Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Tailored Intervention in case of Violation of Human Dignity and Human Rights

[Scott Raney <scott AT metacard.com>]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:25 PM, janonymous
<janonymous AT news.piratenpartei.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Scott,
>
> i think you misunderstood the method.
>
> You wrote: "But what this *looks* like to me is a system by which a small
> number
> of individuals (the "jury") can sanction or possibly even silence an
> individual that is being disruptive."
>
> Perhaps, you have a little insight into measurement techniques or
> psychometric properties of questionaires, assessment batteries or processes
> of judgement?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_test_theory

Sure, my PhD is in Cognitive (Experimental) Psychology (CU Boulder
'97).  But, again, the problem is your *method*: You propose some sort
of "objective" standard to distinguish disruptive behavior from normal
dissent.  I say that is a recipe for abuse by authoritarians who will
be the ones making up the standards and serving as the jury (again,
because that's just what they're into).  The only fair and safe way to
do this kind of thing is to distribute the decisionmaking so that the
minority of the population that is authoritarian (my rule of thumb is
25%) will not be able to have an undo influence on the operation of
the system.  Your proposal is for exactly the opposite and so is a
design for a tool to suppress dissent rather than promote democracy.

> This process is not about a jury sentencing a person with a verdict. The
> jury or a couple of independent raters are necessary to make sure that there
> is a consens about a certain extent of antidemocratic or inhuman behavior,
> before anybody is accused by anything.

And, again, using the term "consensus" now implies to me an
authoritarian orientation.  This is yet another one of the great
ironies that confront us when we seek to design systems that function
properly even when 25% of the population (those authoritarians) will
tend to disrupt it and try to impose instead decisions based on
faith/prejudice/instinct.  One of the ways they do this is by
suppressing dissent (i.e., insisting on "consensus").  Everyone
doesn't have to agree for The People to make a collective decision.
And I'll admit that your proposed system will most of the time be
catching authoritarians (who are the most likely to be disruptive and
yet also the ones who love catching anyone, even each other!)  But
when times get tough, it will be the rational dissenters that it will
be used against.

> The specific interventions that are recommended in case of a certain extent
> of antidemocratic and inhuman behavior is planed to be developed and
> scheduled independently of the process of social judgement, wheather and how
> severe there is a violation of democratic norms. The process of indendent
> raters or a jury just makes sure, that the perception of bad behavior is an
> intersubjective and not only the subjective opinion of an (authoritarian)
> person.

Right, so you don't propose to send them to reeducation camp.  Today.
But maybe tomorrow, when there's a threat of terrorism (or whatever),
the people running this suppression system will just tweak the rules a
little to catch more people and subject them to more invasive
"treatment".  If you're not familiar with this feature of
authoritarianism, I highly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book on the
subject:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

> So, your statement is a complete misunderstanding. The true intention is the
> opposite of your perception.

I don't presume to judge your intention.  I'm just saying that based
on my (limited) understanding of this system that, regardless of what
is designed to do, that it's something that is likely to be used in
ways that you apparently do not intend.

> Please have a little patience till the paper is translated into English.

I look forward to seeing it, and hope that you'll announce it's
availability on this list.  And I also thank you for responding in
English (which is *way* better than what I get out of Google
translate!).
  Regards,
    Scott

> Thx
> J.
>
> --
> Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
> Ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de
> https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-meinungsfindungstool