Cooperation First Principles

In the previous post (10JAN12) we reviewed a few kinds of cooperation: educational, a military unit, sports, and corporations. Here I want to back away from the specifics and look at cooperation from first principles, mostly from communication — the transfer of information and the construction of new information.

In a group of cooperating humans communication is essential. No communication, no cooperation. In a cooperating group of humans chunks of information are sent from one person to one or more other people in the group. Information is also sent from any one person to him or herself when that person is quietly thinking by him or herself. Chunks of information received cause a reaction of one kind or another in the person receiving the information. The information goes into the brain of the receiving individual. How far in does it go? What does it do in there? Sometimes information heard “makes no sense”. If the receiver does not know the language of the sender then the information can’t go in too far, it can’t be connected with any other information already there, except for the receiver to note that he can’t understand the information. Or maybe the receiver has been exposed to the language casually in the past so that the receiver can recognize that the language for example is Chinese or German from the sounds alone. But the specific information in the spoken words cannot get into the receiver’s mind. Similarly if the sounds are not loud enough or they are distorted by background noise or the speaker, in which cases the receiving person asks the sender to repeat the message, to resend the chunk of information. So the chunk of information received now makes sense to the receiver. This means that the receiver connects, associates this incoming information to some information already there in his or her mind, to some category that the new information is about. Next the receiver makes further associations and connections to and from this new information, and after some amount of processing — thinking — decides to accept or reject — says yes or no to — the new information. The acceptance or rejection may depend on whether the new information has been sufficiently connected to the truth category (all the information in the person’s mind that he or she considers true). Or the information may be accepted on the basis of the respect or trust the receiver has in the sender. Or there can be many other reasons, many other methods, other processes, the receiver uses in the decision to say yes or no. If the decision is yes, then the information received is connected more strongly to other information the person uses regularly in running his or her life — it becomes operational, it is used or useable in thinking and other activities.

In summary new information is accepted or rejected depending on how well it fits in with information already in the receiver’s mind.

If the new information doesn’t fit in well, the receiver may respond to the sender expressing his disagreement partially or totally, asking for clarification, or suggesting a reformulation. In this way, this back and forth, can continue for some time between two people communicating with each other, cooperating toward some purpose, some goal or goals. A beautiful example is Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman who collaborated for years. See Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”.

In this communication the chunks of information going back and forth are changing as the conversation continues. And as the conversation continues the information content of the two minds is changing. Each person to the conversation is fitting into his or her mind information received from the other. They each will often have developed a more or less similar understanding of the subject matter of their conversation. Or they may have developed a plan that they each more or less agree upon to reach their individual and joint goals. Or they may be building something as they are communicating like building a house. Or they may be doing something together like hunting.

The above discussed two people communicating cooperatively. It can easily be extended to several people. But not to too many people. One thousand people couldn’t have a casual conversation where each person could have his say at some point after many other people have spoken. Nor could each person even hear each other person. There are just too many people. Twenty people are probably too many. Fifty surely are. To have a cooperative group of more than about 20 people some structure for the group is needed. Structure means rules. Rules as to who can speak when, and for how long, and on what subjects, etc. There are formal and informal rules. Formal rules are written down somewhere. Informal rules are not. Informal rules are what people do by habit without thinking about it. Even in a two person conversation there are informal rules such as: ask for clarification if you don’t understand; and generally begin speaking only after the other person has stopped speaking or has paused; and a good conversationalist pays attention to the emotional responses of his listener in order to avoid having a conversation only with himself, etc.

There are many possible different structures for a cooperating, communicating group. A group could have a facilitator whose job is to keep the group following its rules. It could have a leader who directs or dominates the discussion. A leader (in contrast to a facilitator) leads the group discussion in directions he chooses rather than letting the directions evolve from the group discussions. This can produce groupthink where the other participants avoid expressing ideas they know the leader does not want to hear, and so the group may not benefit from the knowledge of all the members. See for example the formal rules for general assemblies in Occupy Wall Street and the other Occupies.

Beyond this kind of structure of rules and different roles for some of the individuals in the group, a large group may be partitioned into subgroups, with each subgroup having a sub goal. For example a design team for a complex system such as an automobile may have sub-teams for various subsystem designs such as for example: the electrical system, the power system (engine, drive train, etc.), interior, exterior, brakes, etc. Of course the sub teams must communicate cooperatively with each other and the overall design team.

Almost all complex human activities requiring the cooperating work of large numbers of people will have their communication structures divided into substructures paralleling the system/subsystem structures of the things they are building, making, producing — automobiles, satellites, houses, buildings, movies, food production and distribution, education, research and development, provision of health care, sports, etc. This is because information must precede actions.

This is not to say that any one person, or even a few people designed, or could design any of these systems or subsystems. Present day designs build on previous designs. There is evolution of both systems and their designs (the information and knowledge used to make, build, produce, etc). Compare a Model T Ford with a Prius. No way could there be a Prius if there had been no other automobiles before it. So when we speak of the design team for a Prius we must include a huge number of people no longer living — huge numbers of people who designed and built automobiles in the past. This is not just about automobiles. It is about all complex human activities. All are dependent on the similar activities that came before. Any large cooperating group of people is the result of an evolution, a building on top of whatever came before it. And it would not be the way it is if what came before had been different.

So cooperation itself is evolving. So any explanation of cooperation which does not take account of this evolution is incomplete, deficient.

The democracy of cooperation.

In the previous blog, 2JAN12, I said:

“Our formal democracy seems at present to be pretty much blocked for us. But in all societies there is an informal democracy of communication and cooperation which is much more important and which is the foundation of the formal democracy. Societies don’t work very well without it.  Our system now depends heavily this now worldwide communication and cooperation system.”

What is this “informal democracy of communication and cooperation”?

A number of people join together in order to work toward some goal or goals together. We can call this  a human group or a human organization. The individuals in the group are cooperating, more or less. It is more or less because nothing is perfect, cooperation is rarely 100% however cooperation is measured. Cooperation requires communication among the members of the group. They must all have more or less the same goal or goals. Working together requires communication to coordinate the group members’ activities, their behavior. So cooperation can never be perfect because communication is not perfect since information transfer always has a possibility of error, and understanding of goals will never be 100% alligned. So there are degrees of cooperation.

This then is the democracy of cooperation.

Humans are social creatures. We cooperate, more or less. How did we get this way? We became what we are now through two processes of evolution: biological and cultural, genetic and memetic. The biological, genetic evolution gave us our bodies and basic physical structure. The cultural, memetic evolution gave us our thoughts and ideas. Actually it is not as clearly cut as this because each evolution affected and affects the other. Cultural evolution could only build upon the capabilities biological evolution gave us. But also, cultural evolution fed back on and influenced the biological evolution of our bodies and brains. So it is really only one evolution where the biological, genetic evolution has morphed into the cultural, memetic evolution. Cultural, memetic evolution is occurring vastly faster now than biological, genetic evolution. Cultural evolution has overwhelmed biological evolution.

So, our biological and cultural evolution led to our cooperation in groups. Through science, technology, art — all human activities — cultural evolution continuously adds information and new knowledge for us to use. So our cooperation has much more information to communicate among the individuals in a human group. In a word, our cooperation, how we cooperate, is also evolving. Consider the speed, even the acceleration, of the recent evolution of corporations.

Since in order to cooperate a group of humans must communicate with one another, the size of the group and the locations of the individuals were constrained by the means of communication. For a long time the size of a group of humans working together, cooperating, was limited to that of a family or small number of related families — a clan or tribe — because they had to be able to speak to one another. This also required that the individuals be physically near each other.

Not any more. The individuals in a cooperating human group can be almost anywhere on the surface of the earth (or near earth in space). And the size of a communicating, cooperating group is no longer limited by the distance a single human voice can go before it can no longer be heard by another person. Note the Mic check of Occupy Wall Street. Nor is the locations of the individuals limited by the necessity of being physically close to a speaker.

So every human group has its informal democracy whereby the people in the group vote with their communications, their speech, and their actions, their behavior. Other members of the group receive these communications and observe the behavior of the other members of the group, and then react in one way or another. This ongoing evolving process influences the behavior of the individuals in the group and thus the resultant group behavior toward its goals. This is legitimately a kind of democracy.

Is this informal group democracy a “one person, one vote” system. It would seem to be unless there are some rules, some structure that the members have agreed to that would say otherwise. It is also true that in many even informal groups, some individuals often have more influence than some others. This can occur if some individuals have more or better knowledge about the goals or how to attain them, of if they can communicate better, or if they have more charisma, more charm, or by whatever combination of qualities more people listen to them than they listen to others. Similarly for some copying the behavior of others. Also some individuals for whatever reason do not choose to participate as much as others.

So we have identified two ways in which groups of humans can deviate from what we may call equality of voice or one person, one vote. First there are often leaders and followers. (Notice we can’t separate the two. There can be no leaders without followers. There can be no followers without leaders.) Second, the group may have agreed on some rules, some structures which allow more influence to some members than other members. For example a teacher in a classroom is a leader, the students are followers most of the time; A coach of a sports team is a leader, the players are followers, but also sometimes a player may be also a leader that other players follow; In a company organized in a hierarchy of units (for example some number of sections organized into a department, some number of departments organized into a division, etc.) the managers of the units are each leaders (or should be) with the other members of the units being followers, but like the sports team there can be leaders within the group of followers.

In many societies, in free societies, being a follower or a leader is almost always a voluntary action, since in the absence of promises otherwise (contracts), anyone can quit the group at any time. (Being a leader or a follower is not always a voluntary action because a person may not be aware that he or she is a leader or a follower, but they can still quit if they don’t like how the group is operating or they don’t have its goals.) A teacher can quit, the parents of a young student can send the student to another school, students can quit paying attention while remaining in class. A coach can quit, players can quit. Employees can quit their company, or quit in place just like students. A person can even quit a horribly authoritarian oppressive system, at least mentally, as some concentration camp members did in WWII. To quit the group is the ultimate no vote.

We still have the freedom to form new groups: Freedom of Assembly. We can form new clubs, associations, new partnerships, new corporations, for profit or not for profit. We can form new religions. The number of people in each and their physical locations are no longer limited as they were in the past.

If our present political/economic systems are not working for us, we can form alternate or parallel systems which do work for us. This indeed is what is already happening as more and more people are excluded from participation in our present systems through unemployment of all kinds, through lack of education, through poverty. People form co-ops of every kind and legal and illegal (black) markets. People form subcultures which exclude outsiders. People “turn on, tune in, and drop out” as Professor Leary said. One way or another people make other arrangements when the “official” systems don’t work for them. There are many, many possibilities. The occupy movement with its general assemblies and its internet dispersed non-physical form is a baby to be nurtured. And if this one doesn’t work out, there will be others.

 

 

Building on what has come before.

In the previous few posts, at the end of the list of chunks of new knowledge, I wrote:

Some ideas, some chunks of knowledge, can spread very fast throughout a whole population, especially if the population has been prepared by being supplied with the intermediate knowledge required so that the new or radical idea makes sense. The foundation is already there and when the new idea is heard even once the reaction in the vast majority of people is “Yes!, Yes! That’s exactly right. That is what we must do.”

Can we analyze this? It sounds great. If we could organize the stages of our revolution so that each stage ended with an epiphany, a kind of revelation in a large number of new people, a revelation of some significant revolutionary truths, that would cause them to accept, support, or actively work for the revolution, then it would seem that the revolution would be very well underway. In the previous posts I was trying to analyze chunks of knowledge, information useful for making a revolution. I was asking what would be a good order to spread these chunks of knowledge, these facts, these truths, these opinions to a big chunk of the population.

The revolution might be more or less continuous. That is progress might be more or less steady. Or it could be like Steven Jay Gould’s punctuated equilibrium in biological evolution — periods where nothing much seems to be happening, separated — punctuated — by, very short periods of great change. And we must anticipate periods of reversal, where there are system changes that take us farther away from our goals.

Since the revolution occurs in people’s minds, the revolution can be progressing during periods of apparent stasis and even reversal. And of course the revolution does not have to proceed through punctuated euphoric revelations either. There may be none. But there will probably be some.

If there are any euphoric revelations — where some significant revolutionary idea/s spread almost instantaneously to a large portion of the population — this will generate a lot of enthusiasm for the revolution. We must keep this new enthusiasm focused toward our revolutionary goals and methods. Mass enthusiasm can be dangerous. Charlatans and those not working towards our revolutionary goals might lead people in wrong directions. But this will be less likely if many or most people have previously inoculated themselves against propaganda and self serving authoritarians/leaders through the methods of improving their thinking we discussed in the previous posts.

So, given that the revolution must occur in people’s minds, how do we see any progress, any changes in our systems? The changes in people’s minds precede changes in their behavior. The changes in behavior will affect the operation of the system directly and indirectly. The changes in people’s minds must be translated into changes in the structures of our economic/political systems. This might happen through changes in laws. It might happen through changes in customs if a large enough number of people change their behavior in consistent ways. For example, if enough bankers, traders etc., change their minds, if they realized that arbitrary credit/money creation is the cause of booms and busts, then maybe they would restrain their indefinite creation of credit/money. This seems very unlikely. More likely more laws and rules would have to be made and enforced. If enough people in general realized that running up big debts on credit cards is unwise (or to be very blunt — costly, foolish, crazy, stupid (or maybe it is none of these things if the person knows the banks will never be able to collect since he has no or little money or property)), then maybe more and more people stop using credit cards and they just fade away. There are many ways in which changes in the individual behaviors of enough people will change the system, will change its structure.

The more basic question: How do we stage the revolution? What do we do first? Then what do we do next? It may be ridiculous to try to plan ahead like this. What we do second may be impossible to decide until the first stage is done. So then the question really becomes: At any point in time, what should we do next? Or: What should we do now? Since the revolution is changing people’s minds toward the revolutionary goals and methods, and since any individual person can only build on what they already know at any point in time, different people will need different new knowledge at any point in time. We must send out multiple messages at any one time. Depending on the specific knowledge an individual person has at any time, only some of our messages will make sense to that person. We can try to direct specific knowledge to specific groups such as bankers, traders, economists, the rich, workers, students, scientists, etc. But we can’t be sure that everyone in a specific group gets our message. And some people in other groups will get messages not specifically directed toward them. This is one reason all our messages must be consistent with our goals and methods. Some politicians make the mistake of sending inconsistent messages to different groups. They may say one thing to one group and the opposite to another group. Information leaks, always. So some people at least will see that the politician is lying. We must be as transparent and truthful and consistent and science based as we can be regarding our goals and methods and in all our activities. Consistent messages are easier to accept than inconsistent ones. Consistent messages will spread farther and faster.

How are we going to spread our revolutionary messages? Now in developed countries there are mass media on the one hand and everything else on the other. The everything else includes person to person conversation unmediated — the people communicating are physically close enough to each other that they can hear and see each other directly. Each can hear the words and see the facial and bodily expressions of the other. There are cell phones. There is the internet with typed words and some videos. Different individuals select different methods of getting information about the society and cuilture, the operations of the political and economic systems. Some watch TV, some listen to the radio, some read newspapers, some read books, some read internet blogs. Individuals select their sources of information.

Some blogs are already more or less dedicated to spreading revolutionary ideas, although they may not see it that way. These are critique blogs. They comment on particular areas of our society — politics, economics, banking, the law, civil rights, particular ideologies, etc. In so far as they point out deficiencies in their area of concern, they are spreading maybe the first revolutionary idea — namely that things are so bad, so out of whack, so dysfunctional, so harmful that drastic changes are needed; a revolution is needed.

So our challenge is to determine which of these methods of communication to use where and when to develop and spread our revolutionary ideas.

It is very interesting that direct person to person communication — the most complete form of human to human communication — unmediated communication — is being used by OWS (Occupy Wall Street) and the other Occupys in their general assemblies. And the repetition instead of electric amplification reinforces the information, the messages, into the minds of those hearing and repeating the messages. This is amazing. Obviously it can’t scale directly to a group of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Rather it seems to be scaling like bacterial colonies as new Occupys spring up in other cities like a new bacterial colony can start from a single bacterium wafted through the air.

Within any one Occupy the direct person to person communication with repetition may be a very good way to reach strong consensus. And if the different Occupys have essentially the same goals for changing our systems — towards social justice — there may be little difference in their resulting actions. There may be differences as to what to do first. But maybe that doesn’t matter too much. Try something. Try many different things. Keep trying. This may be a good strategy. Notice I don’t say “the best” strategy because we can waste much time and energy about what the best strategy is when there are many possibilities that as far as we can tell now are likely to be more or less equally good.

Maybe the same applies to our question of which revolutionary knowledge to send out to which people when. Maybe a good strategy is to just send it all out to as many people as possible whatever their class or role in our culture through as many communication channels as we can. For every person we should have revolutionary information that will make sense to them and all our messages must be true and consistent with our goals and methods, with social justice — a fair distribution of the products and services we make from the earth’s limited resources, sustainably, non-violently.