Status Quo and Signal-to-Noise

Neural connections that are “used” are reinforced; those that are not are “lost.” In the brain, the idea of “use it or lose it” is like learning versus memory loss. Boosting the signal-to-noise ratio enhances healthy learning and memory loss. Defining signal from noise is as easy as asking a simple question: is the information useful? Recognizing signal from noise, however, is far from easy or simple. Often, it is only in hindsight that we discover what we thought was noise turns out to be signal, or vice versa.

Why allow a law, or an individual’s vote, to go forgotten? Why leave election information anonymous, even hidden? As it is with a neural-democracy, memory loss and noise reduction are critical to a functioning mind, that isn’t over-inundated with chaotic or counterproductive information.

To boost the signal-to-noise ratio, it’s important to know what information to pay attention to, and what to ignore. Voting, like the learning process, is an act that requires diligence and properly focused attention. In this endeavor, the Novel Universe Cult’s neural-democracy is forever hoping to amplify signal and dampen noise. To that end, we’ve created a handful of strategies, some notably inspired by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman’s 2021 final work Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment.

The time period during union negotiations where things remain as they are until there’s a new contract is known as “status quo.” The primary benefit of NUC’s Status Quo, and a boosted signal-to-noise ratio, is an electorate that isn’t bogged down by too many issues, allowed, instead, to focus on forming and exercising personal preference. A neural-democracy keeps only the most important items top-of-mind, while periodically requiring the electorate to recast their vote, or even reconsider voting at all. Deciding not to vote on a particular issue in a neural-democracy does not mean one has not weighed in. A non-vote is not only a legitimate position to have, but has its own, unique, mathematical effect, further reducing noise.

To better understand the consequences of any decision, a period of reflection is meant to study the costs and benefits of the situation, as well as potential alterations any future proposal might want to address. Status Quo, a forced gap between the point when a law initially goes into effect and when it might be altered, creates inertia– we’re inspired to either leave things as they are, or find an insightful new take on an old idea. Effectively, the law will have time to be experienced before we decide whether to change it.

Generally, issues remain open to voting anywhere from a few weeks to several years, depending on how controversial or complicated they become. Let’s say, for example, this issue is put to voters: “Consider building a new house in the Community. Provide an amount you’d like spent on that new house, then mark your preferred house styles.”

Those interested voters form their opinions and weigh in. However, people in faraway neighborhoods, with a low input bias, no fiscal stake in the matter, and no strong feelings either way, are likely to add noise with their vote, and are therefore better off not weighing in. Once the predetermined minimum number of votes have been cast, with a sufficient majority in favor, the Frame Effect countdown clock starts. Should the majority consensus drop below the minimum threshold (Low Frame), even a little, the clock stops. When and if the consensus again rises to meet the Frame, the clock restarts from zero. After the required consecutive time, where the majority is sustained, the voting window closes, the issue becomes a law, and construction of a house actually begins.

After the house is built to plan, a new clock starts at zero, counting up to Status Quo– unless critical new information prompts intervention, the house’s status will go a specific amount of time unchallenged. After the required time has passed, the electorate may now raise new issues addressing the house– like should we wire in solar panels, or reconstruct it entirely? They may also recast their vote at this point on the original law, possibly reversing their support. However, should new information suddenly arise, that, say, the house was constructed with unsafe materials, an enthusiastic electorate may change that Status Quo clock to zero– with or without Sage intervention– and the house could be razed at any time.

In addition to Status Quo removing a successful law from consideration for a time, individual votes also “expire,” and must be periodically recast in order to remain valid, establishing another point of adjustable inertia for issues with more or less significance. In the case of this house, after 2 years, an individual’s vote disappears, but can simply be recast at any time, so long as the voting window remains open. They may also update their vote– altering the funding amount and / or QT valence marks on the list of styles– renewing their vote’s 2-year expiration. Not only is this a noise-reduction strategy, but as forgetful voters lose the significance of an old vote, their ballot is also “lost” without thought or effort. On the other hand, the periodic nature of the process refreshes those passionate enough about the issue to continue to weigh in, while simultaneously staying current on the issue’s details.

Another benefit is that a minority of voters cannot hijack laws few are still aware of. Say, in the house example, that a sneaky group of distant neighbors hates the chosen house style, say, Tutor. Without Status Quo erasing all the previously cast votes, an added 20% of “love” marks for a post-modern candidate and “hate” for the Tutor, even years later, could be enough to eliminate the Tutor, now with a negative score, and send the post-modern to the top. Before most are aware, the home’s replaced with something the majority won’t be happy with– a post-modern house.

In our neural-democracy, that takeover scenario doesn’t happen. A 20% minority might fervently weigh in, a decade after the house was initially set for construction, but will change nothing. With the start of Status Quo, the participation rate was reset to zero, as all the initial votes were discarded. The activists, adding their 20% years later, won’t even meet the Low Frame’s threshold of 70% participation. In order for the Reversal Statue to go into effect– the house demolished– that minority will have to do hard work to overcome inertia. To meet the participation rate, they’d have to entice a minimum of an additional 50% of the Community to recast their votes. They also may not horde votes over time, due to the 2-year expiration on individual votes. Inspiring a community to get rid of a condemned house would be one thing, but convincing enough people to demolish it purely for aesthetics should be much more difficult. Reversing decisions (especially big ones like the existence of a home) should neither be whimsical nor impossible, but require enough fervent support to overcome the inertia of that original position.

In addition to the expiration of votes to reduce noise, we also employ both targeted and randomized erasure. Once half the Low Frame participation is met (35% in the case of the house), a small percentage of votes are specifically or randomly discarded as participation evolves. Any vote of any type may be selected for random eraser, but targeted votes are those QT Preference votes with inherently the most noise.

A multiple-choice ballot with both the fewest number of blank (meh) items, and a lack of expressing either or both the “love” and “hate” option, increases potential noise. These ballots are selected to weigh in again, although they are not required to vote any differently from their original position, only encouraged to so. A ballot with all candidates receiving the same thumbs-up (or thumbs-down) creates a high-noise ballot. However, a ballot that has no candidates marked either way is the noisiest possible ballot, and will be selected first. In either case, the ballot has failed to highlight any option as a preference. Each voter is reminded why their ballot was selected– that they left the ballot totally unmarked, they had a high number of marks, and / or, that they didn’t express either or both the “love” and “hate” options. Without access to their previous ballot, the voter is given a new ballot, and may weigh in again, having been encouraged (not required) to address the reason for their ballot’s erasure and thus creating a stronger signal of their true intent.

Voters who have their ballot either randomly or specifically erased are alerted that their vote was erased, and invited to weigh in again, but not required to do so. Furthermore, each vote is erased with random sampling without replacement, or the idea that an individual voter should not have their vote erased multiple times. As the Frame is reached and the countdown starts, votes are no longer discarded, unless the participation rate drops below the Frame, and the countdown clock stops. Having a rolling percentage of voters making a second judgment potentially forces them to clarify their feelings, reducing the noise of their position and the wider electorate.

Should we be guessing the number of pennies in a giant jar, and hear somebody guess “10,000,” at minimum, we’re likely to respond with an answer in the thousands, if not around 10,000. Knowing other people’s opinion “anchors” our own, and limits our ability to make an authentic observation. Therefore, the viewable ledger of voter positions and voting percentages are restricted to Active Sage voting administrators. There are only 2 types of announcements publicly posted about a vote: the most current date of a 0% participation rate, and the most current date the Low Frame was breached (either rising above or falling below). As long as the Frame is in effect, the countdown clock itself is made public, but the voter participation and position percentages remain hidden. It is welcome and encouraged for members to share their opinions / information with each other, but by eliminating the ability to see the majority opinion, voter anchoring is eliminated. The use of these systematic noise-reduction strategies, along with inertia, ensures the sleek effectiveness of our neural-democracy, as voters who lack sufficient interest are systematically weeded out.

Reversal Statute

Just as any being has a lifecycle that must include death, laws should not be left to live forever unaltered, lest their stagnation in a dynamic environment cause harm. This is done in direct contradiction with U.S. Constitutional supremacy, which allows a vaguely-worded, centuries-old, Puritanical document to be the final deciding factor on every contemporary issue. The different Bodies of the Novel Universe Cult may uphold to their own laws in fluctuating states of “Constitutionality,” such as the indelible rights of bodily autonomy and access to abortion. Instead of fixing ourselves to any concept beyond the framework of our tenets, the Novel Universe Cult acknowledges that things change, that laws have a lifecycle, and their end must therefore be, not only planned for, but expected. Even the most just, most prescient, most “divine” law, given centuries, will need to be eventually set aside, or at minimum, reconfigured to fit the times.

For a proposal (the first stage of a law) to become an issue (the second stage), it must include a “Reversal Statute”– a list of detailed plans to address the contingency that, as a law, voters reverse their position. At some point after the end of Status Quo reopens the voting window, members may recast their votes. Just as voting “no” for an issue has no functional effect on the outcome beyond lowering the percentage of votes in favor, and thus resisting the Frame Effect’s implementation, in the case of a law, a “yes” vote would generally follow the same logic– resisting the implementation of a Reversal Statute. However, should that original majority of “yes” votes become “no,” under the Frame Effect current numbers, the law is “reversed,” and one of the law’s Reversal Statutes goes into effect.

In the example of this house, the construction constituted carrying out the law, but before this law had gone into effect, the issue had listed a minimum number of plans to address the house should the law be potential reversed– in our example, demolition was one. There are any number of plans that could’ve been included: repurposing it as a community building, refitting it for commercial use, or upgrading it with additional occupants in mind, say, as a duplex.

To “reverse” a vote, a voter will have to casts a new ballot, as all votes had been erased with the beginning of Status Quo. In our house example, a “no” vote entails entering “0” into the amount of funding for the house, and instead of marking the house styles, the voter is prompted to mark the list of Reversal Statute options. Once the Frame is met to reverse the law, an additional grace-period allows for all voters to mark their own Reversal Statute list, whether they voted to reverse the law or not. Finally, QT Preference voting evaluates the list of plans to select the one to be implemented. In such cases where none of the statues pass the evaluation, Sages alter the details, and possibly add new statues. The list is resubmitted, and if it fails again, the process repeats until an acceptable statute is found.

First, read our philosophy to better understand our Creed.