CS855 - Week 5 Agora-like Democracy of Group-thought or Western Propaganda of Ephemeral Fairness

The somewhat vague notion of a technically defined neo-democracy (technology of democracy) briefly outlined in the New Agora article in Schriebman & Christakis (2008) and their earlier works, posits that a more effective group analysis of a complex problem can be rendered by a more democratic notion of collaboration, interchange, and minimalized group influence on individuals, otherwise known in the systems integration vernacular as spreadthink (via ineffective and overly divergent strong individual and small subgroup memetic forces) and groupthink (via a pseudo convergence of compromises forced by coercive majorities or super majorities) (Warfield & Teigen, 1993; Warfield, 1995). The erroneous priority effect (EPE) was mentioned as a major force in the fallacy of industrial group decision-making. In the EPE, narrow-minded philosophies (localisms, nationalisms, etc.) exert an overwhelming (biased) effect on decision-makers. The New Agora approach based on concepts of the Structured Design Dialogue Process (SDDP), is a decidedly integrative approach to systems thinking as pioneered by many early systems thinkers, including Warfield during the second half of the 20-th century as a result of post-positivist and post-modernist methodological philosophies. These two notions or forces of influences on thinking within groups are at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum of group influence reasoning. While the reasoning behind the two prior discussed methodologies of group analysis, the NGT and DM-type collaborative processes are based on some (albeit pre-mature and incomplete scientific proof) experiential, qualitative, and minimal quantitative studies, the democratization of group analysis via the New Agora approach, specifically through the use of the SDDP, seems ad hoc at best. The SDDP is a dialogue clarifying (inquiry) process ladder that is comprised of 10 sub-stages (Schriebman, & Christakis, 2008). The SDDP consists of seven construct category modules which in turn contain other sub-construct components totally 31 overall as following: (1) 6 consensus methodologies, (2) 7 language patterns, (3) 3 application time phases, (4) 3 key role responsibilities, (5) four stages of interactive inquiry, (6) collaborative software and facility, and (7) 6 dialogue laws. Using this architecture, a sequence of 10 inquiry steps can be ordered as in the diagram below:

The SDDP Process Stages

The SDDP architecture is then utilized as a toolkit for executing the 10 inquiry steps. The assumption in this process is that at each stage of enlightenment of a starting complex problem, deconstruction is manifested, followed by effective analysis and solution consensus. What was not emphasized in the article is that in real group problem solving, this sequence may be non-linear, chaotic, and unordered. It may also be partially overlapping and interlaced with punctuated progression and digression. Clear problem-solving does not go in lock-step in a consistent direction (Aha moments are mostly unpredictable and many times acausal). How can a convergence of solution be be proven? The emphasis in the SDDP is on the convergence to a more meaningful and effective problem solution based on gathering consensus and understanding of mutual associations of ideas. The ultimate Follettian dictum of the effective "whole group" convergence of ideas based on modes of association as opposed to representation weighting is highlighted in the SDDP subprocess inquiries. Each of the subprocesses in the SDDP has merit in the philosophical and logical interpretation of interactions and ideas of humans. For example, abductive reasoning as posited by Peirce, combines interation of deductive and inductive reasoning and logic decision-making. However, it seems that representational bias can still creep into a process such as the vote and rank subprocess. One subprocess may amplify or dampen another subprocess or sequence of such. This may seem to produce an equivocation of ideas. However, it is not guaranteed a solution or convergence. All the SDDP processes are more qualitative than quantitative.Are there published or well thought out studies and results depicting the effectiveness or improvement of operations utilizing the SDDP process or New Agora-like democratization of negotiated consensus analysis? Effective reasoning, democratic or not, does not equate to effective scientific, empirical, or causal effectiveness or reality (precision of prediction or generalization).

The philosophical approach used by the authors of the New Agora, based on the early management systems thinking of Follett in Graham (1996), includes the theoretical democratization of how ideas from individuals involved in a group approach to solving or understanding a complex issue or problem, can be harmonized into an optimized consensus statement describing a proposed solution or clarification to that problem. There are many assumptions implicitly made in such a proposition or thesis. Inherent in this endeavor is the proposed development of a geometry of languaging as the tool for transmission of collaboration dialogue leading to the author's notion of a technology of democracy. Geometry instills the notions of distance, proportion, and angular directions. There were no notions of distance (more generally divergence measures), proportionality or angular direction in any of these so-called technologies of democracy. Is this a case of a facetious mathematization of a social notion of relationship or just a poetic systems license to generalize? I think not because systems can be defined as succinct mathematical objects using Category Theory, a branch of meta-mathematics. In fact, a systems category can be a generalized template for any physical and/or mental framework (Doering & Isham, 2007; Doering & Barbosa, 2011).

Mary Parker Follett

The largest of such assumptions is that of the existence of the convergence of ideas, in general, for random or somewhat unknown characteristics of individual in a group. The SDDP process includes sub-processes that endeavor to unpeel the hidden agendas of individuals in order to come to a more comprehensive approach to optimally efficient, but democratic consensus. Democratic results are not a causal endpoint to democratic processes. The panoramic question is: how does a process (if at all) produce a nearly whole solution acceptable to most if not all subgroups of the decision-making or influencing population? I believe this problem can be solved in many cases using massive statistical computation via tools such as Monte Carlo modeling of human reasoning and affective emotional decision-making. All human decision-making is based on micro-emotions due to the construction of our neural structure. The homunculus effect of embedded spirit or mind (there is something inside our souls and minds separate from our computing brain) versus the universal computational neural processor argument seems to point to the controversy of the individual-group dichotomy of decision-making and its post-decision interpretation (was it a truly fair and democratic decision?). Group decision-making cannot be interpreted in individual terms because of the psycho-physical (spacio-temporial perceptual differences between two separable observers) separation of senses.

The endeavors to come to group decision-making consensus via the SDDP or any other individual gathering inquires are doomed to failure because of the continuum of separation. In this regard though, subconvergence (suboptimality) of ideas may happen (its better than wide open disagreement). In this respect, the SDDP can be used to home in on consensus interpretations for my proposed innovation of human-machine entities in the future. No one will agree on what separates a human and a well enough conceived humanoid machine in the future. This will require a consensus building process, aka, an SDDP-like approach to pseudo-equivocal convergence of ideas. This consensus process will have social, psychological, and technical implications for nearly every aspect of human living because it defines a new techno-socio-economic structure for product development, knowledge, and human motivation for advancement into the next stage of trans-human existence-the hyper-existence of all living beings.

I want to briefly close with an historic critique of the use of the Agora analogy for democracy. Democracy did not start in Agora nor was it pure. It percolated through the suburban intellectual revolutions happening around Greece, more specifically, Athens more than three hundred years BC. Agora was a metropolis phenomena 4 centuries after proto-Christianity started from its intellectual roots in the Gnostic tradition. Proto-Christianity broke down the Gnostic because of their love for reasoning. Agora consisted of various classes of citizens including slaves. Democracy did not exist for them. Agora was more of a science-based summit for the world at the time. Therefore, it tried to minimize the influences of all superstitious religious zealots, including the Roman and Christian mythologies of the time. Both of these cultures slowly destroyed this summit of knowledge through emotional reasoning of survival of religious memes. So, maybe the democratization of group decision-making should be based on proto-Greco democracy, with all its warts (they had fewer slaves, but nonetheless, had class separation). Everything, it seems, including democracy, has a relativistic interpretation by humans to themselves and their neighbors. That relativism may also be the largest reason for the failure of any equivocation of ideas in anu society.

Finally, the very act of linearizing the process of progress and group decision-making with the introduction of a matrix-like approach to stages of inquires of a complexity seems to fly in the face of evolutionary development itself. It seems to indicate that the new technology of democracy approach of the authors is really a controlled attempt devoid of evolutionary processes, (i.e., it is dictated by other processes in a contrived manner). The real new technology of democracy might be better suited or claimed by the phenomenal metamorphosis of the web to the semantic web and then to s future version of a hyper-intelligent web (a paper I am writing presently).

References

Doering, A., & Isham, C. J. (2007). A topos foundation for theories of physics: Formal language for physics. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703060

Doering, A., & Barbosa, R. S. (2011). Unsharp values, domains and topoi. arXiv:1107.1083v1 [quant-ph].

Graham, P. (2003).(ed.). Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management. Beard Book, Inc.

Schriebman, V., & Christakis, A. N. (2008). New agora: New geometry of languaging and new technology of democracy. Updated version 2008. Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1, 1, 15-31.

Warfield, J. N. (1995). Spreadthink: Explaining ineffective groups. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 12, 1, 5–14.

Warfield, J. N., & Teigen, C. (1993). Groupthink, clanthink, spreadthink, and linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations 4-5, 31, Institute for Advanced Study of the Integrative Sciences, George Mason University.