So it's a twofer, really.consistently turning out the world's greatest javelin throwers, year after year.
What about data as a commodity that everyone has, in a sense, an unlimited capacity to generate? That will grant the masses some kind of pseudo-socialist leverage, in the sense that the database is impartial as to what data it subsumes.
Once we affirm the individual-unto-dividual development, a development that will almost certainly happen regardless of whether or not we affirm it, we claim, perhaps, a new set of rights.
How much of the individual's situation can be succinctly and effectively communicated via data collection? Data which is then integrated into the system that collects the data. In theory, the effectiveness should increase, becoming more and more precise and accurate, as the data fuels the system.My argument in favour of populism is that the individual has access to knowledge of their own situation that no expert could have.
There needs to be constant communication between the two layers with the people informing experts of their situation and feeding back on ideas and implemented schemes.
Not necessarily, especially in medical terms, which is one of most significant breakthrough areas of anti-expert populism - "I know what's best for my kids", says the mother as she denies her child life-saving treatment because of something she read on Facebook.My argument in favour of populism is that the individual has access to knowledge of their own situation that no expert could have.
The data would be used to inform and develop the omnipresent surveillance database/machine, which would come to embody an increasingly god-like figure in a way. In this theological light, which is by no means the only light to see it in, the experts/intelligent/poindexters constitute the inner circle, but they are kept in check by the masses by means of the machine. All the masses would need to know how to do is watch the data of the experts, and use that information to hold them accountable. What would that precisely consist of? I'm not sure.dont understand this bit. what's data for? why does it give the herd leverage? what is individual-unto-dividual development and why does it bring a new set of rights into being alongside it?
That could be one of the central functions of the noocrats/poindexters - they can humanize the data before integrating it into the database/master-algorithm.Data collection is ok as long as the expert level understands that it needs to be willing to learn from the people (where learn means take in what they are saying and understand and accept where they're coming from)...eg. the experts failed to predict Brexit because the only data they could countenance was to do with economic needs.
No, they're generalists, by definition. They treat the commonplace illnesses and refer you to experts for anything fancy, don't they?patients generally do tell their GP what they've got and what to prescribe for it these days althougth i suppose you can argue GPs aren't experts.
I mean, I don't really have an understanding myself, which is why I thought it would be helpful to hash it all out here.hmm, still don't understand that that stuff about rights. really confusing.
Just got out of school, currently unemployed, staying with the family, considering routes for independent scholarship. A ton of spare time lately.