities.  This is the significance of truths being self evident.  This is how power structures are used retain the power stolen from independents.

D. LIMIT TERMS:  Maintaining A/B dilemmas and managing the bullpen of strawmen is complex and expensive.  The longer the consecutive term, the easier it is to influence and front run social change.  An illicit funding channel is most likely to be discovered at it’s onset.  Further, the black market to nurture that funding may be complex and fragile.  Both short terms and and approval voting create opportunities to add externalalities to defectors hence protecting democracy.

Why this matters now, and hopefully never again.

When number one, or the long con has been damaged or dismantled there is an opportunity to reject the next long con.   In my opinion this has happened in 2020.  For three generations Americans have fought over two life or death issues in pro-choice/pro-life and right to bear arms/gun control debates.   A false dilemma, used for the long con.

Time to form a new debate.  A debate to end strawmen.  How best to avoid corruption, and how to protect us from economic collapse while reducing it.  If we don’t people will react the same way they always have during massive corruption.  Folding their arms and sacrificing economy of scale in order to starve the corruption out.  Except this time, it all ends in meltdowns of the hundreds of nuclear power plants and the death of the planet.

All people are not good.  And you can’t detect who is not with your five senses at a distance.

Time to recognize currency as a human right.

The death of facts

trusted

 

Them’s the facts jack. Facts are facts. Or are they. Fact checkers love to write their own checks, but who checks them? Other fact checkers? That’s a tangled web, and at any scale sovereignty, and then authority, begins with you. As always the most important question isn’t who, but how. How we determine what the facts are, determines the quality of our reactions.

Many people care about facts as weapons. A way to zing their enemies. The repugnant selfish theater better known as politics. They don’t contemplate broader risks. Absurdities enable atrocities. The fields of facts are filled with Pyrrhic victories. Battles won at cost of humanity’s common war against risk. The truth and the broad shield it provides us is damaged. What does truth shield us from? Many interim horrors, but ultimately, mistakes we can not come back from.

Inherently, there can be no greater risk than irreconcilable error, should facts go awry. All risk ends there. Facts are important, possibly the most important to a shared social system. The only thing that can correct irreconcilable error is externalities. Waiting for some black swan to save you is inherent failure. Not because saviors don’t exist, but because you learn nothing and therefore accomplish nothing if you strictly wait for them. Trying and failing to understand still often makes progress. You need to act even if the facts do not favor action.

Unknown unknowns

How do you act without or in the face of apparent facts? The temptation may be to vette the facts further. It seems like a positive action, and it could be. But as the earliest politician showed, fact finding can become a fool’s errand. If your premise, or other contributing facts are flawed your result will be skewed, possibly multiplicatively. A trace of poison can ruin the whole water supply. Finding facts objectively, at a glance, seems improbable.

There are a few structures by which to find facts. Only in rationalism can facts be found objectively through strictly logical constructs. Empirical evidence depends to a degree on perspective, and attributes and quality of the senses. A rubber ruler at best. Skepticism can never create a test it can pass, because it’s nature is to doubt everything, including the test itself. You can’t create a useful system of rules, you inherently can’t trust. Determinism can indicate there are immutable facts, but you can’t measure inevitability, only likelihoods approaching inevitability. It may be true, but we can’t measure it completely, so we can’t create a fact with it. So rationalism it is.

Determinism while maddening can be useful. There are no determinists. There are only people who think determinism is the most likely explanation for events and attributes, by a very wide margin. They can’t know every quantum outcome at the sub-atomic level that create the molecules in their brain cells, they can only imagine the parts at that scale working together on an impossible to simulate universal scale. It’s too big for simulation or calculation. Which reveals our final opponent to rationalism, pragmatism.

While many people treat facts as deterministic, they can be, and are pragmatic.  What actually performs and gets good results?  Based in an incalculable world, all things deterministic are in fact an odds game and actually pragmatic. This presents a problem for rationalism. Scope. Just like determinism can only approach the probability that it is true, rationalism can only approach the totality of relevant facts. It may, and mathematically will, miss facts. But don’t just take my word for it, rationalism died with the renaissance man. Once humanities best minds determined the entirety of human knowledge is not knowable to any one person  more than a century ago, it follows that nobody can have or even honestly claim to have, all the facts. The concept of incontrovertible facts died, when the scope of human knowledge exceeded one very smart person.

As this is Civgene, I can’t help but present a second argument. The real way I knew to look for the death of facts. I know all the most intelligent human behavior is partly driven by rationalizing subconscious impulse. Our conscience, indicated by our lack of psychopathy, is a probability engine. Churning out likely answers to puzzles by comparing unlike things in our memories and nudging us. We then in turn rationalize or externally explain these insights. Reason without conscionable  impulse is just rationalism, and that psychopathic fashion of seeking truth is, incomplete at best.

Known unknowns

So we know facts can be false, and can’t be proven completely true, but we have to act. What to do? We should use facts, but we should encourage competing facts. How can they compete? By shrinking the scope of society so that sets of competing facts can play out. Experiments when possible, but predictions when not, can scientifically vette facts. It is healthier to act, than to simply wait for a system of incorrect facts to grow large enough to induce a catastrophic failure. By letting people choose their own results, you prevent moral hazard to truth, or disintegration of the idea of objective truth. Whether it’s distortions originate from gaslighting or subtle errors, top down facts chip away at the viability of approaching objective truth.

An idea oriented fact finding process should be encouraged, not a blame based one. Since all people with imagination have ideas, consensus facts should be shared. Consensus is when the vast majority of people see a fact as true, not only people whom you agree with. Some ideas may conflict. To progress materially or spiritually, you may need to limit the scope of people who are considered for your consensus. People outside this technocracy’s scope should not be considered when achieving a local consensus, but also should not be indoctrinated by the technocracy. Attempting to achieve broader consensus through ideas can expand your scope, but if blame encourages a faux consensus, it damages the viability of objective truth. Smashing anyone, much less your political enemies, in the face with truths they can’t understand hurts the viability of future consensus, and creates castes or classes, the quick road to oppression, oligarchy, and massive inefficiency.

Again as this is Civgene, I must point out civgene had predicted this. Behavioral pairs (consionable humans compared to the animal kingdom) indicate that human rights originate from the differences between humans and all (possibly most) other animals and psychopaths. Primarily adding a time component, future, present, and past to current animal social structures. Property, investment, freedom, friendship, currency and their derivatives, money, markets, specialization, and economy of scale all indicate a right to fork. Allowing hierarchies, like oligarchy and technocracy to interfere with these rights, denies people the opportunity to act naturally human, and benefit maximally from it. Faulty (or false) facts compete with and even eliminate these behaviors. Bringing us closer to psychopathic simple animal behaviors as cumulative distortions grow.

Known knowns

If faced with opponents to your facts, approach them with ideas of process for resolution (ideally scientific), or don’t approach them at all. If a fact is rejected, the blame lay with the explainers understanding of the fact, not the challenger. Many things can be, and have been wrong with specialized and local consensus facts. Deception or defection for power or political gain, scope errors or missing information, empirical errors, or simply low intelligence actors may have forced superficial consensus before a broader population could be brought in through understanding. The highest orders of industry, government, science, and other hierarchies have been disastrously wrong about facts for centuries, before. Destroying public trust. Pushing a fact you can’t explain can have subversive results on our very ability to agree on anything, and possibly our health and safety. An obscure fact is safer for the social fabric than a profound distortion. An obeyed dictate, posing as fact, is possible, but comes at difficult to reverse cost. Destruction of trust.

Much good has been done by small groups of technocrats using a common base of facts to discover new truths. Find like minds. Mankind’s greatest discoveries languished for decades in obscurity, even when in common use, or while enjoying tremendous financial success. All based on facts that still to this day do not share a public consensus. Who, what, when, why, and especially how, can all be wildly changed by the tiniest change in the underlying facts. The truth does not suffer from a lack of attention. Only you do. You can not conquer this problem alone, so seek like minds to build on your facts and compare your performance to other societies technocrats, with different assumptions, I mean ‘facts.’ The public mind is a contest of ideas, and the only sure way lose it is to attack the contest itself.

Who gets the benefits from the doubts?

self-mutilation(tasteful self mutilation)

If faith is rationalized knowledge you can’t prove, and forgiveness emotional resolution to avoid manipulation, who are you really doubting?

Truth telling is a regular affair. If empathy is the engine, spoken truth is the grease of civilization. Most of the time, the benefit of the doubt is not only implicit, but entirely unvisited. Analysis of every statement, every gesture, every promise would undo civilization. Investment would be exhausting and a terrible trade.

When a flash of insight presents a doubt, the temptation is to ignore it. Civilization is a big machine, and the wise human knows the gears must turn to perpetuate the economy of scale. Down time for repairs will have a non linear cost, but the conscience is first and foremost is a risk engine. The dilemma is usually treated as such, ‘is your conscience groaning more loudly about the risk of a lie, or the risk of addressing it’. This can work but introduces a new risk, gaslighting.

Gaslighting seems silly at first but can be the flat edge to a long wedge. First the lies are subtle and inconsequential to the operation of your society, with one exception, you. You learn to NOT trust your gut and ignore insight.

If a high EQ empath is faced with a single dishonest threat, the dishonest actor eventually becomes silhouetted against their more honest context. Your risk engine retunes itself with it’s flow of higher quality data, and they stand out. The problem is addressed and civilization’s machine chugs on.

There is systemic risk, the risk the conscience is poor at managing a flurry of lies. The intelligent and psychopathic defector WILL notice this golden opportunity. Instead of identifying a narrow pattern of doubt, the conscience is too noisy to be useful. Doubt is aimed inward. ‘I must be the problem.’ Without warnings of risk the conscience becomes a liability.

If you are untrained in proposing and rationalizing conspiracies, you can be taught to throw away your conscience or even program it against your own interests. Not just you. Everyone. Flooding people with enough lies to disable their conscience requires a conspiracy. Those that discourage conspiracy theory are likely in the institutional gaslighting business, better known as propaganda.

Who benefits from the doubts? The institutions people are directly involved in. The hierarchies that are riskiest to fork or otherwise defect from. Today that is their governments, their schools, their employers. Those wise to history know finding a criminal conspiracy can be as simple as asking who benefits? Cui Bono.

Doubts are yours, and no good comes from throwing them away. Rationalize them. Not because the conscience is never wrong, but if you don’t use your risk manager, you lose it. Researching, fact checking, and setting traps for the unscrupulous benefits you. Detect reality. Accept no lies, not even the small ones. Painful honesty keeps your conscience active, well tuned, and in a position to defend the economies of scale that afford us the luxury of leisure, and it’s prosperous civilization.

Your empathy, and it’s outrage, IS the machine. The top priority must be keeping the context honest. Demand people with high EQs. Always observant, tough as nails, and a zest for learning. Test their empathy. Protect the machine with vigorous curation. Reject the benefit of the doubt. Doubt people. Doubt systems. Doubt away.

The tragedy of the currency

columns-s

The problem with both central banking and vaulted gold are the same, they provide legitimate efficiencies. There is no airtight analytical case against them.  Economies of scale of security and analysis do provide some, even much, legitimate value.

Do those economies of scale outweigh the risks of the ‘keepers’ keeping a private ledger?  Almost always at first and never forever.  Corruption creeps in.  Corruption is really the rising cost of transparency.  A chess game of emotions,  like ‘kindness’, ‘fairness’, ‘ability’ and even magical powers, slowly chips away at the keepers ability to be honest.  Once the honesty dies, nothing feeds the flow of transparency and it withers and wilts.  Eventually nothing is left but a carboard cutout of it’s former self.  An unliving, inaccurate, but easy to explain and defensible approximation of the actual state of weights and measures.  A public ledger.

Insider threats always abound, so a brutally honest private ledger must be quietly kept along side it.  Once transparency is a shell of it’s former self, the stake holders of their currency no longer keep tabs on it’s mechanics.  Discrepancies form, and are exasperated by greed as they are observed and then exploited by the now unwatched keepers.  At first the exploitation is covered up to protect the currency itself, but eventually the cover up exists strictly to protect it’s liquidity, and then, it’s ability to hold any value at all.

The tragedy of the currency is wrapped up in it’s mechanics.  The single ledger becomes a lightning rod of anger, justified or not, against inequity.  Politicians (remember ‘politc’ is simply your public face) delay to answer smartly.  Not to skim at first but simply to quiet their opponents. Sometimes the delayed issues are completely tangential to the virtues of the currency.

Time is friction in transparency.  Delays become corruption.  The older data is the more useless it becomes.  A composite caricature of discombobulated snapshots in time.  You can’t trust what you can’t see, and you can’t see the whole accountant at once.  At first it’s impractical, and then it’s discouraged.

The mechanics of absolute power corrupt absolutely.  The problem with a single ledger has always been, it’s single accountant, and their perhaps unintentional but still vulnerable political face.

Most civilizations have approached this as a political problem.  Avoid bad politics and the accountant is safe.  History has demonstrated no person or their protectors are unassailable.  Even if they were, they are mortal and will be succeeded.  Instead the United States proposed a technical solution.  Every person is their own accountant.  They must preserve their own ledgers. Nearly impervious to corruption, but inefficient.  Then in desperation, in a time of world war, this was abandoned for centralized efficiencies.

If you solve the single accountant problem in a centralized way, you solve the public/private ledger problem.  Enjoy the spoils of the economies of scale without the classical risks.  How can many accountants share one ledger without losing the efficiencies of one copy?  By copying and verifying the copies of the ledger so fast that the entire market can view every trade in real time without latency.  Time approaches an infinitely small number, so transparency approaches an infinitely large one.  That is exactly what Bitcoin does.  And it’s never been done before.  Laid down on the transparency of it’s open source code, the open ledger is copied and updated all over the world every second of every day.  Everyone can know the ledger is real because they can see exactly how it is verified.

How to trust is an unsolvable problem, but how to avoid needing to trust is already solved.  A grand joke on those who obsess over politics.  A comedy of the currency.

The why of how devops works

bazaar

Business vs disruptive technology

Why do devops pushes go wrong?  Lets talk a bit about what devops is.  Devops is an attempt to merge the strengths of open source bazaar with the order and certainties of business hierarchy.  By clinging to the nomenclature of automation (as least as old as the water mill) as a complete stand in for a social phenomenon, organizations undermine their own efforts.  Businesses set the wrong organizational objectives in motion and then react to the inevitable failures by further detuning the successful components.

Why do companies seek out devops workflow techniques?  In the positive case they want to increase profit.  They are acting as futurists.  Improving their potential before it’s required.  In the worst case they are reacting directly to one or more complexity horizons.  Their social communication has been stymied or dwarfed compared to people communicating in functional code on the other side of the horizon.  They just can’t compete.

How people work

Many people have struggled with gift culture as the origin of open source.  Gift culture permeates open source, but is not it’s source.   Gift culture naturally expresses in any society where reputation currencies are in circulation and rewards are only expressed as probabilities.  In other words, gift cultures are the lubricant of free markets.  Once a person’s foundation of their hierarchy of needs is satisfied, people  work for improvements in reputation.  Accomplishments are the coinage of gift culture’s currency.

Bazaars are the most free, and have the most moving parts, so lots of lubricant is needed.  They are highly complex organic machines.  Adding components as they grow.  Their advantage is self healing anti-fragility.  Their disadvantage is huge pools of waste.  Individuals work to improve reputation, not for profit, because reputation currency offers better long term stability.  Most bazaar market machinery enjoys little or no economy of scale.  This is where devops can help a business reenter or influence a market dominated by the bazaar.  By merging the strengths of both.

Economy of scale of what?

Economy of scale is what automation brings to the devops equation, but it is not novel without nurturing gift culture.  What does a probability driven gift culture bring to the equation?  Imagination turned systemic.  Not for short term profit but for reputation and credibility.  Becoming known as a kind of problem solver becomes insurance (a mid and long term trust structure) against ostracization and obsolescence.  A guarantee of future (perceived) utility to society.

For a devops initiative to succeed you must also nurture gift culture.  To do this you must trust some appropriate objectives to with the people closest to them.  Then analyze their output for organization wide economies of scale.  This is typically done in codes (statistical or mechanistic) bypassing complexity horizons.  This is done to harness skills of the members of the society, as they try to build their personal portfolio of accomplishment.  With the grease available to them, workers can build the machinery the business needs, without having to express their solutions beyond code.

Traditionally business reserves access to objectives for the very top, and tactics are employed at the very bottom, with various strategies employed by middle management to glue them together.  This is eventually effective but requires translating all action to human non functional language.  This translation inefficiency is why businesses can’t keep up.  Most technical fields are in a race against the complexity horizon.  With clear objectives great strategy and tactics write themselves.  Why?  Code as a communication tool is fast.

Doing dumb things faster

This brings our first failure into focus.  A focus strictly on automation.  Automation is both positive and critical as it pushes forth the code created at the bottom of the hierarchy, embracing it in a way that creates economies of scale.  It is the end but not the means.  The means is worker access to corporate objectives and some freedom to implement them.  Look no further than Google’s policy of self directed projects to see how this works.  If you don’t nurture the gift culture both with recognition for good work and self directed opportunities to fulfill company objectives, you will miss great opportunities for new economies of scale.  Continuous integration really means technician access to objectives.

Ladders and snakes

This frames the secondary risk of failure.  Businesses are traditionally hierarchical because not all actors are trustworthy.   Most, but not all, employees seek to excel by improving their reputation. If you move objectives down the tree towards the bottom of the organization, it will present strictly selfish actors(sometimes psychopaths) with golden opportunities that they will take.  This justifies a metered scaling of moving objectives down.  This is where the failure lies.  Metering serves a purpose, to limit the destructive capacity of discovery of bad actors, but it is often used as an excuse to never push objectives to those expressing code.  A guaranteed failure for devops initiatives.  Potentially fatal to the whole business if it is already competing with a successful devops deployment.

As an important note psychopaths can be valuable intelligent members of a team, but they have special needs.  Rather than discard them it may be possible to create purely technical work roles with no direct reports and and no singular authority over data.

A well oiled machine

The misunderstood role of gift culture as the end and not a side effect may cause businesses to supplement perks for access to organizational objectives to far less effect.  Fundementally people don’t want to just feel like their reputation is good.  They authentically want to improve it.  Being able to both see AND influence most if not all company objectives is critical to identifying the potential economies of scale that the bazaar is often structurally unaware of.

The key to understand the difference between devops and mere automation is the complexity horizon.  Where functioning technical solutions are by far the most efficient way to express both better strategy and objectives, and retool objectives when necessary.  Technicians need access to objectives.  Then both the game theory centric corporate objectives and individuals long term reputation objectives can combine to create the well oiled machine.

About Civgene:  Understanding the currency of gift culture and the complexity horizon would not be possible without Civgene.  Civgene is a novel scientific theory which provides a framework to view all societies.  Please consider exploring it further to grow your understanding of human behavior, particularly in groups.