The Observation Deck

Stephen Calhoun wrote:...You suggest that I might step back given a particular instance, (a very personal instance between two persons in this case,) but you haven't given a reason to do this. You've said 'it would be best to' do so, but haven't offered why 'stepping back' is preferable.

I merely pointed out that MOST of us in Lakewood have learned to take one step back. I am not asking you to do anything. However watching you operate in Lakewood reminds me of 13th century doctors operate on their patients. Drilling holes in heads to let the demons out. Let's not forget the only reason we know about Nostradamus is because of his depth of medical knowledge, and ability to cure people of the plague. While other searched for demons, he suggested bathing and clean water. For this he was deemed a genius, and then we discovered the quatrains he is now known for.

Sometimes you seem to be drilling for demons, other times...



AND

until an idea goes beyond mere preliminaries, expecting a public forum discussion is probably counter productive

which begs the same question: why is this counter-productive? ...not in the abstract but in the case of specific instances, why is it thought to be so?

It's a tough question; I recognize this.[/quote]

To me it is a very easy question. Think of the outcome, is it productive? Does it build, destroy, confuse or add nothing?

Of course everyone would answer these questions differently

Jim. Hmmm...'most of us have learned to step back'.

Whereas, me in the guise of 17thc doc, (13th is going back a bit too far,) wonders why this stepping back is a good idea.

To me it is a very easy question. Think of the outcome, is it productive? Does it build, destroy, confuse or add nothing?

Of course everyone would answer these questions differently

You bet, Now we're getting somewhere. This kind of an answer can be seen to call one to step forward. Let's toss it about and yack about this:

is it productive?

In other words: let's see if anyone else wants to open the circuit all the way up. Hey, to even think about doing so begs the question about whether to do so is itself likely to build or destroy. However, who gets to have the 'right' answer to this? (Tis a paradox.)

(Then there's creative destruction...)

Stephen

What is the purpose of this? You ask why step back then mention we have all learned to step back. Why did you learn? You then again wonder why it is a good idea. Is this an argument you fight out daily in your mind?

Very few people really have quick enough instincts to survive. They would all be food the for the bear, if left alone in the woods. So to step back is usually a very safe move, even for the bear. Giving one time to asses, plan, and then move. Even a millisecond of quality thought is worth more than none. The bear works off instincts and memory, he remembers the the Brier patch, and badger.

Another view would have us look at Pakistan and India or Israel, Palestine or two Irish brothers in a bar. These people have to get along, they are relatives/neighbors. Yet the one place you should NEVER wander, is the middle. On the other hand, you probably do not want to step back to far, as the view is always interesting.

Right answers is the wrong term. Correct answers would be better. No one owns correct answers, all the rest are in the eyes of the beholder. Theory vs. Fact, a daily struggle for most.

Dr. Calhoun expressed:

which begs the same question: why is this counter-productive? ...not in the abstract but in the case of specific instances, why is it thought to be so?

Initial ideas, as they are formulated and take shape, often lack enough substance so as to have any specific direction. At the preliminary stages, a wide open forum is counterproductive because you are dealing with large generalities. There is a tendency to have little or no focus, and consequently, no direction, and no discernible results. Much motion, no action. Lots of talk, meetings and discussion, no tangible results. However, if those responsible for formulation of a proposal are able to be reasonably specific, the discussion and critical analysis which can follow is more capable of yielding results.

not in the abstract but in the case of specific instances, why is it thought to be so?

There was a time in the not too distant past, that the LPL Board of Trustees asked for voter approval of a bond issue to build an addition to the Main Library, and renovate the current structure. We did not have community forums to determine IF an addition was needed. There were no city-wide focus groups to determine the extent of the millage. We did not have an election on design elements. Had we not approached the electorate with a thoroughly thought out plan, and instead, asked for community participation, not for approval of the action, but for determining what, if any action would be taken, the generalities would make achieving a consensus impossible. Much motion, no action.

Jim, I'll answer what my own purpose in a moment. You wrote:

You ask why step back then mention we have all learned to step back.

I made no such mention. What I did write was rhetorical:

"most of us have learned to step back," in response to me asking, "What are reasons to not step back?"

Whether to step back is an important rule or not is of interest. But, other than the fact that there are possible different views on this, I wouldn't for a minute agree that in Lakewood 'we all,' or everybody has learned to step back.

My purpose is to explore the nature of thinking, action and process.

There's are assertions of the type which elicit in me a simple question: are they true for more than the person who makes the assertion? To discover their truth one must go do the research.

Even a millisecond of quality thought is worth more than none. The bear works off instincts and memory, he remembers the the Brier patch, and badger.

Where we both agree that any thought is better than none, I'm interested in discovering whether Lakewood has any eagles, lions, and big nasty pythons. Etc.

Yet the one place you should NEVER wander, is the middle.

For you, maybe tis how you float your boat. I hold exactly the opposite view: there are occasions when one, with genius, wanders right into the thick and flaming middle and stand their with every bit of intelligence and courage and plants their stake right there.

No one owns correct answers, all the rest are in the eyes of the beholder.

Theory vs. Fact, a daily struggle for most.[/quote]

There's the paradox again: correct answers are tentative, provisional, later proved or disproved, found to adhere or peal back from true context.

(By the way, to me, the normal struggle is between fact and nonsense, and, factual theory and nonsensical theory, and, between facts and values.)

Here's my hypothesis:

amplified civic intelligence +
disruptive critical inquiries
= unintended consequences; even to the extent of creative destruction

---

What's amplified civic intelligence? It's more residents mucking around more around the civic kitchen. You know the place: where the cooks are developing and trying out their recipes, so-to-speak. The smarter citizen thinks they should be more the chef; the chefs think they should mind their own business.

Alternately, this flow of tendacious circuitry is, in fact, not going to happen because 'everybody' in Lakewood understands their conserving, traditional roles--everything in its rightful place, everything in its rightful time. As I sense it in Lakewood, there is an extremely strong current of this sort.

My sense is that, for example, The Lakewood Observer is not well configured to support this conserving circuit because there are way too many people, (even if it's a handful,) who are more than willing to rush in an upset various apple carts. Psychologically viewed, and agreeing with Suzanne, this to me signals the symptomatic acting out of the community. It is, to me, a necessary sign of both present and future health.

I could argue forcefully that the consequence of unleashing civic intelligence is that many tried-and-true processes, as well as less effective processes, will come under considerably more acute scrutiny, and will be subject to, at times, very hot and disruptive critical inquiry. It is thus the case that to build a foundation for provoking greater intelligence will obtain something like the result of opening a pandora's box, or taking a bite out of the edenic apple.

Ha! With this unfolding in the newspaper, I'm tempted to suggest the Bear is in the middle holding the bottle the genjie has booked out of.

Jeff, thanks for your concrete example.

the generalities would make achieving a consensus impossible.

Okay, is this what you're saying: Moving from the general to the particular is easier via a well designed process with effective facilitation in smaller groups rather than larger groups. ?

This seems to fit in: given pre-existing directive structures, (i.e. board, leadership, experts, stakeholders, etc.---however it is put together,) often those structures are tried-tested-and-true. So, there's no reason to abandon them.

Why is it they happen to work well? Smaller groups lend themselves to greater focus. No controversy there, except when such a group is unfocused. (The counter-example is always the thorn in the truism.) Still, you've described what has worked. It's a great example.

At the preliminary stages, a wide open forum is counterproductive because you are dealing with large generalities. There is a tendency to have little or no focus, and consequently, no direction, and no discernible results.

Yet here, from the behavioral perspective, given the initial generalities, the way it looks is that focus is a consequence of direction no matter what the size of the group is. This isn't an argument for large groups, it's an argument for large direction! Concrete implementation naturally starts from the acorn of visionary generalities. Okay.

(Of course sometimes it doesn't work like this. 'The better is the enemy of the best' and there is the tragedy of the commons; lots of mind bending complexities...)

Here's another truism: everything rides on who is in the group, who directs it, and, how the design for the process supports these mission-critical constitutive aspects.

Outside of processes for which these decisions about group participation have already been made for whatever reasons, then, our dialogue here could wind about the intriguing challenge for participatory processes when, one, citizens wish to know why tried-and-true processes are the way they are; and, even more fascinating, when citizens wish to build new processes outside of the normal and conventional ones.

Thanks Jeff. To me this is all concrete and aimed at a practical analysis of the way development processes variously work. I wonder how to move this into the alas 'general' context of civic intelligence.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Here's my hypothesis:

amplified civic intelligence +
disruptive critical inquiries
= unintended consequences; even to the extent of creative destruction

---

...My sense is that, for example, The Lakewood Observer is not well configured to support this conserving circuit because there are way too many people, (even if it's a handful,) who are more than willing to rush in an upset various apple carts. Psychologically viewed, and agreeing with Suzanne, this to me signals the symptomatic acting out of the community. It is, to me, a necessary sign of both present and future health.
...

Try this one:

amplified civic intelligence +
disruptive critical inquiries
= work of fools and idiots

Anyone can destroy, cause trouble, mix-it up. We have to look no farther than the drunkest person at the party who falls through the stereo. No talent required.

But to build, to go positive, to turn dark into light, that is the challenge.

But maybe you were brought up differently.

At the same time I see neither Mayor George or Suzanne as disruptive, far from it both work very hard at improving the city, but from differrent angles and motivational factors. Not disruptive but positive.

However I am sure we both know people that cannot stand positive things. Their lives have bottomed out and they want to see everything dragged down into their own personal hell. But is included, and brought along, even the worst can enjoy life again.

Jim, I'll answer what my own purpose in a moment. You wrote:

You ask why step back then mention we have all learned to step back.

I made no such mention. What I did write was rhetorical:

"most of us have learned to step back," in response to me asking, "What are reasons to not step back?"

Whether to step back is an important rule or not is of interest. But, other than the fact that there are possible different views on this, I wouldn't for a minute agree that in Lakewood 'we all,' or everybody has learned to step back.

My purpose is to explore the nature of thinking, action and process.

There's are assertions of the type which elicit in me a simple question: are they true for more than the person who makes the assertion? To discover their truth one must go do the research.

Even a millisecond of quality thought is worth more than none. The bear works off instincts and memory, he remembers the the Brier patch, and badger.

Where we both agree that any thought is better than none, I'm interested in discovering whether Lakewood has any eagles, lions, and big nasty pythons. Etc.

Yet the one place you should NEVER wander, is the middle.

For you, maybe tis how you float your boat. I hold exactly the opposite view: there are occasions when one, with genius, wanders right into the thick and flaming middle and stands there with every bit of intelligence and courage and plants their stake right there.

No one owns correct answers, all the rest are in the eyes of the beholder. Theory vs. Fact, a daily struggle for most.

There's the paradox again: correct answers are tentative, provisional, later proved or disproved, found to adhere or peal back from true context.

(By the way, to me, the normal struggle is between fact and nonsense, and, factual theory and nonsensical theory, and, between facts and values.)

Here's my hypothesis:

amplified civic intelligence +
disruptive critical inquiries
= unintended consequences; even to the extent of creative destruction

---

What's amplified civic intelligence? It's more residents mucking around more around the civic kitchen. You know the place: where the cooks are developing and trying out their recipes, so-to-speak. The smarter citizen thinks they should be more the chef; the chefs think they should mind their own business.

Alternately, this flow of tendacious circuitry is, in fact, not going to happen because 'everybody' in Lakewood understands their conserving, traditional roles--everything in its rightful place, everything in its rightful time. As I sense it in Lakewood, there is an extremely strong current of this sort.

My sense is that, for example, The Lakewood Observer is not well configured to support this conserving circuit because there are way too many people, (even if it's a handful,) who are more than willing to rush in an upset various apple carts. Psychologically viewed, and agreeing with Suzanne, this to me signals the symptomatic acting out of the community. It is, to me, a necessary sign of both present and future health.

I could argue forcefully that the consequence of unleashing civic intelligence is that many tried-and-true processes, as well as less effective processes, will come under considerably more acute scrutiny, and will be subject to, at times, very hot and disruptive critical inquiry. It is thus the case that to build a foundation for provoking greater intelligence will obtain something like the result of opening a pandora's box, or taking a bite out of the edenic apple.

Ha! With this unfolding in the newspaper, I'm tempted to suggest the Bear is in the middle holding the bottle the genjie has booked out of.

CLASSES OF INCLUSION:

Primary

(A) Design interest

(1) Vested Interests

(2) Privileged Interests

Secondary classes

(3) Expert Interests

(4) Stakeholder interests
[neither initially vested or privileged)

(5) Community interests

(6) 'Disinterested'


Basic operational classes of process:


LOW STRUCTURE - LOW FUNCTION

key: not designed <> "informal" often ad hoc, inclusive, unclear about what constitutes qualifications of interest <> tends to self-organize or fall apart if structure/function can't be clarified

HIGH STRUCTURE - LOW FUNCTION

key: qualifications for admission are a matter of design <> "non-formal" but not ad hoc, not inclusive but also not functionally very organized <> function tends to self-organize, may fall apart, but, also is prone to minimal functionality

LOW STRUCTURE - HIGH FUNCTION

key: inclusive and process is designed to operationalize function <> "non-formal" but with functionality designed around the loose structure, qualification of various interests self organizes around a priori design of how they functionally cooperate <> may tend to get bogged down in integration of variety of interests and group functionality

HIGH STRUCTURE - HIGH FUNCTION

key: admission and process operations are pre-designed <> "formal" <> the operationalization of group dynamics is known in advance, (couldn't be a matter of design and testing if it were not so) <> may be: simple or complex


To speak of "design" is to imply that there is a <design interest>. A design interest with respect to structure alone will be only concerned with who is admitted into the process. A design interest with respect to function alone will only be interested in how the process operates.

The design of functionality and operations is itself subject to 'complexification'. In other words, the 'designer' can orient the design around simple objectives or complex objectives. An example of objective in terms of functionality is the flow of ideas into critical functions; i.e. is a given idea accurately propositionalized, and implicated, is it properly interpreted/analyzed?

(Air Traffic control is a certain example of HF/HS process for which everything rides on information passing through efficient critical structures.)

The kicker is this: truisms about the effectiveness of critical dynamics in groups having to do with the actual effectiveness of groups, given their objectives, are completely researchable. Presumptive truisms may or may not be true.

For example, an expert can sit in on a group and report back about various structural and functional aspects. This expert can analyze how ideas flow through critical functions, how biases at the level of individual psychology impact functionality, and, among many interesting facets, how tacit (hidden,) features sympathize or distort functionality.

Very often, in the civic space, groups, effect High Structure/Low Function simply because their operational functions weren't designed to begin with, and, over time, they haven't "self-organized" high function; (when it happens such function is an example of "design-after-the-facts".)

Furthermore, extremely inclusive, (or big,) groups aren't prevented from being High Function at all. They surely are when their functionality isn't clear from the git-go, yet, as a matter of design, High Functionality can be built into the process. High Functionality often can be built on the spot by very expert facilitation.

Whether a new idea, proposal, direction is generated through the political powers and forces, or from the grass roots, one imperative remains the same. Before the idea is brought before who must eventual pass upon it, it is necessary that those who will one day set it out for review, first fully explore and investigate their idea. I would much rather a thoroughly considered plan be presented, as opposed to a half baked idea, yet to be vetted.

In technical terms, this isn't an imperative at all. It begs lots of interesting questions, none is more interesting than whether those who will one day set it out for review, can optimally do so. In HS/LF groups, admission is designed but function is not. There's nothing about being admitted into a group that alone insures that critical process is highly function. Importantly, mere procedure cannot constitute functionality. In other words, a group can have very strict rules and also be, in effect, very 'stupid'. It's also possible that procedures and norms can be implemented which mitigate functionality.

When we consider the effects which come from the qualification of privilege, many truisms of group effectiveness come under even more pressure.

Okay, eyes glaze over. (Whatever...) The fact is: civic intelligence at its highest levels of functionality will tend to be implicated in well-designed processes. Short of design, (tempted to say 'intelligent design,'!) the actual effectiveness of groups, whether members of the group are really interested in group effectiveness or not, is completely researchable. Whatever is truly true about group process, (aside from purported truisms,) can be elicited, resolved, actualized via investigation of how groups really happen to work.

It is not true that smaller groups are per force more effective than larger groups. Most groups are, by definition, complex and it is very often the case that civic groups do not know themselves very well or know their group process to be very complex matters of behavior. Every adult group oriented around the vetting of ideas is very likely going to be very complex. This is a naturalistic fact about the domain of group dynamics.

Badly designed groups can be less effective than messy LS/LF groups that benefit from better self-organizing dynamics.

Then there are the dynamics of privilege and 'privileging' which impact greatly group effectiveness, especially in the civic spaces where wll known groups usually are at least High Structure; i.e. are designed to admit Betty but not Billy.

To wrap up the novel take on process aimed at action, the view about what is termed 'convening' in the private lingo of conveners needs to be resolved.

Needless to say, there's a better way to put this:

Who gets to sit at the table? When? Why?

(If you hang around the folks who put together, or sit on, or wish to sit on, regional boards, commissions, 'high-end' panels, you soon learn that there is this problem called: 'convening'.)

Two general distinctions have been drawn previously in a simple perspective on process. These categories, STRUCTURE and FUNCTION, implicate very complex features which finally are rooted not in the output of action, or in a plan, but, rather, are rooted in the input of human behavior; in interpersonal psychology; in how persons collaborate to generate the 'plan for action'.

So, obviously, it matters who gets to participate.

The strong control aspect of design has been touched upon. In the qualification of interest groups, sub-groups with respect to the convened group, there is a commonsense qualification.

VESTED INTEREST
Literally the persons who invest themselves into the group. This is where groups start: one or more people decide to start the group. Or, by way of a political or social protocol they are automatically invested into the group.

PRIVILEGED INTEREST
Literally all other persons who are at either the beginning or some other point, invited to participate in the group's primary activities all the way to what is the goal of the group.

These two are the primary interest sub-groupings. The over-arching qualification is that both sub-groups are members of the group all the way to the realization of the group's goals. This is a cut-and-dry way of characterizing participation.

Secondary interests. Defined as temporary participants, although they may be later privileged and join the 'terminal' group, i.e. the group at the end of the process.

EXPERT INTERESTS
Consultants! Academics! Anybody who becomes part of the group because they bring to it needed expert capacities. (Expert capacity obviously may already be constituted in primary interest sub-groups.)

STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Basically persons often called internal or external customers in the biz world who have a stake of some sort in the end product of the process. In a city making plans about taxation, it would be all the people effected by those plans. They might be invited to provide feedback to the group, or more, and so would be temporary participants unless they were privileged and joined the terminal group.

COMMUNITY INTERESTS
In the context of civic processes, everybody else who might be invited to participate who claim an interest.

DISINTERESTED INTERESTS
Anybody else.

***

The most general example to put this all together is any process oriented around problem solving.

If the participation in the group at either a primary or secondary level is to be structured to attend to the solution of a problem, clear matters of design of the problem solving process come into view with respect to who gets to constitute the group.

The most obvious question is:

In the design of who gets to be in the group, are there participants who can accomplish the following steps:

(1) make an inquiry into what is needed to define the problem
(2) define the problem
(3) conceive of how the problem is correctly propositionalized and operationalized
(4) conceive the causal features of the correctly viewed problem
(5) analyze and interpret, given success with 1-4, what is termed the Objective Problem
(6) generate possible solutions
(7) generate a critical framework for evaluating various solutions
(8) elevate the optimal solution

note--#7 is itself a complex series of analytic components, because the critical framework is no less than the array of factors which correctly describe the context of the problem. And, it's only in relation to a context that smart cost/benefit analysis can be accomplished.

It is easy to see that this simplistic perspective nonetheless brings together the Structure implicit in convening, and the analytic capacities implicit in functionality.

If both are subjected to a preliminary problem definition having to do with the design of critical process, it then becomes possible for the actual process to obtain High Structure and High Function. The fundamental working assumption of this constructive perspective is that correctness matters in the implication of persons and operations in a process.

Best example: clinical interventions in the matters of illness.

It's important to note that increases in structure and function define a continuum. Also, even more important, even optimal structure and function don't guarantee the best result given definable constraints on both. And, it's always possible that the best result emerges from sub-optimal processes.

There's a final step that can be invoked.

(9) Debriefing the process for the sake of improving it the next time. [This might unfold a complete problem definition process for the sake of doing this.]

***

Lakewood Alive released it's Grow Lakewood Report recently. It's very interesting as a case of "result" of process. The report itself presents findings and recommendations. One can't extract much of the underlying analysis, let alone learn about the process involved, from what is in effect a summary of a complex process.

However, I do want to highlight the one concrete statement about convening in the report.

Leverage citizen expertise for support and ideas (significant pool of seasoned executives available to help)

This reference to a potential for capacity begs questions about design of structure at the level of Invested and Privileged Interests. Two questions, then:

One, are such persons plugged into a viable analytic process?

Two, do they bring capacity for correct analysis, etc.?

There's one other question that I'm personally always interested in. What overt or tacit assumptions about context and problem definition and solution generation are implicitly facets of the investment and privileging of interests in a group process?

Another way to look at this question:

In what ways do biases and cognitive deficits get plugged into the primary interest group? What effects follow?

***

As an observer of process, I note that various assumptions always are in the mix. Beginning this thread with a highlighting of 'action, action, action' and moving into assumptions about process, and then framing both in terms of one novel way, (itself subject to critique,) of looking at how participation and process hang together, or do not, returns this observer to a crucial remark of Susan's, later deleted.

In general terms, the understanding of context and the web of causal relations found in the context, inasmuch as this understanding also describes what constitutes a 'system' and describes how this system works, (or is said to work,) is mission critical to correct problem definition and problem solution.

Often, the telltale evidence of both faults in underdesigned Structure, and, in Function, are revealed at the very beginning of certain processes. Basically, context is resolved so subjectively and is described so incompletely, and is burdened with such clear biases, that correct problem definition is unlikely to result from this 'weak' beginning.

And, it matters not a bit whether the primary group is large or small if it cannot implicate the necessary capacity and plug it into workable process.

Any assumptions about conventional norms of group formation exist within this frame of reference, a frame which holds optimal critical process as the paramount foundation of group process aimed at 'smart' ends. All 'truisms' may be subjected to some pressure.

A small group is likely more efficient than a large group, yet a small group that is missing vital capacities is not likely to be more effective than the larger group which implements those missing capacities.

Although...sometimes the small group with deficits gets lucky!

Capacity matters much more than size at the end of the day.

Stephen

Funny how you and I can work on the same thing and see things soooooooo differently.

I see it as:
COMMUNITY INTERESTS
In the context of civic processes, everybody else who might be invited to participate who claim an interest.

DISINTERESTED INTERESTS
Anybody else.

If the belief is everyone taking part has an equal community interest. It just seems so much better.

Maybe break down Community Interest into: Motivated and Less Motivated

Does there really need to be a hierarchy as you suggest, or can .0005% be organization, and the rest built on one rule and mutual respect?

I think sometimes you try to add corporate group speak to what can only be describe as "intelligent design."

Thank goodness we see view things differently.

I offered here a limited view of several constructive features found in an group process anywhere.

You're correct in that community interests are fulfilled up through the hierarchy. But, at the same time, those interests can be qualified according to the descriptive classifications I've set out here. So, it isn't that there needs to be a hierarchy--a hierarchy exists where it does exist.

More/Less motivated is pertinent of course and are qualities which further enrich the simple classes and these qualities might also further differentiate hierarchical aspects.

You suggest,

or can .0005% be organization, and the rest built on one rule and mutual respect?

Sure there can be something built on this. It's an experiment one could do. But, no matter how simple the purported initial principles are, all experiments will be complicated because human beings are complicated.

And, if .0005% and one rule and mutual respect either work out well or work out badly, this working out will be so for complicated reasons.

By the way, I am a harsh critic of corporate group speak, given my understanding that all adult work groups express complex psychological relations. Etc.

Tony Felice <> PostSat Nov 12, 2005 3:04 pm
Posts: 2
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Stephen Calhoun wrote:

Ken, the LO, especially extended through the mission of the Visionary Alignment, could be said in but one view to build critical inquiry from the foundation provided in this last assumption.

We have a tiny team in place. Its own bias reduces to the radical idea:

the rejection of cynicism

What I've become aware of over the last year is that there is a very cynical idea afoot in Lakewood.

I'll offer a twofold version.

it is that (1) a citizenry is too stupid to be allowed to become involved in decisions about the future of the community;

and,

(2) but, that's okay because there are already processes in place which buffer the stupid citizenry out of decision making, information flows, and the qualifying presumptions of who gets convened to sit at the 'table'.


The first thought that came to mind when I began to write this post was "The rejection of cynicism is indeed a radical idea, especially in the political arena." The second thought was that my first thought sounded pretty cynical. Like many a person who considers himself or herself open-minded, I have to contend with the fact that my own arrogance and elitism may simply be more subtle than that of whomever I'm comparing myself to. For me, and I suspect for anyone, the rejection of cynicism is a commitment to a goal, and never a done deal. It's a commitment to keep pushing my personal frontier in a direction I've chosen to believe in.

It's interesting that you call the rejection of cynicism a bias. It is, of course. Every viewpoint is a bias. In social discourse, every viewpoint is also much more than a "point of view." It is also efficacious. Seeing is not just believing. It's creating. As biases go, the rejection of cynicism is one of my favorites, because I'm so much happier with what I create when I see through that lens.

"People are stupid." "People are smart." "The electorate is too dumb and easily manipulated to be trusted with important decisions." "You can fool some of the people all of the time..." Whichever of these I choose to believe, I will not only feel that I am right, I will also be right in the sense that my believing it makes the world a little more that way. That's why I find the LO project so exciting. The fact of these questions being asked here about CitiStat--the fact of its being observed in this way--will affect what it turns out to be.

Copied here for pending response