About William

Bio

Just trying to do something worthy in memory of my beloved.

An idea worth spreading

The Co-opernation/Awesome, Incorporated

I'm passionate about

Healthcare, Data, David Attenborough, Jumping Spiders, The Deep Sea, SMBC

Comments & conversations

187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?
Oh! Just something to add! None of that means there aren't lots of ways for options to be set up that reward dedication to commitments, after all that can be a very valuable trait. So there's room for journeyman type systems, achievements (heh), and all the rest. Those would all just be options, valued as appropriate rather than turned into debt hammers. Lots of ideas were left out because it's been more a drive to get things read, y'know? I've got no real media skills, and there's lots of subtle interplay that it's difficult to get into without turning it into a novella. I was going to actually do another post here asking for help now that we've got something more specific (since that was invariably the big issue last time around) I think we all have to deal with that in one way or another. . . our real vision is too broad in scope and filled with 'obvious' things to be expressed in it's entirety, but when we get around to providing detail we risk alienating those who had similar visions but took different paths and also getting so attached to one particular elegant nuance that we disregard approaches without it. I've tried as much as possible to keep that in my head over the last couple of years, but I still catch myself there plenty. This is HARD! :)
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?
I think you summarized where we'd run into some concerns fairly well. Nicely observed! Honesty, when it comes to any sort of principles we're not individually very legalistic. . . rather we tend to think in scenarios and stories. . . and with how much variety there is even in how we interpret phrases I kind of figured it was a fools errand to depend on them much. So instead I like to think of them as stage setters, and I think it's the whole 'I'm making this commitment as part of getting a job and I'd hate to get fired!' angle that makes them valuable. We don't hire people who struggle with the concept. We worry about those who DO when we run out of those who DON'T. (Not that we're neglecting anyone, but for the sake of argument . .in the first stage we're focused on the already converted) With respect to power and consent, I'm a very big fan of putting a firm line out there because that's where the bar is SUPPOSED to be set on an individual basis, and that's something people should always be able to fall back on if things have gone horribly awry. That doesn't mean that groups and individuals won't have plenty of interactions, and there are layers of consent and we frequently give others 'power' temporarily. . . that's how we get economy of scale, after all! What it DOES mean is that consent line is the final straw. There is no ability to be TOLD by somebody else to hurt anybody else, because you're also not capable of giving up that right (in the Awesome, Inc. view). And that's where the mind hack is in that one, it's a right that you're allowed to give up, thereby removing one of the most common rationalizations for doing horrible things in this world. That being said, there are probably even better approaches, but I had to start somewhere! :)
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?
Yeah, your phrasing was more artful. Agreed. :) "I think you me and most would like to cultivate what simplifies and facilitates being good and getting useful things done..." That is definitely part of the dream, yes. :) A major component of the whole Awesome, Inc/Coopernation idea is to use the hiring line both as a way to get in some basic principles on hiring (REALLY basic, third grade stuff) and to let people move into situations where they're having a good life while not being constantly driven to do things that ruin the lives of others. Once that option is open to people it's not going to be easy to compete with, and the more people join something like that the less there are making messes that need to be cleaned up
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?
"individuals need to train for the situation... so that if they come face to face with it they react effectively and appropriately..." I think that there's a benefit in being well trained and in thinking progressively more responsibly as the issue needs it, yes. I also think that if you're going to design for a better future, you need to focus very heavily on how evidence indicates we tend to behave, despite any wishes for a more enlightened version of humanity. I'm strongly of the opinion that any really powerful solution takes both into mind, you set a higher default bar for civilization and create a good vision for the future while at the same time engineer the world around people so that it's not so absurdly difficult to be a good person and to get useful things done. :)
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?
Yup. It may be better described as a framework, because other than raising the bar on civilization internally it's designed to be extremely flexible, with people choosing between whole-life solutions that are designed to cluster those that get along well together while pointing everyone who joins in a very basic positive direction. The capitalism-abusing angle is more to speed the transition along than anything else, and the idea of an uber-skunkworks is a whole lot more marketable than the more vague 'enable us to break away from this mess in a useful way' idea that's at the core. That approach is also really new (a couple of weeks old maybe) so I'm sure it could use some refining, I was mostly hoping to get enough pieces in a couple of small readable documents that it would be readable yet still contain enough information to encompass what kind of has to be a pretty thorough set of solutions. I do really like the idea of hitting the people with resources where they have few defenses (i.e. by being completely honest and sincere and treating them like regular human beings). I know from some past experience that there are those that will find that refreshing if not positively habit forming. :)
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Looking for help connecting the TEDs to create a big solution.
Other than the talks above (and somewhat mingled within) there are some playlists that have many gems we gleefully swiped aind incorporated within. . http://new.ted.com/playlists/20/where_do_ideas_come_from http://new.ted.com/playlists/11/the_creative_spark http://new.ted.com/playlists/60/work_smarter http://new.ted.com/playlists/91/everything_you_thought_was http://new.ted.com/playlists/26/our_digital_lives http://new.ted.com/playlists/4/what_makes_us_happy http://new.ted.com/playlists/13/open_source_open_world http://new.ted.com/playlists/126/the_big_picture http://new.ted.com/playlists/74/our_brains_predictably_irrati (you can probably guess what they're all about, even though the last one ends frustratingly) :) Also, there are a couple of major sources that also were used as real-world examples. 1) The various range of cooperative and employee-focused corporations, Mondragon, Valve, old Company towns, that sort of thing. 2) Dunbar's number, and the very well written Monkeysphere's article that explains it so hilariously well and also sets the stage for the positive aspects of small groups (the more people we have, the more diverse the options become) http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html There's lots more, but most of the rest is just details that focus on one specific aspect or another and the focus on options makes it less important that we pick one (though we DO need at least three voting systems to vote between with each other, but that's only for a very small number of issues) . . . and even that might be optional :) Thanks!
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
The Equality Initiative: Being Kind
I think there's an easy line there. When you're using your inner monkey/child in a positive way then you should get to believe all the crazy things you want. But if you're trying to influence others (including children) that's when it's time to make sure you're not falling into a fallacy trap of some sort. Not everyone agrees, but for those who don't they're making that choice, even if you can't change that you can expose it. If our journalists did that we'd be in a much better world, eh?
187923
William Holz
Posted 8 months ago
Let's make "the 1%" irrelevant.
That's how corporations are often used, yes. However, the legal framework is a little more sophisticated than that, and can be repurposed We dug into this pretty hard and nobody's come up with a flaw that has't just ended up becoming part of the design. I wouldn't have said anything if I wasn't quite certain that we could pull this off. While the old approach led us down the path of TL;DR the new one (employee handbook, seed community building guide, and 'new model' for a few more fundamentals) at least is short enough that we're getting the right questions at the right times. Mind you, I'd LOVE to find a 'flaw', because every on so far has just given us a few more options to work with. The whole idea is assembled from (in part) several hundred TED talks and a multitude of other sources. I'm more interested in crowdourcing it and getting it in the hands of people who are at better times of their lives for such a thing.