[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

Magnus — 2006-11-27 12:28:06+0100

>>mG: -Huh? Tell me one and answer the one above!

>-M: I don’t quite remember, but I do think that I responded to you.

-It’s all in the forum. I can still not see any answer on the last question,

>-M: You are one of the more responsive ones, but you still have dodged.

-You mean: not agreed on what you say is logic. I have no problem with that since I have showed you several times that not all from you is logical.

>-M: Let there be issues – it is people’s response to these issues that is the way to evaluate peers. And I understand that there are more than

issues.
You seem to be for issues only while I am for issues and people.

-No, it is you who wants to make issues> issues + leaders. This is the great error of your logic. And doing so takes focus from the issues which are all corrupt leaders best tool. A structured way of working with issues which eliminates the arbitrary bias that always comes with personal aspects will lift the worst burden mankind ever had. Your logic is: issues + leaders is better than issues + leaders. Prooven wrong by history because leaders by RD is tested now for several hundreds years with known results.
Mine is: Issues + leaders can be worse than issues. And mine is not prooven wrong by history.

>> The value to mankind is that the faulty scientist can be questioned and > his conclusions too, nomatter what rank he has or will have tomorrow.

>-M: Fine – this is why SD2-S has open participation.

-Dont try to leave the discussion easy, The parallell was that the scientific world is a better way of working with issues than the election of reps.doring the same job. Participation is not the same as being on the same level. Participating citizen can always be ignored, the examples are many. You are self advocating numerous ways of filtering the words of public by the top ranked. (Because the will not stand the words of the lemmings)

>>mG: Do you call that a logic answer, supporting your ideas? I rest my > case.

-M: Where was your attack on my ideas? SD2-S is open, so that anyone can challenge ranked specialists.

-Only if he is interested in gaining rank. Many are not. They are just interested in one isse at the time. Which speaks for issues rather than individuals.

>>mG: You agree on that specialists can decend to goup thinking, but > generalists?

>-M: I’d say that ranked generalists would be the least group-thought prone.

-Maybe so but still a big problem, not adressed by SD2.

>>mG: Welcome to the politacal world! Today folked [fucked?]by generalist all over the > place, not doing much more than group thinking! This is the key problem with raising up individuals over arguments,…

>-M: Doink! Its not individuals vs arguments, its individuals-and-arguments vs. arguments.

-Still an unlogical answer, the problem is group thinking, coming from personal pleasure of beeing part of a group.

>-M: SD2-S uses people as the quality filters - this requires them to be ranked.

-And people (including reps) are arbitray. Wrong things can be filtered by arbitrary reasons against an individual or because of individual arbitrary reasons by the rep. AD adressed this. SD2 not. The bottom line is really: What is worst, that single issues gets arbitrary filtered away due to mass-phycoses or whatever you might refer to as lemminghood among the citizens, or, that whole areas or many ideas gets filtered away by a rep. just because they come from wrong originator or some personal causes never made public?

>-M: You want software without the hardware. :-(

-Yes, if the hardware is broken or corrupt and can be bypassed.

>-M: The measure of people’s positions on these issues - AD uses the lemming-algorithm.
By contrast, when SD2-S measures of people’s positions on issues, PageRank is used, which gives accumulative voting toward expert opinion.
This is quality filtering.

-You mean that selecting reps having certain positions in a debate is quality filtering? I call it hardware quality filtering without all facts known for the hardware.

>-M: C-algorithms are the ONLY way to measure peoples positions on issues.
This is why I made the c-algorithm the main focus since day one.

-It is time to go to the bottom with this. What do you mean centrality-algo?
Why is SD2 an C-algo and AD not?

>> By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm. >mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?

>-M: It has accumulative voting toward expert opinion.

-I’d call it accumulative voting toward experts. How their opinion is excercised is a different story.
AD is accumulative voting towards best solution as a whole for each single issue. Less unknown parameters.

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.

[top-politics] Re: PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.