Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Antony Van der Mude's avatar

Two observations:

1. The analysis of dyadic complexity is oversimplified in a way that hides an important detail. For me and 20 others, there are about 200 possible dyads. But when it comes to 2,000 others, there are probably no more than 10,000 possible dyads due to time and effort and lack of interest. The problem is that the dyadic graphs are themselves objects with their own pair dyads, but this new level has emergent properties that do not exist on the lower level.

2. Instead of looking back at foundational documents, we should focus on the method of writing the foundational documents. I advocate a triadic approach. Based on my experience with Nuclear Power Plant operating procedures, there are three parts: the theory, the procedure and the validation metric. This is also true for software documentation: requirements/design/test. For example, the US Constitution contains only the procedures (the articles and amendments). Typically, people go back to documents like the Federalist Papers, which you quote. This theoretical justification should have been written into the Constitution alongside the procedures. The third part - the validation metric - is completely missing from the Constitution and even our current government. For example, the section on Presidential elections, besides having the theoretical justification for the way it is implemented, should also have a way of judging if the election was free and fair, whether it met the theoretical desiderata and a time-based analysis of long-term outcome that determines whether the outcome was a sound one. If the validation fails (such as unintended consequences), then there could be one of three reasons: the theory is wrong and needs to be updated, leading to new procedures and new validation criteria; the procedure is wrong and does not meet the theoretical needs; or the validation metric is wrong - it does not measure how theory and practice mesh. I am unaware of any government document anywhere that is written in this style.

Expand full comment
Matt Osborne's avatar

You didn't mention selection? The type of person who would go to Mars may be more likely to fit the survival framework. The vulnerable narcissists and power-trippers might choose to stay on earth, where they seem to run things. Martian society might be a different mix of people as a result.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts