For a PDF describing Sapiocracy in more detail, please click here.
Below is a brief (if perhaps outdated compared to the PDF above) explanation. When reading this, I’m sure you’ll have many questions and doubts. Everyone does when they first contemplate the idea. For a more detailed description, please see the PDF above.
What is Sapiocracy?
Sapiocracy is a new form of collaborative decision-making I devised in January, 2013. I’ve been passively developing it since. It can be used by any sufficiently sized group of people and for any purpose. I’ve been told there already exist (very few) similar systems directed at very narrow uses in different fields. These systems have already been well proven (both academically and empirically) to be the most powerful known tools ever created for these purposes – this is already accepted by academics in the relevant fields. I have been unable to find any evidence anyone has had this idea before myself when applied to human decision-making in general, or for governance. The other applications have been very narrow, seemingly without the realization that the structure could be applied to anything.
The reason you may not have heard of the few similar systems is because they’re closely held secrets. People who know about this kind of thing seem to be only using it to gain advantage over others (using it as a weapon.) Based on what I’ve been told by those I consider to be reliable sources, one is used for military intelligence. Another is being used as an unfair advantage in playing stock markets. It isn’t hard to figure out why they might want to remain hush-hush about it.
Sapiocracy is wise governance. This is the main application I am interested in, although I believe it can be adapted almost effortlessly to similar applications (ie: corporations, clubs, etc.) Like other forms of governance (monarchies, democracies, republics, dictatorships, etc.), Sapiocracy is just a way for groups of people to make decisions. The reason Sapiocracy has only now been invented is because the technology to make it practical and therefore possible is very new (handheld computers, wireless communications, homogenous networking – internet.)
The purpose of governance is to decide what the group should and should not do. Every existing form of governance has sets of rules that define them. Compared to all other known forms of governance, Sapiocracy closely matches human instinctive behavior. This is precisely why it will work. Unlike democracy, Sapiocracy fervently prevents the negative effects of corruption and stupidity – something all people see as universally bad. These advantages correct the reasons other governmental systems reliably fail over time. Sapiocracy also naturally maximizes individual freedoms within the confines of wise scientific deduction because individual freedoms are universally sought after by all.
Democracy is a very appealing form of government because all individuals are promised one vote. Democracy quickly fails due to a widespread lack of wisdom and the less prevalent human instinct to deceive. This is well known. Sapiocracy is an adaptation of democracy using modern technology to make the process of mass participation practical. It can be thought of as crowd sourcing of all decisions. There is no way Sapiocracy could have been developed before the advent of inexpensive hand-held wirelessly interconnected computers.
With few detailed exceptions (please join the forum to debate), Sapiocracy can be thought of as pure democracy with the following changes and requirements:
1) Everyone can vote, although voting is voluntary. All voter interactions are done with handheld, desktop or kiosk computers. These can be phones, PDAs, tablets, PCs, etc. The entire system is optimized for convenience, but not at the expense of its core purpose.
2) The process of voting includes the process of making simple predictions about the outcomes of each proposition for both passage and non-passage outcomes. No one can vote without making the necessary predictions.
3) Because of (2), all information about each proposition must be prepared equitably such that voters are given unbiased, factual information and the available predictions are reasonable and scientifically testable.
4) At some point after each vote, tests are conducted to determine the actual outcome of the decision.
5) Because of (4), it is possible to determine (and indeed is determined) which voters predicted correctly and which voters did not. The reasons for the correct or incorrect predictions do not and should not matter.
6) Individual voting weight is based on the results of (5) over successive propositions. The more correct a voter is, the more power they will gain. The less correct a voter is, the more power they will lose. Yet, each individual has only him/herself to credit for their own voting weight.
This is Sapiocracy’s basic structure as far as the voters are concerned. Many questions or doubts may arise after reading this, but save those for more detailed debates.
One obvious change is that Sapiocracy isn’t a true democracy – each voter is not guaranteed one vote, per se. And they shouldn’t – this is a huge problem with democracies. Some people are better at specific things than others and they should be allowed to have more weight in each decision. Conversely, some people are worse at specific things and should have less weight. The trick is in how to determine these weights, which Sapiocracy does elegantly and automatically, leaving no rational argument against this rule.
After short contemplation, it should become obvious what will happen. Sapiocracy naturally filters out lies and deception because those schemes will be later be shown to be incorrect. In this way, Sapiocracy is self-cleaning based on the wisdom of the masses. This corrects the current problem of cronyism in politics.
Those with persistent misinterpretations of reality (ie: idiots) can no longer force the population to make unwise decisions through mob ignorance. As they demonstrate their personal level of wrongness, their votes quickly reduce their power. In this way, the major flaw of democracy is neutralized. The masses can no longer be bribed with Ponzi schemes and other too-good-to-be-true fairy tales.
There are many scenarios to discuss and I encourage you to join us in the forum, ask questions and be a part of developing this system.
Sapiocracy has a couple of technical requirements that need very careful attention. One requirement is that the computing systems that provide Sapiocracy’s functionality must be secure and virtually unattackable within short time frames. Another is data encryption, which is trivial to do to a level where no entity will ever gain an advantage against the system. Another issue is identification of the wise.
At first glance, most computer scientists will naively claim that achieving unattackability is impossible. I disagree. It is only necessary to make Sapiocracy so expensive to attack such that attempts have no hope of being worth it. It turns out this is not as difficult as run-of-the mill experts claim. Securing such a system is possible, but requires careful design.
Encryption, in my view, is obsolete for all data worth more than a certain amount. The reason is one time pads combined with incredibly cheap storage. This is all I’m going to say about this here. If you want to discuss this, please do so in the forum.
The last category is the identification of the wise. It must be made very difficult for any faction to obtain a list of those with high voting weights, lest they be able to use bribery to throw a vote. Of course, the wise should be … wise to this, but where there is a weakness, one must adequately prepare. Once again, please discuss this in the forum.
After reading the above, you are probably very skeptical and have some questions you think you know the answers to. Don’t assume.
In the 2+ years I have been discussing this idea with all types of people, I have yet to be presented with a credible argument against Sapiocracy. Everyone I’ve presented this idea to has agreed that Sapiocracy is worth development. The more each person discusses it, the more convinced they become of Sapiocracy’s merit.