The Seal Of Quality. A new proposal to debate.

Post Reply New Topic

What may be "quality" for one could be absolute trash for another.

So what authority confers the "Seal of Quality" upon an idea?

I asked politely for this not to happen. If it was your intention to do this from the start, I may have disappointed you by providing posts that leaned towards sense and further discussion. I asked specifically not to have memes or jokes of this sort posted, because I often suspect an intent behind them.

May I thank all those who take this seriously, and moving on...

So I have developed this idea further, and I have some new ideas or points to introduce.

1. Temporal Seals of Quality. In the future, we do not know the nature of alternate realities or alternate timelines. Is it possible also that some timelines and realities may be inaccessible? If so, would such realities have to be constructed as-if? Would certain 'safe' to travel to realities gain a seal of quality?
This is important, because even if we see something as a 'seal of quality,' that might not be enough. How about a 'Seal of preservation' instead?
Under each preserved reality, there may be innate qualities that exist, with respect to it being preserved.

2. Hypothetical seals of quality and cognitive dissonance mapping (maps).
Not everything has to be agreed upon, but we can appreciate that things can be communally flawed, or even pointing towards a navigable cognitive dissonance. This also would mean not continually churning out new seals and definitions, but pointing towards a more communal effort to pinpoint areas that we can develop in, and accepting certain seals as being a product of the mind-- representing mental processes that are less known to us overall.

3. Artificial intelligence. What are the ramifications of allowing robots to have embedded lines of code that indicate personal and subjective seals of quality, which can be viewed by humans but which are not required to be constructed by humans?

Finally, I would like to apologise to those members who I believe should be prevented from further posting in this topic due to bad behaviour. It may not be my decision to make, and I cannot force it, but as I want this to be a democratic topic, I have to ask that members post more politely in the future.
May I add to this, that it is not my responsibility to filter out bad behaviour, and may be no true reflection of the value of this topic. If such behaviour persists, I should not be held accountable for it, and I think that this topic has every right to exist.

Finally, I am very proud of this topic and my ideas, and personal comments are ineffective.

I will now take a break for three days, reflect proudly on my idea, and wash away any negative feelings.
If it becomes a locked topic in the meantime, that is sad, but this is just the way things go.

That said, I do like seals, and although it may be irritating, I actually like the video of the Seal.
I am am not a troll. You have my word.
Also, I hope that kraftiekortie's question is answered a little in my post.

I was just gonna say that "Krafty's question (who gets appointed, and by whom, to make this seal of approval)is the central question, and problem".

Then I noticed that the last line of your post.

If you answered his question (even "a little bit" as you said)I don't see it.

But then, your whole last post is kinda hard for me to grasp.

This smacks of one-worldism and "universal" human values. It shares the same problems as with all other universalist creeds. Humans are tribal by nature and really do not have many shared values, there are very few if any ideas on which we can all agree. Seriously try and name some. What is obvious to one man (eg, rights of women, democracy, individual liberties to name a few) would induce angry vomiting in another. If tried, this project would just end up like the UN and concomitant organisations, attempting to colonise the world with secular western religious ideas and systems of government (or whichever power block tries it - maybe a dose of Chinese totalitarian values will come next). It never sticks.

I dont think that the OP is even talking about going cross culture. He is just talking about within our own culture. And there already are "seals of approval" for specific narrow areas within our culture like lists of great books put out by the national assn. of librarians, or "the Rocknroll Hall of Fame" for rock stars, which endorse things over fifty years old that are agreed upon as having lasting merit. For things newer than that there is a kind of spontaneous equilibrium that forms in society (without the help of some kind of czar issueing seals of approval) about what range of beliefs are respectable (even if you dont agree with them) and which beliefs are fair game to ridicule for being off the mainstream.

I think my short but sweet post tested the argument you tried to put across rather well, OP.
No one party can come to an agreement on how approval is met, and "wrongthink" determines whether something becomes hot, verified or approved. Twitter is failing for this very reason.

Good discussion, thanks.
Can I ask members here, what advocacy issues for spectrum syndromes/differences are an issue in the future? It may help the discussion.

Can I target your interest with "obsessions?"
There are a lot of great qualities and a lot of bad qualities to cultures, at present and historically. There are a lot of obsessions in different cultures. Autism advocacy may use this to its advantage, but in the future (how can we know when?) obsessions and behaviours will change with science and social progress. So the global scene may churn out (singly) a dominant culture, then what will become of that is anyone's guess.
And, advocacy is so, so important. Maybe it's not all about changing the face of global culture entirely, but using advocacy effectively so that sub-groups can still exist happily in the future.
It's all about standards, and maybe we need a quality guarantee.

Am I out of my league, talking business with an Aspergers forum?
Every society will want a different view of science in the future. Can I use this topic to request help from a science journal, if I wish, with your permission? This way, the following points can be looked into, if they agree:

1. Preservation mechanics.
2. Executive decisions.

Preservation mechanics starts with a new concept of mine. Presavism. So I call it Preservation mechanics, Presavism, for short. (Sounds like Quantum Mechanics.)
Can a reality be preserved? Is this possible?
Can my three stage theory be looked into? It is as follows:
Stage 1: Vulnerability.
Stage 2: Preservation.
Stage 3. Autonomy.

All conceivable realities begin vulnerable, later they try to preserve themselves, and then later still they unfold in the future more autonomously. After that, certain qualities can be determined about the reality, extracted from future developments. Do we value the present, or the future? (An appealing question.)
Do we allow 'freedom of obsession' in the future? (This is said for effect.)
I have constructed this theory to appeal to a more democratic outlook where autonomy is emphasised.

Not all Autistics are happy with their obsessions, but it is a good policy point and a good talking point.
And sometimes it is not great to intervene with reality, but we still need to extract from it.

Executive decisions
Culturally, we always decide who or what makes executive decisions. This will be enhanced by technology in the future, and something or someone will be making decisions in the future.
If an executive decision is used on a reality (imagine there are... 100 realities, for example); then the reality itself will respond with an executive decision in reply, but does it have to reformulate itself massively? No, but the change that takes place would be like taking a 'swab' from the reality. It can be added up for a bigger picture.

The present day
This discussion has shown that we cannot control reality in the present; it tends to go with the winds of change.
We cannot offer too many well-rounded and well considered executive decisions in the present time. Scientists need to know, they need to discover: When will this be possible with the aid of technology in the future? When can small groups, tribes, whatever they may be called, act on executive interventions fairly? This then opens up a window for the group, for self expression. What year, what date can we estimate for this scientific advancement?

-- At present, we can only hope to test a cognitive dissonance that we endorse to small groups, as an expressive but time-limited activity.
To look at how Cognitive Dissonance can be researched in the future, this link may be relevant.

The Hallucination Machine

And so, to answer your question of: "Who decides?" I think, it is either an executive decision acting on a small scale for the best results, or it is advocacy determining quality, or both.
There may be a lot of confusion about how to approve concepts or say what is good quality and what isn't. But science can now gain more respect amidst this confusion, hopefully.

According to the privacy policy, I see no reason why I cannot use the information in this topic.
It is coming up to Christmas time (holiday time) now, so replies won't be handled for a bit.
Have a good holiday and a happy new year.

This was a good exercise, even if the views leaned in one direction. The idea of democracy existed. I won't comment on possible agendas, only that this is the internet and what comes with it is not surprising.

But people were more polite after a while. A gesture of what, I do not know, nonetheless, Thank you for being more considerate.

If anyone has any ideas for policy, advocacy, and research, in the areas I have talked about, please politely post them in your free time. Thank you.