Category Archives: trust

Faith: genius vs talent

genius-vs-talent

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

A society that can’t allow faith disallows genius. Talent may be the most visible worker, but genius is the scaffolding of progress. A social mode that allows genius also allows external saviours. They are the same archetype and have the same elements.

This can be measured by a societies ability to separate accommodation from validation. If you must categorize and measure ideas to allow them, you disallow those that produce ideas from the edge of periphery. In simple terms you suffer when you can’t accommodate people who are smarter than you. I’m not saying a civilizations success is measured by seeking external saviours, that’s a setup for cult, but don’t count them out either.

Usually societies discard genius when they misunderstand faith. Faith is an insight that can’t be proven or dis-proven. It’s a game of likelihoods and successful predictions. The genius may not be able to convey their whole ideas in their lifetime, but they can apply their right ideas to the practical world of the now. This is done to build credibility, a simpler language more people and sometimes many people can understand.

Credibility of prediction is pragmatism. Pragmatism is systemically successful because it recognizes exceptional performance of prediction. While it may seem to cherry pick from disciplines, it is actually recognizing genius. Refusing to make social systems more simple than possible to protect the egos of their lower intelligence observers.

The process of the less intelligent synchronizing with genius requires acceptance based on performance. Inevitably this manifests as faith. Subconsciously acknowledging the significance of predictive performance without understanding all the details at once. Faith is not some blind allegiance, but a pathway for the conscience to drive the expensive investment of rationalization. The more understandable details of a difficult to grasp idea can be carefully vetted, the more opportunity the subconscious has to model the idea to apply it in total.

Protect high quality ideas and their vessels, insist your society be both sceptical and coherent with humility. It’s no accident genius is marked by prediction, the metamind’s (the conscience’s) speciality. Rewarding only talent is psychopathic and rejects humanities most exceptional behaviours. Behaviours that form civilization itself.

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.

Civgene can provide objective morality

 

 

Video explaining how you can derive objective morality from civgene.

You can use behaviours unique to empaths to derive objective morality from science itself.  Non-psychopathic behaviours are like atoms which in turn can be used to build rights, much like molecules.

More to come.

Edit 3/25:  Updated video.  Clearer and more concise edits with clips.

The risks of atheism

prop

Faith is rationalized but unproven subconscious knowledge.  The source of creativity.

I aim for, and have not yet been challenged on, philosophical coherency between types of faith.  All new philosophy, like all new creative works, starts briefly as faith.  I take care to rationalize all my faiths both from atheist and non-atheist perspectives.  Resolving to the most likely explanations of either and rationalizing the other to work around the first.

This has been completely successful.  Despite some predictions to the contrary by atheism advocates has not resulted in sudden and steadfast atheism.  Sure it could, but it seems to me that would be lazy.  A choice to throw some data away.  A poor practice with poor results.

The key for me has been the civgene theory, and it’s implications for the conscience as a risk engine overlayed over the more typical spectrum of animal behavior.  Humans (except psychopaths) are of two minds, the subconscious and the rational.  Both minds can only communicate with each other in a vague spectrum of feelings.

What does throwing data away really mean? 

For supernatural faiths that an entire society had a useless premise from the start.  This is not coherent with civgene or observable behavior.  Supernatural faiths are only successful if the contain truths.  Truth, the engine of progress, is the common goal of society.

For potentially provable faiths it means assuming all outlying data points are error.  That all aspects of observation are perfectly accurate and innate.  This makes huge assumptions about quality of data, accuracy and relevance of test parameters, the infinite nature (large or small) of at least some related numbers, and that all related scopes are holistic.  Noble but lofty goals, that function best when small in focus.

Implications

Supernatural faith has understood risks.  It creates a risk of cult.  Reasonable people know this and it has been discussed at length by the objective philosopher.  Supernatural faith inevitably results in religions as people seek it’s truths and compare rationalizations.  Comparisons can give way to programming.  Programming can be then turned against human rights, and a cult results.

Strictly political cult is possible too, as twentieth century communism laid bare.  Avoiding supernatural faith does not protect you from cult.  How is that possible?  Partly because humans change their behavior when they are studied.  Their behavior is the result of their subconscious risk assessment, and they react to the new risk, abuses of the study. (knowledge is power) The only way to make people predictable is to disable their conscience by completely reprogramming it.  A simple task against the atheist through distorted or fabricated data.  A political cult is formed, again crushing human rights (and new economies of scale).

The risks of supernatural cult are transferred to the risk of being programmed by political cult.  Why?  Supernatural faiths definite immutable moralities (right or wrong), atheist morality becomes subjective.  In organized society custody of data can be controlled by would be abusers.  Bad conclusions can form from bad data.  Authoritative secular control of data is rife with golden opportunity (for abuse).  Garbage in, garbage out.  Since data makes morality, subjective morality is only as objective as integrity of it’s data.  Not only is data integrity both very shaky and in motion, but cohesive patterns are elusive and often contradicted by the periphery.  Human beings are absurdly trusting.  Expecting other people to share their goals and means, when history is dominated by human trust betrayed.

Atheists are no different than non-atheists in waiting for faith to become fact.  A person can only propose a theory, and work toward realization of fact.  The atheist boasts their process of achieving fact is under their control, but it’s not.  Peer review only provides independent verification of an already confirmed fact.  It doesn’t make fact in a moment, it approaches consensus over time as growing scope is incorporated.  Supernatural faith is an exercise in pure patience, even after a successful realization. Control for the sake of itself is let go.  Exactly the virtue the atheist needs, to improve the quality and inclusiveness of their data, to protect against the panicked rush to conclusion encouraged by political cult.  The theorist of the provable, needs to resist pressure to rush to fact, exactly what ‘irrational’ objective morality offers.

The risk for atheists is the desperate scramble to improve humanities future.  The perpetual lust for tiny incremental hope, temporarily, when the process of fact provides none.  When endurance, patience and temperance are needed for the very scientific goal of quality of data.  Simply put, people want hope and react badly in it’s absence.  An inevitable state for an atheist pursuing pure science to it’s natural ends.  Most supernatural faith offers peace without explanation.  It seems to me as complex as it is, creating a state of philosophical coherency consisting of both supernatural and non supernatural faith is the simplest path forward.  Enjoying and utilizing the full human condition, rather than denying it.  Ultimately protecting humanity from further political cults.

Epilogue

Feedback has been interesting.  I stand by everything I have said, but I want to clarify for our society.  Full time atheism is neither superior nor inferior to individuals who can operate both with provable faiths and supernatural faiths.  They both have virtues.  The fantasy is the necessity of Antitheism, a freedom crushing edict designed to send the masses morally adrift.  Separating rights crushing cult from religion is SO TRIVIAL I can only conclude the lack will to do it is malicious.  Antitheism is an excuse.

I would expect a sceptical scientist with high EQ, a 160 IQ and self directed understanding of social history to excel at identifying objective morality, making them as durable against any cult as their dual faithed counterpart.  They could both still be vulnerable to political cult, but they’ve got the tools to beat it.   In our society, our best cases are being emulated poorly.  ‘Science’ is a branding exercise often used specifically to discourage questioning.  ‘Authority’ substituting for diligence and thought.  An abomination of the scientific method.

Political cult is here now, and it is growing.  Killing that absurdity means selecting peers by ability, not permission.  That in turn means building a scientific community of open access to source data (like journals.)  Simply choosing atheism as the only needed step toward objectivity and ability is ridiculous, and dangerous.  As one common example, supernatural faith organizations aren’t keeping important scientific papers behind a paywall, limiting participants.  Lack of objective morality is.

Edit 1/6: Major clarity improvements, please reread.

Edit 1/8: Added epilogue.

Is conspiracy theory useful?

van2

What is conspiracy theory?  It is a theory about two or more people conspiring against at least a third.  There have been have many proven theories throughout history.  The evidence that people do sometimes conspire against each other is so enormous, it indicates that people who disparage it have had a fully alien set of life experiences, or more likely, are attempting to distort a basic truth.  That conspiracy theories can be correct and lower personal risk if acted upon.  As a simple thought experiment, team sports are inherently conspiratorial.  Every competitive game played coherently by more than three players with any strategy or tactics whatsoever has been to some degree conspiratorial.

If it is clearly useful even to the simplest decision making, where does disdain for it come from?  Conspiracy theory is feared because excessive theory creation is a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.  Where the person suffering from it, will attach a malicious intent to most and sometimes even all actions of others.  This level of mistrust makes it impossible to participate in the inherent trusts of society (like freedom or friendship.)  Since the metamind’s alerts are so over-active, the rational mind never develops properly.  Trapped in desperate race to rationalize a flood of emotional warnings.  The worst cases of paranoid schizophrenia are a form of insanity, and may end in injuries and deaths.    Fears of an extreme paranoid, while often casually or even satirically misdiagnosed, are justified when one does actually occur.

Schizophrenia, the over-active conscience.

So what is Schizophrenia?  Like most disease it is a spectrum.  The metamind (the conscience) as a risk engine makes this easier to understand.  If the metamind is too active, it’s owner struggles.  Preparing against enemies with no purchase or little impact.  Suffering from various levels of paranoia.  In the most extreme case preparing against enemies that don’t exist.

What advantage in natural selection does a spectrum have?  Civgene helps put this in perspective.  Psychopaths pre-date non psychopath humans.  The number of psychopaths and their subsequent influence on societies barbarism, is highly variable.  Their population grows until they collapse a society and it’s economy.  A highly active metamind is paranoid in times of few psychopaths, and highly useful at psychopath saturation.  An individual with mild schizophrenia (a more active metamind), has natural resistance to psychopathy in others.

Abphrenia

Since the utility of conspiracy theory is subject to an external factor, the reverse is true as well.  A person with a least active conscience lands at the other end of spectrum.  The mental risk manger is less active than it needs to be or in the worst case entirely absent.  It fails to warn the rational mind about clear and present dangers.  The level of warning that would be a good fit in a society with few psychopaths, fails to detect conspiracies in a the corrupt one.

Why is abphrenia a disorder at all?   Trust can be a positive attribute in a trustworthy environment, but puts us at risk of protopsychopathy outside of one.  Emotional manipulation can reprogram the conscience that doesn’t protect itself.  Marketing, propaganda, and gaslighting are just a few common ways this can happen.  An underactive metamind puts it’s owner at risk of membership in cult, be it political or religious.

Protopsychopathy

Once someone is a protopsychopath, their conscience is owned and controlled by a person or organization of people outside themself.  So long as this control remains, they can be made to act perpetually against their own self interest.  In this light it is easy to see how a mildly paranoid metamind is a genetic advantage.  Conspiracy theories, in moderation or mild excess, protect you from emotional control.  Avoiding this situation entirely.

While paranoid schizophrenics are obvious, clashing with reality with strange views and actions, abphreniacs are usually passive and subtle.  How do you detect their condition?  If they have been captured as protopsychopaths, which is likely in corrupted society, it should be fairly easy.  Protopsychoapthy captures the entire metamind.  Not only ensnaring the risk manager and reprogramming it with false risks, but capturing the imagination as well.  Lack of ability to cite personal (unpopular) conspiracy theories, or the ability to contrive one on demand, indicates their subconscious is not their own.  If they can not it is likely that a psychopath or cult lurks in their past or present, controlling their ideas of risk.

Repair and progress

Not only can conspiracy theories be constructive, but their complete absence indicates emotional mind control.  The good news is that the metamind is to varying strengths anti-fragile.  When exposed to new emotional data, all but the strongest cases of protopsychopathy will fade or collapse.  The protopsychopath’s subconscious mind is not a two way radio.  If you are fighting a protopsychoapths programming head on, you are fighting a ghost.  Their program, if clever enough, was told in advance to look out for all new sources of information as defectors.  They will attack the people that try to help them most.  Rather than confront a protopsychopath directly, introduce them to information sources you trust.  Use inverse gaslighting techniques not to program them but to break their spell.  Subtly introducing small doses of truth and letting their subconscious fold them into their entire calculation.  A matchbook from an old neighborhood.  An open window on a holiday.  A memory of a success.  A night on the town with family.  Well timed humor.  A kind word.  A ‘forgotten’ magazine turned to the right page.  Any kindness in view.  Subtle repetition.

One day, with luck, the scales will be tipped, and their metamind will once again be open to new ideas, outside of others control.  If their abphrenia is not too severe, their freedom will be permanent.

 

Alliancism

choice

There is a problem with political progress today.  There is no word but fascism to describe a  change of government into a system of always putting subsidies for corporate profit ahead of freedoms, markets, or property, controlled by one person.  A trivial point, an oligarchy as the fascist is possible here too.  While the properties of fascism appear on a regular but limited basis, it’s absolute properties (absolute control) may not be present.  The transition can take place at any speed.  Freedoms can be lost for temporary profit, one freedom at a time.

Alliancism to fascism is much like socialism to communism.   In small doses both can have good short term consequences, but only for a temporary period of time.  Bringing in fractional banking in where there was none before, but cannibalizing the money supply to do it.  Growing economy of scale by ending trade disputes via hard power and eroding citizen rights to reach that goal.  Masking the tragedy of the commons with consumerism and gentrification.  Incrementally replacing debate with marketing, public relations and ultimately propaganda.   Replacing war with police action (conquest by peace).   Meant as a staged scale like socialism, alliancism is a partial implementation of fascism in a capitalist democracy (including republics) as it transitions between the optimal psychopathic cooperative (rights AND shortcuts) to rapid simplification and localization.  Ultimately, collapse.

I’m naming it after the alliance.  The closest relationship a person without a conscience (a psychopath) can have to a friendship.  Temporary and transitory in nature alliances can only exist while at each party thinks they are using the other to their ultimate advantage.  Where fascism immediately assumes all rights to it’s leader class, alliancism can erode rights one at a time.  Cashing in freedoms for temporary pricing advantages via market distortions.   This continues until the faith in currency and property are lost, and trust and investment ceases.

Open source and the complexity horizon

event-horizons

Open source really embodies three changes from typical hierarchical human social systems.  Gift culture, the right to fork, and perpetually increasing levels of complexity.  But these pieces are not all new, what changed to make open source happen?  What problem is it actually solving?

Gift culture is not new.  It is as old as currency.  Currency predated coinage as barter and skills and tasks.  So why did open source happen if not for gift culture?  What did change?  GPL.  A new kind of copyright license establishing the right to fork.   That’s how Linux, the trial of a hard right to fork based in law, succeeded.

The right to fork is not new.  Clearly established by the Christian reformation, and enabled by Gutenberg, the right to fork, until the 1980s was only established against ultimate authorities by war.  Civil rights in the freest countries acknowledged it and derived their rights from it, but did not explicitly establish as a basic rule of engagement and existence.  In politics threats of an ultimate fork were often sufficient to deter one.

What is new?  Complexity at modern levels is completely new.  Where is the complexity?  Not in tasks or problems to solve.  They are still simple to explain.  In communication.  In language.  What does language indicate?  Respect for stature and respect for others time.  Not always based in the currencies of accomplishment and skill, but as a product of many parallel societies.   A focus on the importance of social structure undermines ideas, there for innovation, and ultimately investment.   The social structure becomes impassible and no problems or tasks are solved.

Repairing social structure becomes a second level trap.  Meetings are held.  Seminars attended.  No, a fork is needed.   The problem needs to be solved in order to be assigned sufficient language to solve it.  The language to solve the problems have no parallel and therefore no linguistic identifiers for needed concepts.  The industry tries to solve this by pumping out new names and acronyms, but they are often the property of someone and useless for general progress.  This is a distraction.   Undeveloped ideas are slowed by the work needed to name them.  In the computerized, Internet connected world, the source code is language of progress.

The complexity horizon is reached when the task is so complex that less efficient top down problem solving can no longer function.  No amount of time spent can solve the problem from the top.  ‘Leader’ understanding doesn’t scale language fast enough.  The client can solve the problem better if administration doesn’t block him.  No right to fork means the client no longer invests.  Trust (predictability of future trends) is lost because their personal experience is impassible.  Future investment is diminished.

The perception that the ability to understand a problem and articulate it are always equal is a lie.  Therefore the complexity horizon occurs when comprehension of tasks outrun articulation of it.  False cooperation becomes apparent (bogus reciprocity) and destroys trust.  How can understanding outrun articulation?  The subconscious must participate in solving the toughest problems.  That is imagination.  Rationalization of conceptualization is being outstripped.  The metamind is doing the work but the rational mind and the mouth can’t keep up.  If a fork can be had, the solution can employ more minds at the task of articulation.  If it can’t the relationship between solver and the client grinds on failing to economize and destroying the trust needed for investment from both.

This would have been impossible to decipher without first exploring Civgene’s explanation of the metamind and it’s subconscious roles.  Based in fundamental behavioral contrasts between humanity and the animal kingdom, and the implications for economics.  Please explore those ideas at your leisure.

To help grasp this here are some practical applications of open source and roughly when their complexity horizons were reached.  Note that the open source alternatives begin to gain momentum at the complexity horizon but are not accepted as inevitable until some time later.

Linux: 1993-1995

The original, complete, experiment.  Operating systems are a software layer between varying hardware and the programs people are really trying to run.  Commercial operating systems were plagued with bugs and suffered from declining stability.  The cause was the non linear growth in variety of hardware a computer could be built with.  Communicating in code eliminated grafted societies and their cumbersome verbal language.

Bitcoin: 2008-2010

Currency looses it’s value to a client as quality of transactions become less visible.  The increasing non linear complexity of derivatives makes understanding any market impossible, ultimately damaging trade.  By solving they Byzantine generals problem the complexity of language is eliminated.  A small collaboration of solvers can write code to track and transfer currency for clients at a global scale in a transparent way.

Devops: 2013-2016

Internet applications are a way to handle reliability and scalability problems.  The non linear expansion of global cyberwarfare, and the non linear expansion of the internet of things (ultimately internet connected computers in all equipment) requires management of operating system functions at the network level or a systemic scale.  This seems to be the first multi-factor complexity horizon.  Devops holds another distinction as well.  It is a new system.  Not drawing on errors from past attempts to breach the horizon.

3d printers:  Soon, perhaps some breaches now.

An epic confluence of complicating factors defy description and add complexity for manufacturing in on demand customization, trade, natural resources, security, and in the race to the atomic scale.   3d printers are likely the first multi-factor complexity horizon with more than two vectors of complexity.  We have likely passed some of the factors already.

Who is in contol? Banking vs new technology

banking-vs-technology-v3

Thank you for your feedback an patience! Perhaps these new images will shed some light on how pack vs social topologies effect human economic behavior.

Here are the individual images, but they loose something without the dimension of time.  Just click on them for detail.

Inherent-technology-all-behaviors-fiat Inherent-technology-unique-behaviors-fiat Inherent-technology-common-behaviors-fiat

 

Feedback is welcome.  Thank you for your help!

Edit v.2 :  minor repairs.
Edit v.3 :  After some consideration realized fiat is a substitute for coinage.  The animation helped with perspective..

Note:  I have deleted the earliest post and version of this graph.  Not trying to be revisionist, it’s all up on github, but this graphic is so much more clear cut and understandable.