Jeff Lindsay (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} progrium) wrote,@ 2006-01-18 23:40:00 |
|
Another Brain Jam
This one is about politics, graph/network/systems theory, philosophy and maybe more. It's a mashup of ideas, but whatever. Lots of questions. Feel free to answer. Many ideas were not thought through.
Is having your grip on reality shaken a good thing? I used to think so. Change is good? What if it means giving up everything you now love. You'll be resistant. What if you give in and you love new things just as much? Was it a bad thing? What would make it a bad thing? Loving something that's bad? What is bad!
Your reality can change. Can it change so drastically you change your life ambitions? What's the difference between influence and inspiration?
Centralized organizations are good for control. Power is at the top. The bottom either fall in line or are "influenced" to do so. Some people are realizing this in the corporate world. Usually not the people that were in at the bottom. Those bottom people are still stuck. The people that realize are those that were never truly tainted, or had a big falling out.
What's wrong with power at the top? Besides the fact that those at the bottom are less human for not being able to make their own decisions (the real problem is they might be their own... they're too heavily "influenced" from above), when the power is at the top, the organization is ripe for corruption. It becomes a target.
Big centralized organizations are bad simply because they're ripe for corruption. There's too big of a chance that somebody or some people will take power with ill-intentions. What is that power? The ability to make decisions that cause great change.
Two kinds of power. How and what. What defines the goal. What defines what the company does. How defines implementation. How defines process. You can have power in one or the other, or both.
The power to give power? The power to give power to give power? Meta? Sounds the management chain in a divisional organization. (Boss's boss's boss)
In a decentralized organization, the power is evenly distributed (ideally). Everybody has the same ability to make decisions that cause the same amount of change. This can be bad because conflicts take longer to resolve, changes come down to the lowest common denominator, etc.
Decentralization (aka democracy?) works best in small groups because of a shared set of values and goals. It can scale if those goals and values can.
Influence fucks things up in a decentralized organization. The ability to make others agree with you is powerful. Influence in a decentralized network creates temporary nested centralized networks!
What's the difference between deciding on your own and being influenced? What's the difference between being influenced by a person and not? Anything?
Peer pressure is an issue of influence. Is peer pressure bad when it's pressure for a good thing? What is good again? When you're being pressured to do something, is there any way to decide to do it without being influenced?!?!
The web is both deccentralized and centralized. In a network, if you have a big hub, it is its own nested centralized network. Whoa!
Something about decentralizing by centralizing. Centralizing something that improves decentralization is something like infrastructure. If you give the power to everybody to do something, you've decentralized the ability to do it... but you've centralized that power that gave it to them.
This one is about politics, graph/network/systems theory, philosophy and maybe more. It's a mashup of ideas, but whatever. Lots of questions. Feel free to answer. Many ideas were not thought through.
Is having your grip on reality shaken a good thing? I used to think so. Change is good? What if it means giving up everything you now love. You'll be resistant. What if you give in and you love new things just as much? Was it a bad thing? What would make it a bad thing? Loving something that's bad? What is bad!
Your reality can change. Can it change so drastically you change your life ambitions? What's the difference between influence and inspiration?
Centralized organizations are good for control. Power is at the top. The bottom either fall in line or are "influenced" to do so. Some people are realizing this in the corporate world. Usually not the people that were in at the bottom. Those bottom people are still stuck. The people that realize are those that were never truly tainted, or had a big falling out.
What's wrong with power at the top? Besides the fact that those at the bottom are less human for not being able to make their own decisions (the real problem is they might be their own... they're too heavily "influenced" from above), when the power is at the top, the organization is ripe for corruption. It becomes a target.
Big centralized organizations are bad simply because they're ripe for corruption. There's too big of a chance that somebody or some people will take power with ill-intentions. What is that power? The ability to make decisions that cause great change.
Two kinds of power. How and what. What defines the goal. What defines what the company does. How defines implementation. How defines process. You can have power in one or the other, or both.
The power to give power? The power to give power to give power? Meta? Sounds the management chain in a divisional organization. (Boss's boss's boss)
In a decentralized organization, the power is evenly distributed (ideally). Everybody has the same ability to make decisions that cause the same amount of change. This can be bad because conflicts take longer to resolve, changes come down to the lowest common denominator, etc.
Decentralization (aka democracy?) works best in small groups because of a shared set of values and goals. It can scale if those goals and values can.
Influence fucks things up in a decentralized organization. The ability to make others agree with you is powerful. Influence in a decentralized network creates temporary nested centralized networks!
What's the difference between deciding on your own and being influenced? What's the difference between being influenced by a person and not? Anything?
Peer pressure is an issue of influence. Is peer pressure bad when it's pressure for a good thing? What is good again? When you're being pressured to do something, is there any way to decide to do it without being influenced?!?!
The web is both deccentralized and centralized. In a network, if you have a big hub, it is its own nested centralized network. Whoa!
Something about decentralizing by centralizing. Centralizing something that improves decentralization is something like infrastructure. If you give the power to everybody to do something, you've decentralized the ability to do it... but you've centralized that power that gave it to them.
