Timothy Wilken
In response to my last article Beyond Democracy reader Jeff Willson writes:
Okay, I’m definitely not going to say I’d like your ideas to fail, but that doesn’t mean I think they can work. Please consider my comments “devil’s advocacy” or “friendly criticism”.
———————
-> “All are equal within the heterarchy.”
Children? The mentally unsound? Criminal psychopaths? Convicted felons? Prisoners of war?
Timothy-> We are equal in our responsibility to make our group or organization work. We are equal in authority to make the choices that will optimize our joint action.
Those incapable of acting with responsibility and authority i.e. Children, The mentally unsound, Criminal psychopaths, etc.. are not candidates for synergic organization.
Unanimous Rule Consensus is a decision making system for responsible individuals. My point is simply that the price of admission for participation in the decision making process is the demonstration of responsibility.
I am not recommending any action against children, the mentally unsound, criminal psychopaths, convicted felons, or prisoners of war.
Now as to their future participation in Unanimous Rule Consensus. I expect the children will grow up and become responsible. I expect some of the mentally ill or physically ill may be sucessfully treated and become candidates for inclusion in Unanimous Rule Consensus.
Just like we don’t let the incompetent vote in our majority rule elections today, those incapable of responsibity are not good candidates for participation in Unanimous Rule Consensus.
What do to with them is entirely another question that I have not addressed here.
I would say that a synergic society would not hurt them. But, synergists are also realists, and they will protect themselves and their family from those who are dangerous.
———————
-> “The wholistic focus of the heterarchy is on the needs of the whole organization.”
“Okay, winter’s coming soon. I think the tribe needs to go east from here to get to the good pasture lands, or we’ll all starve.”
“I think the tribe needs to go west from here, over the mountains, and camp at the village. They owe us a favor, and if we go east the barbarians will slaughter us.”
“I think those barbarians are only a myth, and the village is tired of us freeloading. If we go there we’ll starve.”
Right. What do we do? (Let’s assume that “north” and “south” are right out.)
Timothy-> It is not always obvious who is right and who is wrong. There will still be uncertainty and risk is the future even with synergic organization. The goal is to continue the negotiation until a plan of action is agreed to. It is also a decision not to decide. If we stay here arguing will will also perish. Members of the heterarchy can only veto a joint action if they believe that action would cause them to lose, but then they are equally responsible for proposing a different action in which they don’t lose and in which no one else in the group loses.
Ultimatums
Ultimatum is an adversary condition when the stronger forces the weaker to lose. This can occur between two individuals or between two nations. For example, let us assume that two individuals decide to help each other?that is they decide to work together?to form an “us”. These individuals will discover their individual preferences are constrained by their joint life. Because they share resources, they can’t both live in their favorite city, or in their favorite house, or own their favorite automobile, unless by chance they have identical favorites. The “us” is formed to gain the power and advantage of interdependence. Interdependence’s “division of labor” improves the standard of living for both, but the price for the higher standard of living is that the choices of both individuals are constrained by the needs and wants of the other.
In the adversary relationships, we experience this constraint as the ultimatum. The ultimatum is an opportunity to lose. You can lose-a-little or you can lose-a-lot, but you will lose.
Imagine, a husband comes home from work. He says to his wife,
“Well, I lost my job today. I have had it with the bay area. We are going to move to Los Angeles, there are good jobs there.” His wife counters, “But, I don’t like Los Angeles. The kids and I will lose, if we have to move to Los Angeles.” The husband plays the trump card. “Well you can either go to Los Angeles or you can get a divorce. Its up to you, but I’m moving to L.A.”
Which do you want?–a broken arm or a broken leg? Your choice is between losing-a-little by moving to a community you don’t like, or losing-a-lot by getting a divorce, but you are going to be compromised–you are going to lose.
Seeking Bindings
The synergic alternative to an Ultimatum is called a binding. Now constraint is placed on any group of individuals who choose to live or work together. This is a law of physics. Constraint does not go away in the synergic relationship. But it remains only a constraint, and not a compromise. In synergic relationship, you are never forced to lose. You, in fact, are encouraged and expected to veto all losses. The only path the two of you agree to walk is one in which you both win. In synergic relationship there is no loss. You may win-a-lot or you may win-a-little, but you will win.
The synergic alternative to the ultimatum is called the binding. It is the contract that results from the negotiation to insure the win?co-Operation. It is the contract establishing a relationship in which you both win in which you both are helped.
Imagine, our husband coming home who enjoys synergic relationship with his wife. “Honey, I got laid off today, I have really had it with the bay area. I just can’t stay here anymore. I feel like I’m losing.” “Well, where do you want to go?” “Los Angeles, I hear there are good jobs down there.” “No, the kids and I would lose in Los Angeles. How about Denver?” “Okay, I could live with that. Let me check the job market tomorrow.”
———————
-> “Anyone who has ever built a house knows the carpenter’s rule: Measure twice, cut once.”
Good rule. Here’s another: “He who hesitates is lost.”
Timothy-> My point here is not that there will never be times when you have to decide quickly and act right now. There will be those times.
But rather I am speaking of the many times when it is possible to take the time to get consensus for a plan of action that will in the long run save enormous time and energy in the execution of that plan.
A Japanese business heterarchy is slower at making decisions than a single manager in an American business hierarcy. It takes longer for a group of individuals to discuss, negotiate, and come to agreement than it takes for a single American manager to decide all by himself. If the speed of making decisions is the only criteria for choosing a mechanism of decision making then the business tyrant?the rule by one is the clear standout.
However, the Japanese have shown us the disadvantages of other directed hierarchies. Majority rule committee is not a rapid decision making process. Individuals within a committee are seeking to gain the majority of support. This takes time?sometimes a lot of time. The focus is on lining up votes?working deals?in a word?politics. This process is anything but rapid. If all decisions in American businesses were made by majority rule, decision making would probably be even slower than in Japanese companies using heterarchical consensus.
“Global warming? It’s a crock!! I recommend we have 75 more years of studies and focus groups, and then decide on the appropriate course of action. And besides, if we cut back on economic activity now, millions of people will be out of work.”
Timothy-> If you honestly don’t know the best answer then the group must decide whether they should seek more information or accept the risk of deciding without the right answer. In a synergic group you are equally at risk for the consequences of the joint action. If you are wrong then you and your children may die.
———————
-> “Co-OPERATION: Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses.”
Your child desperately needs a kidney transplant.
My child is killed in a traffic accident, and is a perfect donor.
I belong to the Church of the Great and Powerful Heebie-Jeebie, which mandates that if we “defile” my child’s body in this way, she won’t be able to get into the Big Candyland In The Sky, and I forbid this procedure.
Timothy-> I expect smart individuals will join groups in which they are generally in agreement. If I my group is the Church of the Great and Powerful Heebie-Jeebie then I don’t want may child to have some other child’s kidney. Now if I a member of the Church of the Non-Brain dead, very likely some other parent will gladly offer me their dead child’s kidney.
Again Unanimous Rule Democracy will not make life risk free. It will simply make it much more likely that you will win.
My relatives are willing to go to court to have me declared legally incompetent.
Timothy-> Guess I picked the wrong relatives.
———————
-> “Synergetic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in heterarchy negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses.”
I don’t think this is generally possible. (I think if this WAS possible, we’d all be doing things this way *now*.)
Timothy-> We can’t use a new invention until it is invented. The airplane was always possible. But no one could fly one until it was invented. Synergic organization has always been possible. But no one invented it until recently.
No two people have 100% identical goals. No two people have 100% identical definitions of perfect “win” and perfect “lose”.
Timothy-> That is why each member of a heterarcy represents themselves. They decide when they are losing. But they are equally responsible for finding a alternative plan of action where they don’t lose and that still accomplishes the goals of the group. And of course, we humans have many common goals. We all want good food, safety, fresh water, shelter, etc., etc..
I think the best we can do in the real world is “the greatest good for the greatest number”, and I think that’s what all the existing imperfect systems are trying to achieve.
Timothy-> I agree that is what we are trying to achieve. I just think we would be much more successful if we used synergic consensus.
———————
-> “The proposed action for solving a problem is examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone can suggest a modification, or even an alternative action to solve the problem. All members of the heterarchy serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy continues in discussion until a plan of action is found that will work for everyone. When all are in agreement and only then can the plan be implemented. The plan insures that all members of the synergic heterarchy win. All members are required to veto any plan where they or anyone else would lose. But all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan so the loss can be eliminated.”
I don’t see how this could have any other result than continuous negotiation, and no action.
(The Athenian democracy was quite close to what you propose—or at least possibly the closest we’ve had in the real world.)
Timothy-> This problem is solved because we are dealing with individuals of integrity. Making no decision is a decision that will produce bad results. You only veto if you are losing. If you are not losing you cannot veto. The moment I cry veto I will be asked to explain how I am losing. If I am just being arbitrary and an obstructionist I run the risk of being vetoed out of the group.
Synergic organizers will carefully invite members to join them. The whole idea is that we can be more together than we can be separately. Those who are co-Operative will not be invited to join many groups.
———————-
-> “When individuals work together in synergic relationship, new abilities, skills, talents, etc., emerge as a part of that relationship, that are not there when the individuals work separately. The individuals working in synergic group are more efficient, more productive, more creative, and more intelligent, than they are when working separately. The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than they could create apart.”
I’m afraid that this system would very rapidly act to produce bickering, ill-feeling, treachery—look at the discussion groups on the Internet now!
Timothy-> None of these discussion groups are currently organized with any common goals in mind. They are attracted by common interests not goals. However, even here we see lots of examples where people help each other. Perhaps we should start some groups with some common goals.
———————
-> The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than -> they could create apart.
The Pyramids were built by somebody saying, “Okay, listen up!! We have a Plan here, and you 50,000 guys are going to build it.” I can’t imagine that those 50,000 guys would have managed the project any more productively and efficiently by negotiating the whole thing out on a heterarchical basis.
Timothy-> The Pyramids were build with Adversary help.
1) Adversary Help – We can make others help us.
This is help obtained with coercion ? force or fraud. Those providing the help are losing. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can. Because the helper is hurt, adversary help is low quality help.
2) Neutral Help -We can purchase help through the fair market place.
This is help purchased from others. This is the way most of us living in the free world get help today. We hire it or we buy it in the market place. When I go to McDonald’s, I pay them five dollars to feed me. The focus in the neutral market place is on a fair price. Because the helper is ignored, neutral help is average quality help.
Or, 3) Synergic Help -We can attract help by helping others.
This help attracted by helping others. When other individuals understand that by helping you, they will in turn be helped, they will automatically help you. When others understand that when you win, they will win, they will support and celebrate your success. This is the power of the win-win relationship. Show those who can help you, how they will win by doing so. Show them how they will be helped by helping you. Because the helper is helped, synergic help is high quality help.
Forced to help Adversary – (1+1)<2
I was forced to help him. Slavery, indentured service, tenant farming, and child labor are examples of adversary help. The criminal makes you help him, when he steals your money. The government makes you help it, when it forces you to pay taxes. You are forced to help others anytime you are given an ultimatum.
Adversary relationships are hurting and negative experiences. The helper experiences a loss. He is less after helping you than before. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can.
Adversary relationships are hurtful. The parties in these relationships experience loss. They struggle to avoid the loss ? conflict. In an adversary relationship, one individual plus another individual are less after the relationship. In other words (1+1)<2, and often much less than two. Adversary relationships are marked by high conflict, low effectiveness and poor productivity.
When you can make others help you, coercing them with force or fraud, the helper loses and will typically give you only the lowest quality help.
Paid to help Neutral – (1+1)=2
I was paid to help him. Macy’s, Sears, Mervyn’s, Penny’s, Costco, K-Mart, Circuit City, etc., etc. ? malls, stores, markets, shops, and restaurants ? are all examples of neutral help. The yellow pages in the telephone book are lists of places where you can purchase help. Capitalism’s fair market is where you purchase neutral help. You buy help in the open market place at a fair market exchange price. This is the modern free world where help is sold as products and services.
In the fair market, the helper experiences a draw and will typically produce average quality help.
Neutral relationships are ignoring. The parties in these relationships experience no change. They barter to insure that the exchange is fair ? to insure that the price is not too high or too low ? to insure that neither party loses. The open market of free enterprise generates a zone of neutrality which markedly reduces adversary relations. Neutral systems gain a marked production advantage over adversary systems. They are significantly more productive. However, this is primarily because they are not adversary. In a neutral relationship one individual plus another individual are the same after the relationship: (1+1)=2. Neutral relationships are marked by indifference with fair effectiveness and only average productivity.
Neutrality is that place where I work just hard enough to avoid getting fired, and, my employer pays me just enough to keep me from quitting.
How average is my help going to be?
Neutral relationships are ignoring and static experiences. The helper experiences a draw. They are the same after helping as before. When you ignore those who help you, you will get only fair help.
Helped for help Synergic – (1+1)>>2
I was helped for helping him. Examples of synergic help in today’s world are much less common. We do ?nd them in family businesses and within some partnerships and small business groups. Synergic relationships more often exist in start up businesses, where the originators work together sharing in the risks and the rewards equally.
If you wish to attact synergic help you must insure that when individuals invest their help with yours, they are also helped. Then they will automatically reinvest with you. When others understand that when you win, they win, they will support and celebrate your success. Synergic relationships are helping, positive experiences. The helper experiences a win. They are more after helping you than before. When you help those who help you, you get the most help. When you help those who help you, you get excellent help.
Synergic relationships are helpful. The parties in the relationship experience a gain. They operate together to insure that both parties win. They negotiate to insure that both parties are helped. In synergic relationships one individual plus another individual is more after their relationship than before: (1+1)>>2. Synergic relationships are marked by low conflict with high effectiveness and enormous productivity.
A Japanese Example
The Japanese reduce conflict by using heterarchy in their systems. In many ways, the basic structure of Japanese business appears no less hierarchical than our own. However, the Japanese have introduced heterarchy into their systems in at least three significant forms.
First of all, the Japanese use “quality circles”. Management and workers all sit at the same level in advisory “heterarchies”. This allows the managers to be very aware of the attitudes of those who will be implementing decisions. Conflict can be discovered and eliminated effectively within the heterarchy. All participants of “quality circles” feel they are on a full and equal basis to discuss problems and recommend changes.
Secondly, while much of the Japanese work day is spent in hierarchical organization not unlike Americans, the Japanese business day does not end at 5 pm. The mandatory socializing which occurs every night after work is structured as heterarchy. This provides another opportunity to reduce conflict and many business decisions are made in this social setting.
And thirdly, while hierarchy prevails in terms of organizational responsibility, the Japanese manager adopts a more open heterarchical style. He welcomes his worker’s inputs, and encourages them to participate in the decision making process.
This is a move away from other-directed management towards more self-directed management. This is accompanied by an almost instantaneous decrease in conflict.
If we are to learn anything from the Japanese, it should be that reduction of conflict always produces a significant increase in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life.
As Ezra Vogel, chairman of the Council on East Asian Studies at Harvard University wrote in 1979:
“Today Japan is the world’s foremost economic power. Last year the Japanese manufactured one and a half times as much per capita as Americans. While for the first time in decades our exports of industrial goods fell behind our imports, Japan exported $75 billion more of industrial goods than it imported. Japan’s investment rate, as well as its GNP growth rate, is more than twice that of America and its research and development efforts are growing much more rapidly than our own. Its workers, contrary to our old stereotype, are effectively better paid than our own. And its performance in educating the population, minimizing disparities of income, reducing the crime rate, and increasing the length of human life is substantially ahead of America’s. These differences will have far more profound consequences than we have begun to imagine.”
———————
-> 3) In synergy, I am EQUAL to all my associates.
But I’m NOT equal to all my associates. I’m different from all my associates, and they’re all different from each other.
Timothy-> You are equal to your associates in responsibility for the success of the group. You are equal to your associates in authority to make the joint plan of action. You are equal to your associates in the risk of failure that could injury if the group’s plan of action fails.
———————
-> 4) In synergy when we WIN, I will win MORE with my associates than -> by myself and I will share equally in the GAINS.
-> 5) In synergy, when we LOSE, I will lose LESS with my associates than -> by myself and I will share equally in the LOSSES.
And here we have the “nub of the gist” of why things are the way they are. Both why the human psyche is the way it is, and why politics are the way they are.
Because, in the real world, sometimes I win more when I cooperate with my associates, and sometimes I win more when I don’t.
The entire history of human society is one of individual’s daily gambles on how they expect these “contests” to work out.
Timothy-> In 1920, there were only 2 billion humans. If you didn’t like it here you could always go someplace else. The world was a big place. There was lots of room. Today there are 6 billion humans. Where can you go to escape the actions of others? Today there are no separate solutions. We can either work together or we can die separately. That is our only choice.
———————
-> “Synergetic consensus eliminates conflict.”
I don’t think this is possible in the real world.
Timothy-> That is why we have to change the rules.
———————
-> “If the human body can using unanimous rule democracy and synergic consensus can organize and coordinate the actions of 40,000,000,000 cells so totally that we identify the whole organism as a single individual, then we humans should be able to use these same mechanisms to organize our species and solve our human problems.”
How many cells die in the human body every day? I suspect, when we understand the picture more fully, we’ll see that there’s a lot of competition going on between cells.
Timothy-> No there is no competition going on in a healthy body, if by competition you mean conflict or behavior that would injure other cells. In fact the human body is a synergic organization. All cells work together and survive or perish together. And, when a cell forgets it is a part of the body. Usually from damage to its DNA, then it begins to treat the body as a stranger. And the rest of the body begins to fight it. We now know that all biological systems develop cancer cells every day. Most of the time your immune system detects the stranger in your midst and destroys it. When the immune system fails the cancer cells grow and then become detectable by your physician.
And suppose a cancer, cells whose “goals” are inimical to those of the “society” as a whole? Suppose your goals are declared inimical to those of society as a whole?
Arthur Noll-> a list member answered this one:
Cancers need to be cut out of the body. How do you determine a cancer? It takes and will not give anything back. It masquerades as part of the body, and yet takes no signals from it. I think we have today a significant problem with cancer in the body of society. I think we need to sift through and test everyone for their desire to live as part of a healthy body of society, and separate the healthy from the malignant. Such a test is very simple, you tell people what a healthy society is, pointing out the fact of our interdependence, the need for honest measure of what we are doing, to live on the sustainable use of renewable resources, reproduce according to this, the need for consensus democracy, and if they are healthy, they will think about it and want to join.
If they prefer the organization of everyone trying to take as much as possible like a cluster of cancers, then they stay where they are.
This is a sharp scalpel, it will cut neatly, but sometimes it is going to cause pain. We have relationships with lots of people, this scalpel is going to sometimes cut through friendships, sometimes cut through the relationship between parents and children, sometimes between spouses. Sometimes the pain of surgery has to be accepted for the overall good of the body. Those that can understand that and deal with the pain, belong with the healthy.
Those that shrink away at the slightest pain, are basically not ready to give for the overall good, they aren’t healthy. This is a moment of extraordinary stress for the survival of humanity, we have to accept the pain of surgery very soon, or the patient is very likely to die, healthy and malignant together.
———————
-> “Unanimous Rule Democracy becomes a viable option for humanity with the creation of the internet. The cells of our bodies are connected through our peripheral and central nervous system. A synergic society needs a similarly powerful system of communication. The internet can serve as that system.”
When all Internet users are angels, sure. In the real world, as I note above, what we see are bickering, bad feelings, treachery.
Timothy-> That is because the rules of our current reality are adversary or at best neutral. Its time we changed the rules.
———————
Thanks for your many excellent questions, Jeff. I appreciate the opportunity to answer them.
Bound through Synergy,
Timothy