Social media is good at mobilizing, not at organizing because they have weak relationships

This great talk inspired me to explain things another way.“Participatory decision making at scale”, is great, but to make it effective, it must have trusted relationship patterns in order to allocate resources effectively and provide feedback pathways.

… movements today have to move beyond participation at great scale very fast and figure out how to think together collectively, develop strong policy proposals, create consensus, figure out the political steps and relate them to leverage, because all these good intentions and bravery and sacrifice by itself are not going to be enough … to update democracy, we are going to need to innovate at every level, from the organizational to the political to the social.

Powerful interests easily subvert movements because of those weak relationships. Social media is mostly typical “broadcast 1 to many”, just faster and easier. Like the fractal they are mobilizing to deal with, the loud, and or, many voices of a movement drown out the little voice. Emotions can trump reason. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. This manifestation of bureaucracy has not been solved because the initial conditions are pretty much the same as the bureaucracy being “fought” against. So once the extra emotional currency is spent, everything dissipates back toward the status quo.

Castpoints provides an autonomous decision and relationship best practices framework for getting stuff done. A little timid voice has just as much place and power as a well monied voice.

A decision in a vacuum fades (which is fortunate for poor decisions). Relationships without inspiration fade. We want inspired decisions and inspired relationships to implement and manage the inspired decisions.

Everyone understands that group decisions made by “voting” are terribly ineffective, if not often counter productive. Especially as a group grows.

People are well on the path to better decision making by associating some scarcity to how often they opine (idea futures, etc.). Logistics is also rather advanced in some cases, although not ubiquitously available. But nothing integrates human endeavors from A to Z, and so the very significant emergent properties that stem from massive integration are not realized.

Interesting emergent properties happen with that is done. For instance, the lower class and upper class fade away. With CP, almost anyone can make a good living, and they are not debt slaves. The upper class looses it’s allure because it’s more fun to manage a manageable amount of stuff and enjoy yourself. Amassing great wealth can still easily happen, but what’s the point? With Castpoints, the primary point is having fun, which rarely takes great wealth. We all have 24 hours in the day. Would you rather allocate your time to having fun, which results in money? Or focus on money which does not always result in fun?

Real AI does not need a goal. Valuable stuff simply emerges from participation.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s