Cognitocratic measure
Last updated
Last updated
Cognitocratic measure (CM) is an attempt to objectify the contribution of each cognitocrat to the system as a whole. It’s a numerical score that is received by a cognitocrat every time a proposition is accepted by a chamber. Instead of just voting “Yes”, voters must also input a number (for the simplicity of the example let's assume that it is on a scale from 1 to 10). The average number that is derived from all the inputs converts into the CM received by the proposer. While CM tries to objectify contribution it is still a subjective measure that wouldn’t and shouldn’t in any way directly empower the mandate of any particular cognitocrat. Instead, it subjectively demonstrates to others the magnitude of contribution of a particular cognitocrat. It would be logical to state that the bigger the CM the more contribution was committed.
As a cognitocratic system consists of multiple chambers depending on the specialization, cognitocractic measures received from different chambers can’t have the same value. A CM of 5 received in the Chambers of Consensus and Cryptobiometrics can’t be the same as a CM of 5 received in the chamber of Social Relations and Marketing. The relation between these two measures is severely contextual as a cognitocractic system can value Nuclear Physics more than Marketing or vice-versa. For this reason, a multiplier set for each chamber would help define the proportions between contributions to different chambers.
Local Cognitocractic Measure (LCM) subjectively demonstrates the amount of contribution from a cognitocrat in a specific chamber.
Multiplied Cognitocratic Measure (MCM) is LCM multiplied by the chamber multiplier.
Absolute Cognitocratic Measure (ACM) represents the sum of all MCM’s received by a cognitocrat in various chambers.
Absolute Cognitocratic Measure formula is as follows,
Where i is a specific chamber and M is a chamber’s multiplier.
Let’s give a specific example. Bob has 5 LCM in a Philosophy SC and 10 LCM in SC of Finance. Multiplier for Philosophy SC is 3. Multiplier for Finance SC is 5. Thus,
Bob’s ACM is equal to 65.
As CM plays an important role in projecting the contribution of a cognitocrat to other cognitocrats, the process of setting the multiplier for the chambers becomes crucial as it changes the balance of contribution projection. There could be various forms of such a procedure but as it was set in the beginning of this paper I will concentrate on describing the most egalitarian form conceivable.
Every single cognitocrat can set a multiplicator on a scale from 1 to 100 for any chamber other than those where he received LCM. The average multiplier calculated from submissions becomes the Chamber Multiplier. In other words, it's the collective perception of the value brought to a system by a chamber that is represented by the average multiplier that is set by all cognitocrats but those who reside in the chamber itself. If a cognitocrat has received LCMs in multiple chambers then he is locked out from setting multipliers in all of those chambers.
As can be seen on this Figure every cognitocrat sets a multiplier to every other SC they are not a part of. Eve and Mallory cast multipliers of 2 and 6 to SC1 which on average sets it to 4. Alice, Bob and Mallory cast multipliers of 2, 2 and 5 to SC2 which on average sets it to 3. Alice and Eve cast multipliers of 8 and 4 to SC3 which on average sets it to 6.
During an inception there are three outcomes that might be put in place by a proposer upon an approval of creation of a new SC :
A proposer (and nominees) receives ACM in a GC and both the proposer and nominees become cognitocrats in a created chamber. As in the case of any other proposition in a GC an average number submitted by approving cognitocrats becomes a CM received by the proposer.
A proposer (and nominees) receives LCM in the created SC with the difference that the number is aggregated from a GC vote.
A proposer doesn’t receive any CM but still becomes a cognitocrat in a newly created SC.
Dissolution comes with a separate set of outcomes that are also very contextual. There are two major cases:
Cognitocrats from a dissolved chamber retain their LCMs. Even if the SC doesn’t exist anymore the CM retains some legacy value that is either adjustable as others or frozen.
Cognitocrats from a dissolved chamber lose all of their CM associated with that certain SC. This case is highly associated with a vote of censure.
