Evolution of Freedom
Part IV: Collective intelligence - Chapter 45
Open decisions
For us to achieve better long-term outcomes with our decision-making, I propose two bold hypotheses:
28. No decision should ever be final. Every decision, even ones with momentous consequences–or especially those–should be constantly open to re-evaluation and readjustment.
29. To enable better decision-making, big decisions should first be broken down into their constituent parts, which can then be indefinitely adjusted as facts change. This means that one big decision could actually consist of 10 or more smaller decisions, and only their cumulative result would determine the outcome of the big decision. This would allow for a more nuanced and responsive decision-making process
29. To enable better decision-making, big decisions should first be broken down into their constituent parts, which can then be indefinitely adjusted as facts change. This means that one big decision could actually consist of 10 or more smaller decisions, and only their cumulative result would determine the outcome of the big decision. This would allow for a more nuanced and responsive decision-making process
One of the problems with decision-making in general is the path dependence of old decisions. Every choice we make, every fork in the road we take, often precludes all the other choices once we reach the next set of choices. Since we have shut the door on particular options in the past, they can’t even be considered today, as going back and changing everything would incur tremendous costs. Choosing certain technical standards, for example, can have enduring legacies.
Not all decisions are chiseled into stone like this, however. We should be able to actively adjust bad and costly decisions as soon as their problems become evident. Every generation should also be granted the right to live according to the decisions they make themselves and not the decisions their dead ancestors have made. When facts change, so should the responses to them. In order to make better decisions we have to make sure bad decisions of the past don’t prevent us from making better ones in the present.
This brings us to the thirtieth and final hypothesis:
Not all decisions are chiseled into stone like this, however. We should be able to actively adjust bad and costly decisions as soon as their problems become evident. Every generation should also be granted the right to live according to the decisions they make themselves and not the decisions their dead ancestors have made. When facts change, so should the responses to them. In order to make better decisions we have to make sure bad decisions of the past don’t prevent us from making better ones in the present.
This brings us to the thirtieth and final hypothesis:
30. The decisions we make should not be binary in nature. Citizens are also expected to accurately and responsibly calibrate their level of certainty and conviction on a given answer. All decisions should thus be made on a sliding yes/no scale from +100 to −100, with zero being neutral. +50 indicates a regular yes vote, +25 means that you are only half as certain, and +100 means you are absolutely certain. This means that by having absolute certainty you can double the weight of your vote.
Every participant is expected to adjust their scale when facts and their own certainty about their answer change. Bad decisions can thus always be overturned, and when they are, they have to be reconciled with all the other decisions that followed from the initial bad decision.
Old, established decisions can be overturned even after many years just by enough people moving their sliders on the yes/no axis. This practice aims to harness the wisdom of the crowds. The collective signal sent by everybody’s constantly adjusting answers is in itself a valuable sensor and decision-making tool that provides valuable feedback to all participants. This encourages people to stay vigilant about the changing circumstances affecting cells and prevents myopia from taking hold.
The constantly adjusting decisions don’t produce simple yes/no answers, but generate graphs that move over time. These changes also leave a mark on a citizen’s decision register, where they can be viewed like Wikipedia’s edit history by others who participate in the cell or forum in question.
An answer’s evolution over time becomes part of a citizen’s internal reputation within the project and directly impacts how others in the project perceive them as a collaborator. While always taking the extreme ends on the sliding scale by voting +100 or −100 on every issue effectively doubles the weight of your vote, it also reveals a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty, which will affect your reputation as a collaborator and decision-maker.
The ability to make good choices over time confers respect and potentially leadership status to certain individuals, while consistently making bad choices can disqualify you from positions of authority. Depending on the compensation model followed by the cell, the level of respect you receive from your peers can have a direct impact on the hourly pay you receive.
The way we delegate our decisions is also registered on our internal reputation board and we become responsible for our own decisions and those our delegates have made for us. In the internal reputation system, delegated decisions should be visually distinguished from decisions made by the person themselves. Until a person confirms that they agree with a vote they have delegated, its weight is counted as only half. This means that if your delegate votes +50 on a decision, its weight is initially calculated as +1.25 until you confirm it, when it turns into +1.5.
Since only citizens who work for a cell or consume its goods and services are allowed to vote, all citizens have at least some skin in the game. The outcomes of the decisions have real life effects on the citizens who make them. Because our decisions become part of our internal reputation, the importance of making good decisions grows even further. These incentives are purposefully built into the system as a feedback loop to make everybody more responsible for their choices.
Since every citizen has a long row of decision sliders for every project they are engaged in, your ability to delegate well becomes paramount. We simply can’t engage in every decision at the level of engagement required by high-quality decisions. When you don’t have time or energy to participate in one of the many decisions, it is important that all your votes have a trusted and respected default representative who can help make better decisions for you.
Most people prefer to focus on other things in life than engage in all the minute decisions we are allowed to participate in. This is something we should just admit upfront.
The purpose of identifying and employing the best voting procedures is to elevate the quality of decision-making as high as possible. This is done by keeping the decision-making bodies (the cells and forums) appropriately sized, with a narrow focus. The decisions should be made locally, by those who are affected by the decisions and by those who receive direct sensory information about the phenomena in question.
These people are then encouraged to delegate their decisions to experts, those who are more involved, and those who accurately represent their views and values. This would result in a type of democratically empowered grassroots technocracy, in which citizens temporarily empower their chosen experts to represent them in the various institutions they are a part of.
Old, established decisions can be overturned even after many years just by enough people moving their sliders on the yes/no axis. This practice aims to harness the wisdom of the crowds. The collective signal sent by everybody’s constantly adjusting answers is in itself a valuable sensor and decision-making tool that provides valuable feedback to all participants. This encourages people to stay vigilant about the changing circumstances affecting cells and prevents myopia from taking hold.
The constantly adjusting decisions don’t produce simple yes/no answers, but generate graphs that move over time. These changes also leave a mark on a citizen’s decision register, where they can be viewed like Wikipedia’s edit history by others who participate in the cell or forum in question.
An answer’s evolution over time becomes part of a citizen’s internal reputation within the project and directly impacts how others in the project perceive them as a collaborator. While always taking the extreme ends on the sliding scale by voting +100 or −100 on every issue effectively doubles the weight of your vote, it also reveals a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty, which will affect your reputation as a collaborator and decision-maker.
The ability to make good choices over time confers respect and potentially leadership status to certain individuals, while consistently making bad choices can disqualify you from positions of authority. Depending on the compensation model followed by the cell, the level of respect you receive from your peers can have a direct impact on the hourly pay you receive.
The way we delegate our decisions is also registered on our internal reputation board and we become responsible for our own decisions and those our delegates have made for us. In the internal reputation system, delegated decisions should be visually distinguished from decisions made by the person themselves. Until a person confirms that they agree with a vote they have delegated, its weight is counted as only half. This means that if your delegate votes +50 on a decision, its weight is initially calculated as +1.25 until you confirm it, when it turns into +1.5.
Since only citizens who work for a cell or consume its goods and services are allowed to vote, all citizens have at least some skin in the game. The outcomes of the decisions have real life effects on the citizens who make them. Because our decisions become part of our internal reputation, the importance of making good decisions grows even further. These incentives are purposefully built into the system as a feedback loop to make everybody more responsible for their choices.
Since every citizen has a long row of decision sliders for every project they are engaged in, your ability to delegate well becomes paramount. We simply can’t engage in every decision at the level of engagement required by high-quality decisions. When you don’t have time or energy to participate in one of the many decisions, it is important that all your votes have a trusted and respected default representative who can help make better decisions for you.
Most people prefer to focus on other things in life than engage in all the minute decisions we are allowed to participate in. This is something we should just admit upfront.
The purpose of identifying and employing the best voting procedures is to elevate the quality of decision-making as high as possible. This is done by keeping the decision-making bodies (the cells and forums) appropriately sized, with a narrow focus. The decisions should be made locally, by those who are affected by the decisions and by those who receive direct sensory information about the phenomena in question.
These people are then encouraged to delegate their decisions to experts, those who are more involved, and those who accurately represent their views and values. This would result in a type of democratically empowered grassroots technocracy, in which citizens temporarily empower their chosen experts to represent them in the various institutions they are a part of.
