How do the Labour and Conservative manifestos score on the FluffBuster GROK Indexes

It is often the case that text or speech actually conveys very little by way of a model that can be used to understand, explain or predict.

So, here at FluffBusters, we have invented some (subjective) FluffBuster GROK Indexes - to help us focus our attention on some of the many different meaning-carrying qualities of texts.

For example -

FluffBuster Meanings per Word Index = how many words are used on average to convey each piece of useful meaning.

WU = Number of Words used

NT = Number of Things or concepts identified

QT = Intuitive weighted average of the Quality of those Things/categories - on a scale 1-10

(look at the quality of each category QC * Impact of that Category IC)

NR = Number of Relationships identified

QR = Intuitive weighted average of the Quality of the Relationships described - on a scale 1-10

(look at the Quality of each Relationship QR * Impact of that Relationship IR)

NBOE = Number of Blatant Omissions and Errors

IBOE = Intuitive weighted average Impact of the Blatant Omissions and Errors - on a scale 1-10

(consider the impacts of each blatant omission or error)

Thus - meaningful content = (NT * QT) + (NR * QR) - (NBOE * IBOE)

 

This is then multiplied by the Systems Factor which is an average of the

VSM (Viable Systems Model) concepts mentioned or implied - on a scale from 0.1 - 0.9

(cooperation, coordination, holistic integration, internal monitoring, environment monitoring, strategic management, identity management, balance & regulation.)

+ Emergent Dynamics Archetypes mentioned or implied - on a scale from 0.1 - 0.9

(simple growth, compound growth, limits to growth, information channel quality / filters / taboos / denials / cover-ups, lean or sloppy feedback or control loops, loony lunar decision cycles, delay and inaccuracy driven oscillations, multiple oscillation interactions, goal chasing, state balancing..........

+ Moral matrix dimensions mentioned on a scale from 0.1 - 0.9

(from Jonathan Haidt's 'Righteous Mind' - Care Harm - Fairness Reciprocity Cheating Freeloading - Loyalty Betrayal - Authority Submission - Sanctity Degradation)

+ Human Nature compliance factor on a scale from 0.1 - 0.9

(This is highly subjective and depends on your view of human nature. Some commonly available options are; the human mind is a blank slate so therefore WE are entitled, in fact it is our duty, to write whatever we think best on other peoples' minds - humans are bad and we are going to save them, by any means necessary including manipulation indoctrination and force (of law for starters), humans are amazing but flawed and we are going to work together to encourage and stimulate talent intelligence creativity and cooperation, whilst; drawing attention to the dangers of rampant selfish egotism, and stigmatizing cheating and freeloading, because we have a wealth of evidence that good people start to withdraw communal cooperation if the group doesn't stigmatize cheats and freeloaders - we are the master race - we are the chosen people - ours is the best God / style of government / believe system / ontology / epistemology etc.)

divided by 4

So the Systems Adjusted Meaningful Content score for

Conservative Manifesto = 179.3 = (80*(2*2) + (7 *(2*3)) - (6*6)) * ((0.9+0.1+0.5+0.7)/4 )

Labour Manifesto = 12.6 = (20*(2*5) + (30 *(2*-2)) - (3*8)) * ((0.2+0.2+0.2+0.3)/4)

 

So the FluffBuster Words per Meaning Index scores are

Conservative Manifesto = 29833 (NW) / 179.3 =
166 words to convey a piece of understandable systemic meaning

Labour Manifesto = 23564 (NW) / 12.6 =
1870 words to convey a piece of understandable systemic meaning

 

So despite the superficially attractive systemic structural appearance of the Labour Manifesto it was brought down by poor categorization quality, a lack of holistic systemic dynamic thinking, a deeply flawed and high impact misunderstanding of human nature, and the number of blatant high impact omissions and errors.

The Conservative Manifesto started badly with a very low NR * QR, but more than compensated with its explicit references to high impact moral matrix issues, a high human nature compliance score, and a low (NBOE * IBOE) because it recognized a number of high impact issues that have been tabooed and even outlawed by other parties for some considerable time.

 

Alternatively - if your are already committed to a belief in the Labour Party, and would prefer a scoring system in which the Labour Manifesto does better, you might prefer the

The FluffBuster Mappable Structure Index - which rewards the bold judgmental either or identification and naming of; entities / things / principles - and relationships between things - whilst punishing the use of fudging, subtlety, sophistry and rhetorical tricks. A high score on this index suggests we might have a starting point for a holistic discussion, but does not necessarily indicate a viable predictive dynamic model, because this index does not measure references to, or evidence of, any dynamic emergent systemic holistic joined-up thinking.

NE = Number of Entities mentioned

CQ = Category Quality score on a scale from -0.5 to + 0.5 - an intuitive weighted average

NR = Number of Relationships mentioned

SD = Subtle Distinctions in describing relationships - an intuitive weighted average on a scale from -0.5 to + 0.5

 

(NE * CQ) * (NR * SD) / (omissions + blurs + rhetorical tricks)

Conservative Manifesto = (80 * 0.2) * (7 * 0.1) / (2 + 27 + 4) = 0.34

Labour Manifesto = (20 * 0.3) * (30 * 0.2) / (5 + 0 + 2) = 5.14