Dear Honest Men and Bonnie Lassies,
This week, the penultimate VL mini-series Episode 10 (9m 51s) presents the idea of Trust Factor Coefficients (TFCs). TFCs could be a tool to help us nudge our narrative and build towards the future we want.
Please do enjoy!
Please see the footnotes for this week’s tunes to help the message stick and soar1 and a wee reference from the episode2.
Mini-episode supporting commentary
Please note I do not think the elite and leaders and certain systems are “bad” per se. We “just” need to fabricate society’s structures, so they are conducive to satisfactorily incorporating people’s values, promote contentment and hopefully, more health and happiness.
TFCs are worth a pitch even if there is only a slight chance to successfully influence “free” democratic societies holistically, or even any authoritarian regimes and their supreme leading dick-tators.
Mini-episode time stamp: @3m 28s the four mentioned indexes are as follows:
Public sector corruption index (by transparency.org) mentioned earlier in the mini-series.
The democracy index (by the Economist Intelligence, also alluded to in a previous mini-episode.
Rule of law index (by the World Justice Project).
Perhaps one day the Value Life community and organization will have the resources and capacity to engage the owners of the indexes to collaborate on a more definitive TFC framework. A prerequisite for this would be for them to embark on their Deep Trust journey - more on this in the next and final episode of the mini-series.
Mini-episode time stamp: @5m 45s the below bulleted list of components could be assessed with the intent of applying values or attributes to obtain TFC outputs. Values and attributes would be determined by the involved parties (the party shall be open to anyone interested).
At a very high-level TFCs could be implemented by having panels of vetted, uncorrupt, impartial, Subject Matter Expert data scientists assess and attribute coefficients to countries based on aspects or components related to values like the those listed as follows (the list is by no means exhaustive):
The types of freedoms enjoyed and practiced and how protected and robust they are;
How well the people in power are perceived as performing their duty with dignity;
Historical, current and planned future policies and practices that promote and enhance their society’s happiness, health and well-being, environment, biodiversity and ecology (INCLUDING the seas);
The engagement and influence that trustworthy institutions have on policies;
The advocating of, or at least gauging public opinion off the back of detailed studies published on e-governance solutions or system and institutional enhancements;
Business facilitation to create purposeful jobs to further humanity;
Tangible strategies for ethical trading practices and how they are monitored and enforced;
The form and focus of education;
How they share, enhance and celebrate their culture locally and internationally;
Gauges on equality, diversity, inclusivity and acceptance;
How robust and transparent the security of individuals digital rights are; and
Historical treatment of their own subjects and perhaps other nations subjects? And perhaps how they choose to acknowledge and attempt to make amends. For example, favourable results could be scored for executing a Cultural Open Hub type initiative mentioned in the mini-series Part 4.3.
I recognise that there are many sub-components that may feed into each category and there are ways to address and incorporate these.
A system like the one outlined in the Value Life platform concept (here is the presentation (~15m in length)) could facilitate canvassing for and prioritizing the aspects, and depending on the depth of inclusivity and appetite for involvement, all manner of organisations or individuals would be able to have input and collaborate.
Additionally, when it comes to the technology needed to enable, there will be dependencies on capital flow. The best way to counter this, is to start with refining and qualifying existing indexes (as noted in the mini-episode) and adapt and employ existing technologies. Once they bear fruit, capital will flow more easily.
As part of the TFC Framework and after the above list regarding a few topics that could be assessed and utilised to build an output, at the mini-episode timestamp: @6m 05s, some very high-level planning considerations for qualifying of data and resources are as follows:
Process diagrams would need to be drafted to illustrate how topics are prioritised and weighted (data points and analysis).
Pencils would have to be sharpened to establish the main components and criteria for assessment, how data is going be quantified and agreed, defined, detailed and presented.
The intention to utilise the Value Life Platform is to adapt it to fit scope and facilitate cross-sectoral community, institutional and organisational input and collaboration. N.B. Collaboration is not consensus.
For all involved personnel (including any hiring committees), comprehensive and specific resource requirements would have to be drafted and undergo an intensive impartial review process, be fully transparent with reasoning and justification presented. Resource requirements would detail things like: qualifications / experience, ethical training / declarations / sworn oaths, references and pertinent checks (e.g. air-gapping from lobbyists and back channels etc.). Committee hiring could also be outsourced to users on the Value Life Platform.
There should be rigorous debates by a committee of respected and accepted expert candidates on all TFC input components to determine an agreed upon baseline to build on and adapt moving forward.
The responsibility for the production of each TFC would be shared by involved personnel in a blameless team culture, encouraging wider involvement.
TFCs are open to revision based on entities work to address areas where components may be low scoring. The revision process will be transparent and clearly defined.
Inputs, measurements, outputs and outcomes would be continually assessed and feedback obtained for continual improvement, resulting in attributed TFC’s being dynamic and (as near as practicable) reflective of reality based on the defined criteria.
Gap analysis outcomes and needs identified should be undertaken continually and fed back into the process.
It should be a collaborative tool with an intuitive, easy to use interface, which encourages engagement. Entities can even choose to recognize their lack of transparency, conflicting interests or reasoning for lack of values in certain components which could also act favourably towards their TFC.
Any fact checking should be decentralized and open source, and publishing based on said facts shall be referenced.
I would caution on branding aggressively to find an appropriate balance as TFCs could be perceived incorrectly, but even the naming convention should be up for revision and adapted based on feedback.
It will be difficult to get the right inputs for some components, but this is achievable through various means of engagement and research. Eventually, the reporting structures and feedback inputs will be optimized and result in fairly automated TFC revisions.
We, the people, are constantly evolving in a dynamic environment. And so, are the current systems the best we can do? It may be myopic to think so. There are organisations advocating change to the existing democratic systems in place, but seemingly not a lot of people care enough about their cause (and I certainly do not blame them given the situation). Once the elite and leaders are in power, what are the incentives for them to change said systems?
If we are to change our systems (rather than to build something new) it would be less revolutionary and therefore, less disruptive to start where we are, do it bit by bit, to enable retracing of steps should it be decided by consensus (through the Value Life Platform feedback(?)) if an incorrect or less favourable route was actuated. In so doing, our society’s structures can adapt to our needs.
More fundamentally, systemic changes are imperative to facilitate a shift in consciousness (which, by the way, we are all part of (I think)) and nudge our narrative in a direction the way we (each of us) feel it should be encouraged.
As with most ideas presented in the mini-series, Schopenhauer’s adage…:
“All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
…is not applicable. I think the other ideas and TFCs are in stage 0 and needs to be acknowledged first. Oh, I tell a lie, I did get some ridicule from a few trusted kindred spirits on TFCs… so now can we can skip to the second stage please!? 🙏😉
This quote sums up quite nicely right now.
The virtue of hoping well is a matter of belief, of standing with or searching for the truth attending to what is possible. And it’s a matter of will, the courage to conceive alternatives, even when it’s not clear what to do. - Kieran Setiya
Well, except that I am quite clear what needs doing - alternative systems need seriously explored.
To close here, I am likely failing in my goal to get the Mini-series wrapped-up before Christmas🎄, but I am hoping to get a small Deep Trust pre-finale post out for the festivities.
Much love and big hugs to all,
Ross
Photo by Derek Braithwaite on Unsplash.com
VL Newsletter’s header picture (overdue) credit to Johannes Plenio on Pexels.com.
The lyrics of the lovely song Upside Down by Jack Johnson sung to me whilst making this mini-episode.
In the mini-episode @1m 54s, I could not resist a wee reference to this, what is, in my opinion, one of the greatest hip-hop tunes of all time: Dr. Dre - The Next Episode.
In the mini-episode @8m 24s, we used this tune again (as we did in mini-episode 03, 02-Sept-2022). For The Love of Money, by the O'Jays
@5m 28s in the mini-episode, we use a quote from
's book Sacred Economics as a transition (and beautiful economists also get a shout out earlier on).