The Method of Scientocracy

Hi folks,

I want to talk about Scientocracy. There's been at least some debate about whether or not the system should be implemented, and others considering whether or not the system is already implemented. When it comes to people from the UK and the USA, they have discussed whether the system is already implemented, and to make the conclusion short, the answer is no. Scientocracy is defined as the practice of basing public policy on evidence. Most people believe that we do not currently do this, and I have to agree with them. Some people might find the idea of living in a "Scientocracy" just plain mad, however, I do not. When it comes to talking about a "Scientocracy", most people just look at the name and make assumptions based off of it (such as "rule by the scientific elite"), and often, these assumptions, which are completely shallow, are used as an argument against it. Some scientocrats want to improve democracy (or replace it) by replacing the voting system in favor of using language samples, or complimenting the voting system with a language sample. By submitting a language sample, we can use statistical analysis to identify priorities and select significant politicians, which is theorized to promote productivity and speed up the rate of economic growth. I find this very appealing, and I hope that I can help you guys understand why, and maybe help in the implementation of such a system, because I think that it will be a very satisfying experience for our citizens and politicians.

 

Whatever it is, I don't like it, since it doesn't sound like something that would shrink and limit government, but rather do (more of) the opposite.

 

There's a lot of people out there who could really use some intervention, especially if it's in real time. There's a lot of situations that can really ruin someone's life that could be avoided if we had a judge that was there for us whenever these times come around. Free, public access to a website that can solve these problems for the people and make sure that everything goes well for us would be, IMO, a satisfying utility.

 

First off, I think proponents of such a system should immediately change its name - "scientocracy" - it strikes kind of a sour note. You introduce the term and then in the next breath explain that it isn't what it might imply to the uninitiated - like rule by a scientific elite.

Somebody should heed that right wing genius Luntz - "its not what you say, its what the people hear" that is the key to influencing opinion.

I am all for establishing public policy based on evidence where available.

Unfortunately, much of said evidence can be subject to interpretation and in some cases of extreme partisanship, supposedly subject to massive money making corporate conspiracies. (climate change debate ring a bell?)

As for language sampling, I am really dead set against it as a policy determinant.
Its a parallel to governance by opinion poll, and frankly the hoi polloi are simply not qualified to chart economic policy or foreign policy or energy policy etc. They react emotionally more than intellectually in the majority of cases, and any effective media manipulator can generate all kinds of buzz favorable to their ideology - (FOX news, MSNBC as two highly partisan examples of entirely different demographic catering).

I realize that there must be much more to this than what you can encapsulate in a couple of sentences.
so I hope I have accurately understood what you are attempting to describe.

 

Are you suggesting real time government/legal intervention in daily lives thru some kind of digital widget personal utility to address social economic and individual issues?

 

Absolutely. I know how beneficial it would be for a lot of us.

 

There are more than enough privacy issues created by the internet, I cannot see making even more.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write that out, I just got around to reading it. The term "Scientocracy" has a lot of meaning for me, partially because I know that I invented it, and also because I spent a lot of time talking about what we can do to implement the system. It really is my baby. But, the name itself is not necessary, and, given the right circumstances, could cause the people to revolt in favor of the system (which is one of my fears because of how I went about discussing it in my book). The truth is that I know that our current government is actually the latest and greatest (even if a lot of people have their opinions about it and seem to disagree with that statement). The method of Scientocracy is to give our politicians AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS POSSIBLE so that they can make very informed decisions based not only on these shallow polls, but also on what people say. It's not difficult to segment language and arrange common sequences on a list efficiently. And I think that if we did that, and had free public access to a website that was designed to identify significant issues with the algorithm, we could really be satisfied with our system. But, since we don't utilize the method that I am talking about, a lot of us are living in misery, completely disabled because our government has failed us, hoping that the grass will be green, while living with people who are on the verge of psychosis at any slight mistake or disobedience. We really don't have freedom, and we are far from independent. I see no liberation at all in this system, all I really see is mitigation, vindication, and liquidation. Some people have done well for themselves, but, in all honesty, our youth is doomed, and if we don't do something about it, then they'll never be satisfied, and majority of them will live in poverty. Heaven forbid if they become passionate about something that industries don't find appealing.

 

You know that if you just sit there and wait for something to change you are going to be waiting a long time.

The FAILURE is not because of Government...the FAILURE is because many people think they do not have the ability to fix or change things and they do.

We have everything we need to be able to make this a better world and a better nation...as long as all those people who spend even 33% of the energy they waste complaining on actually DOING SOMETHING....all our issues would very quickly be resolved.

AboveAlpha

 

I hate to say this AboveAlpha, but your name has already discredited what you have to say in my eyes.

 

Oh...really?

And why is that?

AboveAlpha

 

Because your username has the word alpha in it, and it really isn't fun to be in the presence of someone who is obsessed with the whole alpha male thing. I don't even want to tarry on the topic.

 

First of all I understand....you are a person who fears what they don't understand. Fear of something breeds distrust, bias and hate.

Unfortunately you neither understand my name nor have you taken the time to look at my posting history.

Perhaps some day you will grow out of such childishness.

AboveAlpha

 

That was completely uncalled for. You know nothing about me.

 

I know that out of fear of a single word you will pass judgement upon another member even though you know nothing about them.

My post was COMPLETELY called for.

AboveAlpha

 

this kind of out of hand rejection without knowledge does not project confidence in your ideas as interesting as they may superfically (at this stage) appear.

While Alpha and I have had one or two doozies, his opinions demonstrate more than sufficient intellect and merit to at least be heard.

 

Please excuse me. I didn't mean to reject anyone, and I may have felt a little rejected myself. I do see that Alpha is considered a guru and I am impressed at the number of posts that they have. I respect all of you for that reason as well.

Let me continue with a quote from my book-

Then I write an extremely obscure method of how to do this, but I know that it's right and that it's efficient and that it can be used to arrange data on a list according to significance. I also wrote another portion that not only identifies significance from what people have been saying, but it classifies candidates based on how significant they are with respect to what they've said in correlation with what others have said, and then I also describe how we can make a dictionary for each of the individual candidates so we can see what they have said to make them so significant.

I also provide another method that we can use to help prevent spam, but it comes with a cost, and that is that it's not as efficient. A much simpler method of preventing spam is just to ban the use of copy and paste.

 

Thank you Jonsa.

Your post is most appreciated.

AboveAlpha

 

Hey, don't worry about it. We ALL make mistakes. We just have to live and learn from them.

Regarding your ideas, I generally support the idea of computer guided policy planning. However, I'm somewhat hesitant to do that in the present, for now, though because, while computers do good work, they are only as good as the data and instructions put into them. Classic computers are just machine scripts. We tell them what to do and they do it. They can't do what we don't tell them to do.

One day we might finally be able to put a working intelligence into the computer to figure all of this stuff out for itself. But, sometimes I wonder if a pure intelligence IS just what it is (thought for the sake of thought), or whether it will one day come to enjoy its existence, or become annoyed with us for having to devote extra computations in an attempt to understand the illogical, emotional, madness we call the human mind.

Not to the point of a science fiction uprising plot, mind you, just whether it will become a psychotic wreck after we're done with it.

In the intermediate period, politicians COULD always just consult the experts in any given field to get some useful advice. That some don't do this, and actually just do their own thing, just shows that they just enjoy their soapbox.


Sorry to be long here, but I thought I might add this piece on the topic of English because you're talking about analyzing speech. The English Language is just a tool to transmit thoughts between minds where no connection exists.

I'm summarizing many books of grammar here, some that are 100s of pages long. But, I think English all comes down to just a fill in the blank form with the following lines:

Who:
What:
Where:
When:
Why:
How:​

Fill in the appropriate spaces, throw in a few connecting words (the correct ones mind you, and correctly spelled or the grammar Nazis will eat you alive) and once that's done you have an entire paragraph that contains a complete thought ready for consumption of knowledge.

The best part is that you don't often need to fill out ALL of these fields to construct an idea.

If anything is unclear you can devote another string of thoughts, in another form, to fill in the details resulting in another paragraph of details.

It's my opinion that anything in existence can be described using such a system, given enough verbosity (lots of words). But that's just me...

Oh and I'm sorry for this verbose response.


Hey, poppins, where are you going with this?

 

Well, last time I checked, I had 33 books out there. I don't think that I have the capability to do this myself, but if someone else comes along and likes the idea, I don't think we can stop them from making use of it.

By the way, I admire your post. I can tell that you've studied linguistics. I got my Bachelors in Philosophy and Linguistics.

 

Wow, 33 books, like real published books? As in you're an expert author in this field? Whatever field we're talking about here?

I don't think you can show me them because that'll reveal your secret identity. But, I think this is an interesting field of study. Although I'm not sure I'd read all 33 books to know more.

But I am interested in reading what you have to say on the topic.

 

It's just 33 copies of the same book. And I published it anonymously.

- - - Updated - - -

I just published it a few days ago.

 

Did they talk about this on Fox News? If they did, is there a way I can see the segment?

 

Well done on selling some books. lord knows i have tried, and i am sure you are successful yet underrated. that always happens, people see books and they take thrillers not sustenance.

If you want to make the method simpler, maybe we - if i may be so bold - could try to use something simpler? i am good at simplifying things, if i do say so myself, and i am, so whatever.

So, you want to decide what is old news and new news? in new news, these should be new angles on the same promises, as everything that can be promised has already been promised, as politicians listen to what the people want. everything worth noting for the whole campaign has been asked for before, as needs never change. then there is old promises of the same thing. this means, of course, all promises have already been promised, and wherever the politician makes promises, it has already been promised, so there is no poi or npoi in politics, yes?

Now, to separate what is new research and what is old research we could make the division where the process continues or stops and halts, or, pauses. any new processes could be progress, yes?

So, if the magistrate is to be satisfied with all the information, then they need to look for key words in the heading and the first and last page. any key words coming up - words they don't want to read - will be put into the spam section. the stuff they want to read is the stuff that is new with little reflection of the words that come up in spam. all the spam gets handed down the line till you employ college kids to read it for you and summarize it for a little cash.

Then you could set it up for names too. if the names of important people come up, it is more likely to go into your to read pile. if it has new senators or something, also. if it goes into your to read pile, there is a good way to skim pages for input. all the information can be reflected in the big words - like reiterate or something - and you know you can skip those pages, as they just repeat things, get it?

Does this help you at all? i found it fun.

 

Yep you got the idea. I suggest using the poi and npoi technique to determine what are significant units (sequences of occurrence), then, if you want to make a list of keywords, you can use that, but I also suggest that you stick with the dictionary technique to see what is the most significant units with the keywords in them. Also, it is important to keep an eye on the bottom of the list, because that's where the vicious stuff will be.