All in all, the best way to not pollute and destroy the environment is to not pollute and destroy the environment. The best way to not exploit others is to not exploit others. I am not talking only about personal lifestyle choices, alternative information sources, and volunteer work. I am talking about taking back control from undemocratically run corporations and illegitimate concentrations of power, by all the effective means we can muster and as though our survival depended on it. I am talking about activism.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Monday, June 1, 2015
Dialogue management
This is an abstract with a summary of the experimental results (they are near the end and included below):
Stodolsky, D. (1987). Dialogue management program for the Apple II computer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19, 483-484.
Persons in groups which used the equal-time resolution rule showed superior task performance and experienced less frustration as compared to persons in groups using a first-in first-out resolution rule. Also, in groups using the equal-time resolution rule, persons who were fearful of speaking in groups were felt to be group leaders just as often as persons who were not fearful (Zimbardo, Linsenmeier, Kabat & Smith, 1981). Teams working in the telecommunication settings made better decisions, enjoyed themselves more, experienced less frustration, and viewed their teams' decisions more favorably as compared to face-to-face groups (Linsenmeier & Zimbardo, 1982). These preliminary results are unusual when compared with other work on telephone meetings. Such meetings typically result in greater dissatisfaction and inferior performance as compared to face-to-face interaction (Weston & Kristen, 1973; Weston, Kristen & O'Connor, 1975).
This is a short version discussing a more advanced management procedure:
Stodolsky, D. (1988, September). Self-management of Criticism in Dialogue. Fourth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Cambridge, UK: European Society for Cognitive Ergonomics.
A long version, which includes equations, is:
Stodolsky, D. (1984, December). Self-management of criticism in dialog: Dynamic regulation through automatic mediation. Paper presented at the symposium Communicating and Contracts between people in the Computerized Society, Gothenburg University, Sweden.
Direct democracy / Computer-network based democracy
Extended abstract (5 min. read):
Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7, 127-137.
Comprehensive
Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4). [1994 version in N. P. Gleditsch, P. H. Enckell, & J. Burchardt (Eds.), Det videnskabelige tidsskrift (The scientific journal) (pp. 151-160). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. (Tema NORD 1994: 574)]
The latest (includes citation to an implementation attempt):
Stodolsky, D. (2002). Scientific publication needs a peer consensus. Psycoloquy, 13(2).
Discussion of organizational impacts of the system:
Stodolsky, D. (1994). Telematic journals and organizational control: Integrity, authority, and self-regulation. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 2(1).
PS: My e-domocracy "review":
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Ownership and the Body
Public Ethics Radio: Anne Phillips on Ownership and the Body
Phillips identifies a fatal flaw underlying what is called Libertarianism in the USA.
Her analysis suggests why it became most popular among male teen agers.
Friday, April 3, 2015
"Global Warming" - A new age religion for the 21st Century
From my in process book:
Bray and von Storch (2007) report the result of asking over 500 climate scientists to respond to the statement, "Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes." The mean of 3.62 for their 2003 data was in the middle of their scale, where 1 indicated “strongly agree” and 7 indicated “strongly disagree.” The nearest rating to the mean score was 4, indicating ambivalence or impartiality.
Similarly, there appears to be a large amount of disagreement in the joint conclusions of scientific advisory bodies. Holland (2007) notes the lack of support by the US National Research Council for the alarming conclusions of the IPCC. He states that two exhaustive and independent peer-reviewed studies by professionals, reporting under oath to the US House of Representatives have contradicted the findings of the IPCC. We conclude from this that the scientific bodies are not in agreement about climate change and its causes.
Finally, Essex et al. (2007, p. 1) state, "there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming." They argue that "any physical meaning is born by changes in energy instead of temperature" (p. 10). They conclude, "A given temperature field can be interpreted as both 'warming' and 'cooling' simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed" (p. 1). In effect, they argue that the key term, "temperature" being used in the climate debate has no meaning in this context and that "global warming" is an oxymoron.
Bray D., von Storch, H. (2007). The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change. Geesthacht, Germany: Institute for Coastal Research. (GKSS 2007/11) URL: <http://news.heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21803.pdf>
Holland, D. (2007). Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair And Its Implications. Energy & Environment, 18(7-8), 951-983. URL: <http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland%282007%29.pdf> (Downloaded Dec. 16, 2010)
Essex, C., McKitrick, R., & Andresen, B. (2007). Does a Global Temperature Exist? J. Non-Equil. Thermod., 32, 1-27. URL <http://www.fys.ku.dk/~andresen/BAhome/ownpapers/globalT/globalT_JNET2007.pdf>
(Downloaded 3 April 2015)
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State
It is Professor Wills' thesis that acquisition of the bomb gave the president vast power—not only to use the bomb, but it also became the model for the covert activity and overt authority of the government we now have. And this, writes our speaker, upsets the balance of powers as set forth in the Constitution by giving the president more authority than originally intended by the Founding Fathers. He argues that, whatever the justification for its manufacture and use, the bomb was built unconstitutionally and the precedent which this set endures to the present day.
In the last few years, increasing battles against centralized power have erupted from many quarters. George W. Bush left the White House unpopular because of what many saw as his abuse of power. And although Barack Obama has promised change, the momentum of an expanded executive bureaucracy is not easily reversed.
The powers given to the president since World War II, followed by the needs of the Cold War and the war on terror, all make a vast and intricate structure that may not be easy to dismantle.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the “War on Terror”
This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly,
killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan,
i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war
zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of
which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the
media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number
of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million,
whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
