|Daniel Berninger's - Quandaries -|
Saturday, November 09, 2002
Will Internet Restore Balance of Power?
Efforts at oppression fail to the extent communication helps the oppressed assemble collective opposition. Those seeking to oppress the people understand this and work hard to make sure the tools of communication operate in one direction and top down. This represents the status quo in America and most of the world. The Internet will eventually change this framework as it represents a fundamentally end user to end user communication medium. It resists efforts of the Oppression Incorporated to use it for their purposes. As a result, anyone that has access to the Internet and spends the time to take advantage of the various communication resources offered will resist the fear and complacency of the isolated. This connected and Internet savvy group remains very small. It seems unlikely that more than 1% of voting public gets a majority of their information and pursues a majority of their communication through the Internet. This leaves those that control the top down media in power. 99% of the population remains potentially under the spell of the wizard behind the curtain - afraid and complacent.
Activists against oppression might think adding Internet connectivity and education to their to do's.
Friday, November 08, 2002
Bush says _NOT
I can't help but feel uneasy when I hear President Bush quoted in the press. He seems to assert what he wants people to believe without concern for what people know to be true as in - we need to address evironmental problems by thinning forests. A reporter asked Dennis Hastert what he planned to do given the momentum from the election. He offered interest in working on health care and creating jobs. It occured to me all of this - say what you think they want to hear and do the opposite - followed the Verizon press release model.
Verizon launched its ONE-BILL service where they will send a post card to all customers and offer to consolidate local, wireless, DSL, and LD on a single bill. The VP of Consumer marketing had this to say. "Our goal is to simplify their lives," said Wagner. "It's one of the benefits consumers want the most from today's fully competitive telecommunications marketplace."
Telecom ranked a #2 in political donations over the last 5 years (slightly edged out by insurance companies for #1). Verizon's response to a reporters question - "We give to candidates who support pro-competitive, pro-consumer policy and those who we believe support good telecommunications policy," said Verizon spokeswoman Susan Cavender Butta.
I did manage to resolve the cognitive dissonance this causes by adding a _NOT whenever I hear a quote from someone in the Bush administration or Verizon or anyone else that thinks power automatically turns a lie into truth.
Leadership Versus Power
There seems two ways to assemble a large following. You can pay people to follow or you can inspire them to follow. The prior defines power and the latter leadership. No amount of money can turn power into leadership. It represents my hypothesis that pursuit of power defeats pursuit of leadership. People might leverage both in the early stages of building a following, but neither can scale without purity. People don't find themselves inspired to follow someone that has to buy their influence. People that buy influence can't afford the lack of direct control associated with leadership.
Power follows directly from money, so if you have one you have the other. There seems no short cut to leadership. People need to become aware and get inspired to follow. The situation implies prevail to the extent leaders accept money in exchange for compliance. Powerful people need only worry about leaders that refuse money or "maybe everyone has a price." Leaders have a more durable influence as they continue to inspire after their death. We carve the face of leaders on mountains, but the powerful need to buy their own memorials.
As a corollary, does this mean collective action does not happen without a leader? Can a group of leaders get things done or can the greatest collective impact only occur when a single inspirational leader emerges (e.g. a King or a Gandhi)?
Written Rules Imply Cheating
Humans document rules of behavior only with the expectation of the need to enforce the rules. In other words, the expectation and or reality of cheating. Human interactions proceed much more efficiently in the absence of rules to the extent participant behavior allows. This means no one participant can dominate the others. The maintenance of a civil relationship between the participants must represent the foremost priority for everyone or the interactions will devolve to cheating. Enter written rules as enforcement of unwritten rules can prove difficult. The process of enforcing the rules represents pure friction against progress. It serves a necessary function of containing bad behavior, but it does not further the progress of the larger enterprise.
The fact that enforcement includes the possibility of some players escaping blaim and others attracting blame without misdeeds makes it even more problematic. I personally worry about entering situations that require a written contract, in particular, with an entity that has resources and experience in making the words, interpretation, and enforcement uneven. One should have as many relationships as possible where a written contract does not seem necessary.
Harmony Worries Government More Than Anarchy
Government exists to cope with the potential for anarchy. Anarchy ensues when rules of engagement don't exist or fail to concern people. Rules only exist because people insist on conflict in pursuit of dominance. Harmony follows and rules become superfluous to the extent people realize relationship building provides an end in itself in the struggle to survive.
Government becomes superfluous to the extent harmony prevails. Government becomes increasingly important to the extent anarchy prevails.
Why would a government want harmony?
Civil Society and Rejection
Laws exists to frame rules of engagement in our struggle to survive, but it seems the rules revolve around dominance conflicts. One can focus on relationship building as a survival mechanism. Society does not assert explicit rules regarding relationship building. Rules exist nonetheless to help set expectations regarding the flow of interaction. One largely needs to stick with the protocol in order to maintain mutual comfort. Cutting corners or switching into dominance mode slows or destroys progress. This yields a dilemma. Relationship building requires adherance to a set of rules in pursuit of mutual appreciation. In other words, it depends very much on behavior and we don't have relationship police to enforce the rules (assuming they don't become criminal). This makes it necessary to screen carefully that we seek to engage in a relationships. Others we reject or at least contain. Rejection produces more emotional suffering than anything else that comes to mind. It seems a contradiction that a person interested in relationships should spend time rejecting people. The screening for who to reject seems very likely an imperfect process. The answer likely revolves around personal or group vulnerability. Personal strength maximizes the openness to new relationships. Emotional weakness can at some point close the possibility of relationships. Maybe it comes down to balance or weighing the potential for false positives (wrongly reject someone) or false negatives (accept someone that proves untrustworthy). Maybe there exists a mechanism to quickly escape from situations where the wrong person got through the screening system.
It seems like the absence of hard constraints (time, power relationships, family relationships, proximity) where everyone assembled only rewarding relationships one could take a more open approach. To the extent the openness yields a negative interaction, there exists no reason to persist in that linkage. One need on maintain the relationships that prove rewarding. This does not mean directly rejecting the person associated with the negative interaction, but just that we don't pursue negative relationships.
Thursday, November 07, 2002
Not as smart as we think
One gets the impression the general view considers the world as of 2002 as rather "advanced" and at some sort of an advanced degree of evolution. Maybe even a point of diminishing returns where we really don't have that much more to learn. What if we actually did not have a clue relative to the possible? What if really really did not have a clue relative to the readily realizable? I vote for the latter world view as it seems like society generally operates in a haze of perception that exists a significant distance from reality. As a result, we operate with a very distorted perception of what works and what does not and our state of progress at any given moment. Consider the task of driving a car with only a very vague sense of what lies ahead - those things we can predict readily - and a revisionist view of what we just past. Accidents and slow progress seem probable. That about sums of my sense of the present.
Maybe the situation flows from the fact we don't have good measures for the state of progress. We use wealth as a measure of progress for individuals, but that measure does not seem to get much attention regarding the larger society or at least individual wealth seems quite satisfactory for those in a position to make things better.
Country without borders
The Internet seems like a country without borders to its users. It seems like a rogue state to the folks that presently control countries. The U.S. gave life to the original idea for connecting different types of computers on a single network, but the U.S. falls farther and farther behind in adopting the Internet as it works harder and harder to fight the Internet.
Miracle it works at all
Do you know how humans manage to get along at all? It seems a miracle. It does seem we have some control over whether we dish out good experiences or bad. I have good experiences and bad. The determination of which way it goes can depend on both or we can seek to control the outcome for ourselves. Keeping interactions with others positive requires varying degrees of strength. No strength if the person also seeks a positive interaction. Positive means self reinforcing. Perhaps, a significant amount of strength if the person seeks to assert a negative interaction.