And now that I've eaten and had another coffee, I'll reply to the rest of the stuff. This is also why I said leave ethics out of this: it's a side topic that adds nothing of value to the current topic.
That is the language of Science.
Statements like that always make me chuckle.
You are speaking of an arbitrary social construct
Your use of the term arbitrary is incorrect.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; casual, wanton, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustified; personal, discretionary, subjective
"an arbitrary decision"
antonyms: reasoned, rational
Unless you want to go back to a more ancient definition, where the definition seems more in line with the antonyms of today's definition.
late Middle English (in the sense ‘dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler,’ perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .
So no, it is not an "arbitrary" construct/project in the sense of being whimsical or random or purely personal choice. In fact there are more deeper reasons for it than I've gone into already (someone recently got fired for breaking the rules, and management is on a small crackdown where at least one or two other people could get fired if they don't follow the rules a little more).
so while it is a solution, killing half the planet to help free up resources is also a solution
Are you high? You're blowing this WAY
out of proportion.
Your problem is that you have a way you want it to be which is causing you think about it in one way which is leading to solutions which are not practical, unethical, and are in the box.
So firstly, the solution is entirely practical. It's not un
ethical. And the box doesn't matter in comparison to whether it works; solutions in the box and work, and solutions out of the box that work, are all solutions that work. Some other things that the project is: long term, simple, easy to set up, and modifiable in case I need to.
Ethics aside, you have overly complicated this idea where there is a very elegant way you can implement this.
You can't honestly think this little thing is complicated unless there's something going on inside your brain that's causing you to add all sorts of complexity that doesn't exist in the project as it's been laid out.
There are common-sense fixes to this
Yes, like getting people to reread the SOPs and discuss them. Which we are supposed to do at least once a year (guess how often it actually gets done?). The problem with many "common sense" fixes, especially the kind you seem like you'd want to espouse, is that they require both conscious buy in and require a level of perfection that isn't going to happen with these people. The majority of my coworkers are not intelligent people, and unlike what you're concerned over, I'm not
trying to influence them (to change themselves in order to become better people, for instance).
which makes me think you get a psychological kick out of controlling people
Manipulating, not controlling. And yes, a little bit, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this for many reasons that have already been laid out, and which you would be privy to, if you'd bothered to read any of them.
You can pretty much treat the construct as a place to get the information where people intentionally go and get information.
Requires conscious buy in, which means you're not taking into account how much effort it would be in order to firstly openly tell people at work that magic is real, and then get them to buy into it (especially given that many people have religious beliefs that would cause them to stop talking to me entirely if I were to talk about this stuff), and then train them to use it properly (and that's not even taking into account how much I'd have to talk to my own family members and the communities that some of them are involved in, for openly saying that I practice metaphysical things). And make sure they use it WHILE IN A SITUATION THAT'S ALREADY HINDERING THEIR MENTAL ACUITY TO THE POINT WHERE I'VE STATED THAT THEIR CONSCIOUS CHOICES CANNOT BE ACTIVELY RELIED UPON
. So, you know, that option is out
. Completely. Your so-called "practical" solution is anything but. If they were going to consciously attempt to get more information, they'd use their radios to request help; they don't. That's the problem.
Have it watch for this desire
I am doing that part.
where it presents the information intuitively in such a way that when a person decides they need the information, it is there intuitively.
That's one possible solution, getting them the information directly rather than connecting them to a network with one another, but I'm not doing it that way for reasons that I won't go into here.
You pretty much have it automated to kick in, regardless of their choices, in an invasive way, when you don't need it to.
But 1) it is
their choice to kick it in, even if it's a subconscious choice rather than conscious, and 2) they do
need it to. The only part they're not getting a choice in, is whether they're getting this installed; that's my choice, and I'm owning it.
If there is no desire for more information, it can be designed to not interact with anyone.
That's how it will be set up. No need = no activation. Need = activation. It will interact with people, rather than pulling the information up directly, because that's the route I've decided to go.
When it does interact with them, it can present the information tacitly such as giving a person knowledge how to draw, intuitively, without telling them what they most draw. The ethical issue is that you are seeking to present information imperatively where you can present information tacitly without being imperative.
No. Once again, read the project again. It will not be forced
upon them (they are activating the network by indication of their need for it), and the information will be presented tacitly rather than obtusely/absolutely/unavoidably/commandingly/etc; they will be requesting the information subconsciously, and it will be presented subconsciously as a hazy suggestion of how to proceed rather than absolute rules for what to do, and will be entirely ignore-able
if the person decides they don't want the information after all (or worse, if their immediate situations demands their immediate attention without distractions, such as the person they're dealing with suddenly pulls a knife).
I have a series of constructs that people with no metaphysical ability can use. It is designed to lock onto their intention to use it, or get information, in such a way that it becomes a non-invasive tool. You can apply that concept.
I could apply that concept, or I could apply my concept. Just because there are different paths to take doesn't mean I *have to* take yours just because *you* prefer it. You could have come in asking questions to gather more information for why I'm doing it the way I am, rather than coming in and demanding I change it just because you have your own preference. So why didn't you do it the way I'd have preferred you do it?
The constructs make the judgment and start everything versus someone making the judgment themselves via explicitly stating that need more information to themselves where things start happening. Read the opening post.
You want people who have sound judgment. If their sound judgment, which is better, is overridden by something else's judgment, which may not be better, you may get a result that was worst than what you would have gotten.
Read the opening post.
I think you should aim for presenting information, tacitly, when there is an internal desire for it in such a way that is not imperative.
Read the opening post.
The thing about telepathy is that proximity and the strength of links is determined by how closely associated things are. This means, in a cultural sense, people are already closely connected and linked where that cultural construction can thus be treated as a construct. Since the experience of the culture is inter-subjective relative to identity, there already exists a network. If I strongly identify as an employee of a particular entity, and this entity has a particular culture, my identity, and experience, is going to be inter-subjective relative to others.
All this stuff would actually make it more complicated because if I build it from scratch, I create it how I want it to be. I don't have to get into the complexity of how each different person views each subjective icon in their mind relating to the various aspects of various cultures (we are multi-cultural here, with people from all the different continents, and widely different cultures).
Instead, I create from the ground up in a way that doesn't have to touch upon iconography or symbolism or culture or identity or any of that. My way will be
much simpler. I'm not concerned with your ideas of elegance.
I attached a qualifier that places the judgment of whether or not they need help or information on them and not you.
So. Did. I. If you'd read the project you'd see the part where I specify that "their own internal realization that they need help" is the trigger. I could die after putting this in place, and it should still work properly (assuming I set it up properly). I wouldn't be needed
, but I will still be there to monitor and fix/improve as necessary.
versus literally being in their head dictating what they should do with it.
That's not what I'll be doing with the project
. That's something I'm already doing
with less than a handful of people. Read. The. Project.
and not taking into consideration other people's judgment. Ironically, that is the sign of an incompetent person in that such a person is likely to disregard the valid judgment of people with more experience.
Read the project. Taking other people's experience and judgement into account is what the project is about. An incompetent person is going to disregard all that anyway, and never activate the network in the first place.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, (and maybe I didn't make this clear enough in the opening post) I'm going to decide beforehand who I create the construct in, and I'll be actively disregarding anyone who already ignores the more experienced staff (ie, temporary guards). This isn't a project for the outliers: this is a project for the core staff who want to do a better job and at least subconsciously realize they need help sometimes more often than they ask for it. There will be at most 15 people involved, and more likely only 10. It's a small project.
And we're done. On to the other thread, where I've copied a bunch of stuff from this thread that had to do with ethics and philosophy and general off topic stuff, and I'll reply to them there.