The Picket Project - Online Collaboration: Creating a Stream of Solutions for Politicial Issues

I understand where the Picket Project is trying to go with this.  I have some doubts as to whether it is achievable because of the necessity of finding enough people who will actually collaborate to be of any value.  Of course I'm looking for timely successes; what I consider to be timely is age driven.  Ambitions such as this takes time.

Never-the-less, I continue to think the effort a worthy one and since people far more savvy than myself are the movers behind it, I will continue to offer to you their insights.  One of these days there will be a breakthrough in this area and it will be internet driven.  Politicians who scoff at the thought will be the losers.  Beware though, they're getting there.  I haven't heard one laugh about not being computer literate since the last presidential election. For that matter they are using the web far more effetively than the electorate - thus projects such as this.  Happy reading.

We need to turn our government into something that works for everyone. The political leaders in this country, however, are too focused on their own agendas to recognize the solutions needed to solve real challenges. Despite their expertise, they are not the only stream of information for us to draw upon. Fortunately, there are many more intelligent Americans than intelligent insider politicians; and it is our insights which will direct the future.

But how can we properly reflect on these insights? How can we fully analyze the solutions we propose for complex problems? We need a tool which can provide a platform for recording, analyzing, and combining our collective insights in a meaningful way.

In a 2005 TED Talk, information technologist Clay Shirky explores a path to accomplish this. He points out that coordinating individuals through designed, online systems provides benefits far beyond what standard institutional models can. When you use a system which bypasses the control that institutions demand, you are given greater freedom and flexibility. By doing this, the system fosters more – and often better – contributions due to the lack of prerequisites to participate.



Shirky’s explanation on the benefits of coordination demonstrates that we can work together to find relationships in data that are not easily found in other ways. With the right tool, we each can make small contributions that compound to form a greater collaborative system. This has proven itself through the tagging system in Flickr, the friendship mappings in Facebook, and many other social media features. Using this principle for policy decisions seems quite natural.

A collaboration tool which leverages the benefits of decentralized cooperation can provide us with a place to record the vast number of ideas we should be exploring for our country. However, emotionally charged topics, like politics, need to be approached quite differently compared to other cooperation schemes.

One possible technique which could be used, argument mapping, is the process of breaking down and mapping arguments into a fixed structure that may include ideas, questions, pros and cons. Many have studied this structure, which has shown its effectiveness in a number of different scenarios: business, law and politics to name a few.

There are considerable benefits to using argument mapping. The one that seems most interesting is its ability to civilize polarizing discussions, such as political rhetoric. This increase in civility is a consequence of the structured approach to the idea’s analysis. When mapped, the important ideas which justify an opinion may diverge at any point in the argument when others disagree. This allows everyone, particularly those with conflicting opinions, to make their cases effectively without being drowned out.

This approach brings about other benefits as well. The promotion of an in-depth analysis of the issues and an increased comprehension of these issues will be discussed later. Furthermore, the downsides of argument mapping will be addressed by using a new but related technique that will provide even further benefits on top of those previously mentioned. However, for now, it is important to note that the studies done on argument mapping have shown that it is possible to allow a large group of people to cooperate on important, controversial issues. This is key.

If we want to be able to come up with the most beneficial solutions to America’s challenges, we have to explore a much larger set of possibilities than any group as small as our government can come up with and properly work through. Even out of sheer trial and error, Americans could explore more possible answers to their natural conclusions and consequences than just the politicians themselves could.

To accomplish this, however, we will need a proper group collaboration tool which allows us to fully explore an issue as well as the potential solutions to it and the inevitable consequences of them. The Picket Project is about creating a collaboration tool that could allow us to break free from our dependence on Washington and come up with meaningful solutions like never before possible.

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions; we will be regularly updating our content based on the conversations started here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag.

Links:

• James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security

The Picket Project - Surrendering Intellect by Over Trusting Experts

Here we are, Saturday again and time for another post from the Picket Project.  It's testimony to a point I often try to make - we need to think for ourselves.  As usual it takes my point and digs much deeper.  Enjoy.

When someone claims to have the right answers for solving a problem, the origin of their solutions is rarely obvious.  Every agenda may bring with it any number of unanswered questions:

• Is their reasoning for pushing this agenda valid?
• What do they know that I do not?
• Are they attempting to manipulate me for personal gain?

Since even well meaning, intelligent people make mistakes – it is important to challenge any agenda before accepting it as true.

Trusting Experts

While it is reasonable to assume that a person experienced in national and statewide decision making would be an invaluable resource for finding the right answers at the right time, the real question should not be about how much experience a person has had, but what have they learned from their experiences.  This is, however, much harder to gauge because experience does not always lead to expertise.  And even expertise is not a guarantee of infallibility.

Noreena Hertz talks about experts in a similar light. She discusses how we, as a people, rely too much on experts as a whole; that we surrender our uncertainty for the illusion of certainty. Experts in any particular field are prone to negative group thinking, close mindedness, over confidence, and a dismissal of outside opinions.



Even in the sciences, experts do not entirely base their understandings on strict, unchangeable natural laws – but also on ever-changing models that best represent what has been observed.  But these models are not perfect, and without proper analysis and criticism, they can contribute to a ‘tunnel vision’ mentality where obvious factors and beautiful solutions sometimes go unrecognized.  Over reliance on these imperfect models can solidify a certain way of looking at the world, creating a misguided interpretation of the facts.

While we cannot dismiss expertise entirely, we each need to do our own research to verify and validate the claims we are given.  To challenge what you are told, as well as what you already know, is a healthy decision to make.  This is a very reasonable and intuitive idea.

It is by challenging experts and asking the big questions, that we dig behind their expertise and recognize that their methodologies can easily be flawed.  By creating a space for actively managed dissent, new and diverse ideas can be brought into the discussion and analyzed in their own light.  It is by embracing the notion that non-experts can have a unique perspective on the problems at hand, that critical factors can be discovered which may normally be missed.

We at the Picket Project embrace the idea that whether a claim is made by a PhD or an accomplished government official, an expert’s opinion is only as good as the support he can provide for that opinion.  We each hold the right and the duty to challenge those claims. As we do, we foster knowledge in ourselves and promote better solutions for everyone. There is no place this idea is more important than in political theory and policy making where, more so now than ever, the best solutions are needed. 

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions; we will be regularly updating our content based on the conversations started here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag.

Links:

• How to use experts - and when not to: Noreena Hertz on TED.com (ted.com)
• Rethinking the Concept of "Outliers": Why Non-Experts are Better at Disruptive Innovation (forbes.com)
• The shifting critics of experts and expert agencies (inpropriapersona.com)

The Picket Project - The Picket Project Searches for Honest Solutions

Please take note.

We are living in a time that will be remembered as the great transition of the 21^st century. We are watching history unfold.  The economic and social earthquakes we have recently endured have shaken our beliefs, our ideologies, and our authority on a global scale – and nothing can easily undo the damage that has been done.  The consequences of these transitions are still untold; but our world, our country, and our lives will never be the same again.

As the international dynamics shift, America, which was once the brightest shining light in the darkness of a planet draped in tyranny and wreckage, has been at risk of losing its place on the global stage.  Perhaps our country will not meet the same fate as the failed empires of the past, but we can’t rule it out – too many trend lines are pointing the wrong direction.  Satisfaction with government has been justifiably at an all time low, while ideological tension seems to be destroying our chances of recovering from this crisis.

Politically divided, we are in desperate need of leaders who will show us the way forward, to transition into the 21st century America we were destined to be, and to lead the world again in tackling the challenges we all share together. Unfortunately, in our time of need, our current politicians have failed us.

The time has come to decide.

However, election season has arrived, and everything will be different this time:

• All of the House of Representatives’ seats are ripe for the taking.
• 33/100 Senate seats are open for election
• And 1 presidential seat is in jeopardy.

This year, we will elect politicians who can win the hearts and minds of all sides of the debate, and form meaningful compromises that cut budgets, lower taxes, protect our safety nets, invest in the future, and protect our freedom…

…right?

Unless, of course, we elect a singled-focused government which takes a no-compromise approach to solving our political problems.

Maybe the election will result in a new president and a majority who are focused on smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. One which begins to roll back the socialist experiment which has caused overspending on our long overdue credit and propped our entire country up against a house of cards; a house which will inevitably share the Greek, Portuguese, Irish, Spanish, and Italian fate.

Or maybe still, we will elect those who recognize that the US government can borrow at record low interest rates.  At a time where our infrastructure is failing, our schools are broken, and so many people are out of work, every dollar invested in our future can give back $2 in return.  We will protect our environment, our vulnerable, and have an advanced economy which provides opportunities for all; repaying our debt through decreasing wasteful spending and raising taxes.

Whichever we choose, when this election finishes, the American people will have finally spoken – and the new leaders we elect will know what we have elected them to do.  They will come in focused, and ready to serve their country in a meaningful, productive way…

… unless they don’t.

Instead, we just may elect an ideologically focused, divided congress.  A congress that trades beneficial compromises for trench warfare political maneuverings.  One which forces another gridlocked government while we postpone our economic and social recovery until next election.

Which do you believe will happen?

We need to pull our country out of this economic slump.  We need to turn our government into something that works for everyone: efficient and just.  But if we do not clearly state for ourselves how this should be done, we force our politicians to decide for us.  We should not allow the politicians to dictate America’s future alone.

If our political system cannot find a path forward, we at the Picket Project will be working towards finding methods in which mutually beneficial compromises can be had.  We believe that the polarity our nation faces contains underlying truths which cannot be ignored and that the best solutions are found through understanding these truths and leveraging them.  We will be searching for new and creative ideas that can bring our country back together.  Searching for compromises which can bridge the divide between us.  We at the Picket Project will be searching for honest solutions, because they are needed now more than ever.

Over the next few weeks we will be publishing weekly posts contributing to the blog series: “Debate Politics and Social Issues- Picket Project”.  A new post will be online every Thursday morning with a follow up post which will further the content of the previous publication.  This follow up post will be published on the following Monday and will include:

• Further detail of the topics discussed in Thursday’s post
• Responses to Thursday’s post based on reader’s comments and collaborations
• Brief insight into the new post coming later in the week

We need your support.  Leave your Comments, Follow this blog, share us on Facebook and Twitter, and follow the Picket Project on Linkedin!

THANK YOU

Links:

• Will the GOP Take Control of the Senate? The Top 8 Races to Watch
• Is polarization making Congress dumber?
• Gutmann: Hope for compromise in Washington

The Picket Project - Fully Analyzing Political Issues and Social Problems

Partial solutions aren’t enough to solve a crisis. The United States is suffering from a maelstrom of problems – a recession, rising debt, and a declining education system, just to name a few. We need real solutions that provide a path of prosperity for ourselves and the coming generations. Forming these solutions will require understanding the full complexity of the problems we face.

Without this understanding, an oversimplified version of an issue can cause important factors to be dismissed in order to reach a course of action prematurely.  This can create faulty solutions which do not address the underlying cause, creating unintended consequences far worse than the original problem.

Unfortunately, our government is well experienced in this principle.

Take, for example, an attempt to minimize corruption and the influence of lobbyists in the 1970s.  In the wake of the Watergate scandal and amidst rising concerns that back room deals played too large of a roll in our government, new laws took form that required government meetings to be public information.

The basic premise of the sunshine legislation is that, in the words of federalist No. 49, 'the people are the only legitimate foundation of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter ... is derived.' Government is and should be the servant of the people, and it should be fully accountable to them for the actions which it supposedly takes on their behalf.

The belief was that, by showing the public exactly which bills our representatives are lobbying for and against, it would shine more light onto governmental affairs and naturally disinfect the public disease of corruption and corporate interest.  However, when looking at the political scene today, it seems that corporate influence is at an all-time high and a belief that our politicians are doing what is best for its people is at an all-time low.

With the benefit of hindsight, Fareed Zakaria paints a picture of the inadvertent consequences of these actions.

Most Americans have neither the time, the interest, nor the inclination to monitor Congress on a day-to-day basis.  But lobbyists and activists do, and they can use the information and access to ensure that the groups they represent are well taken care of in the federal budget and the legal code.

Before this bill, well-meaning politicians would allow themselves to take corporate contributions for political campaigns with the same underhanded promises they make today.  The promise that they will try and pass favorable legislation for companies who donate to their campaigns.

Of course, in a typical political manner, what they said and what they did were not always the same. A simple “I tried to sway them, but there was nothing I could do,” would often be enough to keep the money coming in for reelection while still being able to vote based on their personal beliefs.

With the new law in effect, this has become virtually impossible.  Since lobbyists can now review every vote taken, they can cut off funds for politicians who do not vote the way they were asked.  It seems that the factors that contribute to an empowered voter are more than simply availability of information.

Without accounting for economic interests taking advantage of this information, the problem of corruption and accountability was underestimated and oversimplified. This partial solution brought with it consequences – forcing their fellow politicians to focus less on our needs than ever before.

This example is far from unique.  Our history is littered with failed policies and half measures which cause more harm than good, with no sign of an end to the madness.

How can we create truly beneficial solutions in a complex world?

While no one can predict the future, we can avoid some of the worst mistakes by taking the time needed to properly analyze the factors surrounding the issues.  These factors, when fully understood, can help us understand the most likely result of any course of action, and minimize the negative consequences associated with an inaccurate understanding of reality.

The real question is:

Do you believe our politicians today are fully analyzing the problems they are addressing, or are they inviting negative consequences by oversimplifying these issues?

Our goal at the Picket Project is to understand the difference between positive solutions and those which will cause more harm than good; to fully analyze proposed solutions in an effort to understand the costs associated with poorly understood legislation.  Sometimes the challenges we face can only be solved through government action.  On the other hand, there are situations in which the government can make the problem worse.  We are not only working towards determining when a problem does or does not need government action, but also towards understanding what that action should be.  Solutions that everyone can agree to – fully explored and understood.

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions and we will be regularly updating our content.  Start the conversations here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag!

Links:

• A way out of our dysfunctional politics
• The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad
• Government in the Sunshine Act

The Picket Project - False Truths: I'm Right, You're Wrong, Compromise is Impossible

American diversity provides us with hundreds of viable answers for solving the challenges we face. While both sides of the aisle could agree with many of these solutions, our political leaders are not hearing or discussing any of them. Instead, these politicians fall prey to believing that their solutions are the best, and everyone else is misguided. If we want to have true solutions discussed in Washington, we first need to understand why even well-meaning politicians can be unwilling to recognize the faults in their own agendas.

Tim Harford discusses a human complex, termed the God Complex, which states that no matter how complicated the problem, we will often have an overwhelming belief that our solution is infallibly right. Harford argues the downfalls of the God Complex and his belief that we need to abandon it in light of a problem solving technique that actually works.

I see the God complex around me all the time in my fellow economists. I see it in our business leaders. I see it in the politicians we vote for — people who, in the face of an incredibly complicated world, are nevertheless absolutely convinced that they understand the way that the world works.

The God Complex offers an explanation for why politicians, like all people, can become adamantly adverse to a compromise in their position. They believe that whatever solution they have come to is the only correct course of action. It also explains why bad solutions can seem good, and seemingly good solutions can often have very bad consequences.



This complex has roots in the mental models we create for ourselves based on the experiences we have had and the limited knowledge we have learned over the course of our lives. These models aid in answering complex questions quickly, which often serves us well. However, the creation of these mental models can sometimes constrain us and lead us to believe in false truths. Like a magician doing a trick on the street, our experiences can sometimes keep us from seeing what is right in front of our eyes.

When a particular solution seems to fit perfectly into the models we have created for ourselves – its justification sometimes seems insurmountable. However, since we each live a very different life, it is no surprise that sometimes we turn up with very different mental models of how the world works. Each of our different experiences can lead us to different insights on a problem, not all of which are compatible.

These insights form the basis of the democratic philosophy, where the combined experiences of a population are used to vote on the representative that best fits the narrative they hold about how the government should work. When conflicting narratives create contradictory solutions – recognition on why this has happened is critical to creating beneficial compromises. But our implementation of this cornerstone of a Republic has shown itself to be less than perfect.

Too many of our politicians have fallen prey to the God Complex and a deeply polarized government has arisen. Conservative and liberal mindsets compete for popular opinion. While this competition could create middle ground solutions, the God Complex has gotten so out of hand, compromise has become impossible. An environment has developed where each side of the isle believes that their solutions are the only real solutions, and anyone who opposes them is doing so with selfish intentions.

The time has come to bridge the divide in our country. The only way to do this is to break through the delusions of omniscience which have gripped our politicians and many of our fellow citizens. We at the Picket Project will work towards challenging oversimplified interpretations in order to show the full complexity of the world we live in. It is in this complexity that we will see where ideological models conflict, and where they can be modified to better fit reality.

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions; we will be regularly updating our content based on the conversations started here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag.

Links:

• Tim Harford on TED
• Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome

Tearing Down Fences With The Picket Project

Having been a blogger for many years I've had a lot of requests come my way.  Most often from someone who wants to write a post.  Usually about a totally inappropriate subject which tells me they've never really read my blog.

Others have been fun.  Interviews with mainstream media, requests to review a book now and then or when we had Bacchus to test dog related products.

I have never been asked to share someone elses content.  Until now.  I was contacted by a fellow blogger at  The Jefferson Tree , to which I am a contributor,  about a project for which additional exposure is being sought.  The Picket Project  is devoted to identifying and exploring solutions for political and social issues.

As you know this is an area of great interest to me.  I like the content and am interested in seeing how it develops.  It strikes me as being an online think tank for the concerned citizen.  You know, those of us who live in the real world and just might have some ideas worth exploring and supporting.

So I'm going to jump off the fence and take the plunge.  I am going to devote Saturdays for a time to a series of posts from The Picket Project.

Let me know if you find them of interest and if you do let them know too!  It never hurts to broaden ones horizons and the Picket Project provides that opportunity to a much greater extent than bloggers such as myself who mostly point out issues and state an opinion with little more.

Tomorrow will be an effort to not be fenced in by my own limitations by sharing with you some great insight.  My own pithy commentary will return Sunday or Monday.