Part 1: Ecological Vision of Intelligenism – Expansion of approval

Continuing the Discussion on Consensus and Approval

Following the previous discussion on consensus and consensus-building mechanisms, this section will focus on the concept of approval. Unlike the explicit operational process of constructing consensus-building mechanisms outlined earlier, expansion of approval is not a distinct process but rather a byproduct that coexists with the construction and formation of consensus. During the process of constructing and forming consensus, initiators, group members, and organizational individuals must not only refine the details of organizational structure and operations but also guide potential organizational individuals toward a state of high approval. Sufficiently high approval is a necessary condition for transforming ideas and consensus into organizational development. Within my theoretical framework of Intelligenism for constructing the Intelligent Consortium, expansion of approval is one of the primary objectives of consensus-building mechanisms and consensus formation. It can be said that, before the organization is fully constructed, the iterative optimization of consensus-building mechanisms and consensus formation aims to achieve organizational construction by continuously expanding approval among potential organizational individuals.

In this section, I will revisit the definition and significance of approval, propose methods to evaluate the expansion of approval with the goal of achieving organizational construction, and explore how consensus-building mechanisms can evolve into an organization under a sufficiently high state of approval.

Revisiting Organizational approval and Mobilization

Based on the settings in the section “Organizational approval and Mobilization Efficiency” from the chapter “Organizational Settings of Intelligenism,” it can be inferred that organizational approval is positively correlated with mobilization efficiency. According to the section “The Origin of Organizations” from the same chapter, an organization is a collection of individuals formed to achieve their individual goals. approval typically reflects an individual’s subjective evaluation of an organization’s ability to fulfill their goals. Higher approval generally indicates a stronger belief that the organization is likely to achieve the individual’s predefined goals. This higher expectation of goal fulfillment translates into individuals being more willing to form a rights conversion relationship with the organization (i.e., being mobilized). This inference forms a logical closed loop among approval, mobilization, and individual goals, which is why I consider expansion of approval a core objective of consensus-building.

Definition and Potential Strategies for Expansion of approval

Before planning for the goal of expansion of approval, it is necessary to clearly define it. I break down this main goal into two sub-goals:
Sub-goal 1: Increase the approval degree of each potential organizational individual (refer to the section “Organizational approval and approval Degree” in the chapter “Organizational Settings of Intelligenism” for the definition of approval degree).
Sub-goal 2: Expand the number of individuals covered by theoretical approval.

Sub-goal 1: Increasing Individual approval Degree

Sub-goal 1 focuses on the approval degree of individual organizational members toward the theory, mechanisms, and consensus, with the approval degree defined within the range (0,1), where 0 indicates complete non-approval, 1 indicates complete approval, and values between 0 and 1 reflect partial approval. Based on the settings in this book, higher individual approval degrees imply a higher probability of mobilization or lower mobilization costs. However, this does not mean that individuals with near-zero approval can be mobilized by significantly increasing mobilization costs, as low approval is often accompanied by greater distrust in the theory or mechanisms. This distrust may lead potential organizational individuals to lack confidence in the initiator, the mobilizing organization, or the promised returns. It is more likely that mobilization can only be triggered after approval reaches a certain threshold. Furthermore, mobilization begins to exhibit positive economic value (sufficiently low mobilization costs) only when approval reaches an even higher threshold.

Based on the section “Organizational approval and approval Degree,” approval degrees cannot be precisely measured. However, initiators of consensus-building mechanisms and subsequent potential organizational participants should still monitor approval degrees and their thresholds. They should continuously assess changes in participants’ approval through methods such as likes on mechanisms, critical comments, voting approval rates, and follow-up interactions during the process of refining consensus-building mechanisms and forming consensus. Considering the threshold factor, groups must ensure that at least some individuals reach or exceed the approval threshold required to trigger mobilization or achieve positive economic value from mobilization. If polarization is observed during consensus formation, it may be necessary to adopt group splitting or other innovative approaches to ensure a sufficient number of individuals maintain approval above the target threshold, rather than retaining all individuals at a low approval level below the target threshold.

For examples of group splitting, please refer to the 2016 Ethereum hard fork event, which was triggered by the vulnerability in the DAO contract. Sometimes, hard forks or group splitting should be considered within consensus-building mechanisms to ensure a sufficiently high proportion of organizational individuals maintain approval degrees at or above the threshold. Group splitting also aligns with the concept of organizational disengagement (see the section “Concept of Organizational Disengagement of Individuals” in “On the Intelligent Consortium” and the section “Competition and Theoretical Belief Disengagement” in the “Philosophy of Intelligenism”). Unlike individual organizational disengagement, group splitting is a large-scale, organized, and premeditated disengagement of multiple individuals under the framework of consensus-building mechanisms. It is also an inevitable form of organizational evolution under theoretical differentiation. In traditional commercial organizations, if members hold irreconcilable operational philosophies, rather than allowing internal conflicts to persist, it may be better to restructure the original company into a parent company with subsidiaries. This allows different ideological groups to operate independently under their preferred philosophies, reducing internal conflicts and improving operational efficiency. Given the non-binary nature of theories (where different theories can simultaneously hold positive value), splitting a group into subgroups may balance approval degrees while preserving the diverse positive effects of different applied theories.

Sub-goal 2: Expanding the Number of Individuals with Theoretical approval

Unlike Sub-goal 1, which focuses on increasing individual approval degrees, Sub-goal 2 aims to increase the number of individuals who recognize the theory. For consensus-building mechanisms, theories (including business plans or other consensus-driven content), and development plans, initiators and early participants need to assess the current number of recognized individuals and set an expected upper limit based on the organization’s developmental needs. They must also establish corresponding rules and plans for this limit, which should be included as inputs in the consensus-building mechanisms to achieve consensus within the group or organization.

To increase the number of recognized individuals within the expected upper limit, potential organizations or groups may need to maintain or gradually increase the approval degrees of existing individuals while attempting to expand the theory’s exposure. This may involve promoting the theory across different media and channels, inviting more individuals to participate in constructing and applying consensus-building mechanisms (including discussions, voting, etc., as part of the mechanisms).

During the planning and management of these sub-goals, Sub-goal 1 and Sub-goal 2 cannot substitute for or complement each other. Even if a group performs exceptionally well in Sub-goal 2, if individual approval degrees are generally low and fail to reach the threshold for forming an organization or triggering mobilization at acceptable costs, the evolution from consensus to organizational construction will still fail. Conversely, suppose a group excels in Sub-goal 1 with high individual approval degrees but cannot expand the number of recognized individuals. In that case, it may still form an organization if the existing number meets the minimum requirement. However, such an organization may face challenges in future commercial development due to insufficient demand for its products or services.

Consensus Expansion and approval Expansion

Based on the settings for consensus expansion and approval expansion, it is clear that the two are not equivalent. Consensus expansion refers to the continuous increase in the scope of matters covered by consensus-building mechanisms and the matters requiring consensus within a group. Approval expansion, as mentioned, includes: 1) increasing approval degrees for specific individuals and 2) increasing the number of individuals covered by approval. However, as more matters achieve consensus, it does not necessarily mean individuals exhibit higher approval toward the organization, the overall consensus-building mechanisms, or all consensus-covered matters. For example, when consensus-building mechanisms cover only one scenario and achieve consensus, an individual may assign high approval (close to 1) to that scenario. However, if the mechanisms cover multiple scenarios requiring simultaneous consensus, and the individual assigns lower approval to other scenarios, their overall approval of the organization may decline. Similarly, when approval expansion results from an increase in the number of recognized individuals, it does not necessarily involve consensus expansion. Suppose the consensus scope remains unchanged and the number of recognized individuals stays constant. In that case, iterative optimization of consensus-building mechanisms can still lead to approval expansion through increased individual approval degrees.

In the process from ideation and theory to organizational construction, consensus expansion is a necessary step. It is difficult to imagine that a consensus-building mechanism only covering a single viewpoint could directly form a complete organization without further consensus expansion, at least not in my vision for the Intelligent Consortium. However, in specific cases, some individuals may develop approval for a consensus-building mechanism, other individuals, or a potential group or organization based solely on consensus and approval in certain issues, leading to gradual consensus expansion and eventual organization formation. Regardless, achieving a sufficient number of potential organizational individuals with approval degrees reaching the threshold (critical point) by covering all necessary consensus scenarios for organizational construction is a prerequisite for forming the Intelligent Consortium.

Consensus Boundary and approval Boundary

As mentioned, consensus expansion does not necessarily lead to approval expansion. However, the process from theoretical proposal to organizational construction typically involves continuous expansion of consensus. As consensus-building mechanisms cover more content and a portion of the group (or organizational) individuals reach a mobilization threshold, the organization begins to form. However, consensus expansion is not boundless. When the total consensus content exceeds the capacity of the organizational network or individuals, a consensus boundary emerges. As the coverage of consensus-building mechanisms expands to a certain extent, there is a risk that the approval degrees of group or organizational individuals may peak and then decline. Excessive expansion of the approval boundary—whether through increasing the number of recognized individuals or pursuing higher approval degrees for a specific number of individuals—may suppress the process of consensus expansion once it reaches its limit. At this point, both the consensus boundary and the approval boundary emerge simultaneously. When these boundaries appear, the organization and its individuals must continuously optimize the internal structure and gradually address internal issues within the organizational network. At this stage, the Intelligent Consortium enters a slower process of gradually expanding consensus and approval compared to its initial construction phase.

Comparison of approval Formation Mechanisms: Intelligent Consortium vs. Traditional Organizations

Both the Intelligent Consortium and traditional commercial organizations involve individuals assigning varying forms of approval to the organization, allowing for evaluations of organizational approval degrees. However, the distinct organizational forms of the Intelligent Consortium and traditional commercial organizations mean that the types of approval required during construction and operation differ. Below, I outline common approval types based on my understanding of both organizational forms and provide a brief analysis:

Traditional Commercial Organizations

• Founder or Founding Team approval: This primarily refers to investors or other organizational individuals evaluating the founder or founding team’s experience, education, achievements, professional capabilities, and character, and expressing approval of their overall profile. In traditional commercial organizations, approval of the founder or founding team plays a significant role in organizational formation.

• Business Plan approval: Potential organizational individuals assess the organization’s future business plans and strategies before joining and express approval. Although business plans may be adjusted or even significantly changed after a period of development, they remain a key consideration for some potential organizational individuals. They often believe that a rigorous and logical business plan is critical to judging the organization’s future progress. Additionally, initiators often present detailed business plans when seeking capital providers.

• Approval of Business Opportunity Time Window (Timing): The timing of a business opportunity, often referred to as an “Opportunity Time Window” by entrepreneurs, is another critical factor for potential organizational individuals before a traditional commercial organization is established. While the importance of timing may diminish over time, for products or services aimed at capturing market share or consumer attention, some business theories emphasize the critical role of timing.

The above three approval types typically apply to shareholders or capital providers, leading them to expect positive organizational development and believe their capital investment is likely to achieve their financial goals (investment returns).

• Approval of Organizational Compensation: This refers to organizational individuals (typically employees) evaluating the compensation packages offered by the organization when joining. Compensation is often a primary consideration and plays a crucial role in the decision to join, even if it is not the most important factor.

• Approval of Organizational Sustainability: The organization’s ability to sustain operations is a key factor in ensuring compensation commitments are met. If sustainability is lacking, attractive compensation promises may fail to materialize, resulting in losses for individuals. Thus, some individuals assess the organization’s strength before joining, preferring stronger organizations. In the initial construction phase, due to limited historical data, approval of sustainability relies on approval of the business plan, business opportunity timing, and the founder or founding team. Thus, early employees must also evaluate these factors.

• Approval of Management Mechanisms (Reasonable and Recognized Career Development Goals): Management mechanisms cover aspects like overtime policies, incentive structures, and promotion pathways. Beyond compensation and sustainability, employees consider the potential impact of management mechanisms. approval of these mechanisms is a key factor in their decision to join.

The above three approval types primarily apply to employee-type organizational individuals, who rely on the organization’s operations for labor compensation, a core goal of theirs. Typically, labor-providing individuals have a higher dependency on the organization compared to other types.

• approval of Products/Services: This stems from consumers’ comprehensive evaluation of the organization’s products or services based on quality, service level, after-sales terms, and pricing. This evaluation determines the final transaction decision, i.e., whether rights conversion occurs. In mobilizing consumer individuals, product/service approval plays a significant role.

• approval of Organizational Sustainability (Including After-Sales): Beyond affecting labor-providing individuals, sustainability also influences consumer decisions. Since some products require ongoing service or after-sales support, and sustainability is a prerequisite for providing such support, consumers consider sustainability when evaluating products or services. Unlike capital or labor providers, consumers typically do not deeply analyze operational logic, financial data, or business models, but instead rely on superficial indicators such as office spaces, individual image, or promotional materials.

The above two approval types primarily apply to consumer-type organizational individuals, while the financial approval below applies to suppliers of raw materials or services. Although consumers and upstream suppliers are not considered members of traditional commercial organizations, they are included here under the Intelligenism framework’s definition of organizational individuals.

1. Financial approval (Ability to Complete Payment Settlement): This applies to suppliers of goods and services, who assess the organization’s financial capacity to ensure smooth payment settlement when providing goods or services.

Intelligent Consortium

The approval types discussed for traditional commercial organizations also apply to the Intelligent Consortium, though their weight may differ. Their underlying principles remain largely the same, so they are not repeated here. The key distinction lies in the Intelligent Consortium’s unique organizational network, which, under the influence of consensus-building mechanisms, alters the presentation of these approval elements. Thus, potential organizational individuals must evaluate both the common approval elements of traditional organizations and the unique elements of the Intelligent Consortium.

• Theoretical approval under Intelligenism: Unlike traditional commercial organizations (e.g., corporations or partnerships), which have established collaboration models and numerous success cases, the Intelligent Consortium is in its early stages of commercial application, lacking established collaboration norms or extensive success cases. Thus, under the Intelligenism framework, both individual participation and collaboration within the organization require strong theoretical approval as a behavioral foundation. In the absence of sufficient historical data, inductive reasoning cannot effectively drive individual behavior, making deductive reasoning based on theoretical logic essential for mobilization. Theoretical approval requires individuals to have a deep understanding of the theory and often involves engaging in discussions or debates with others. This helps individuals overcome the ingrained collaboration norms and cognitive inertia of traditional organizations, enabling a more cautious and objective evaluation of conclusions and the feasibility and value of mechanisms.

• approval of Consensus-Building Mechanisms: Due to differences in individuals’ environments, cognition, values, and goals, theoretical differentiation and the emergence of new theories are inevitable during theoretical development. Given these differences, individuals must recognize the necessity of theoretical openness and theoretical adaptability (see the sections “Theoretical Adaptability” and “Theoretical Openness” in the “Philosophy of Intelligenism”). Thus, individuals need to form approval of coordination mechanisms (consensus-building mechanisms) to address theoretical differences. When individuals with theoretical differences recognize the consensus-building mechanisms and accept their output (action guidelines), these guidelines can still drive behavior. Outputs include, but are not limited to, management systems, compensation plans, business models, and organizational network structures. As consensus expansion occurs, the number of decision nodes covered by consensus-building mechanisms increases, meaning more elements are included. As individuals recognize this expanding consensus network, they gradually transition from merely approving consensus-building mechanisms to endorsing organizational approval.

• approval of Organizational Network Structure: This must be built upon the approval of consensus-building mechanisms, as the organizational network structure encompasses both the organizational template network and the basic network structure of the action template, which is determined by the organizational template (see the section “Organizational Template and Action Template Concepts” in “On the Intelligent Consortium”). Both structures are outputs of consensus-building mechanisms. From a micro perspective, the organizational network structure reflects the roles of different organizational individuals and their corresponding collaboration methods (work styles). When an individual recognizes the organizational network structure, it indicates at least a basic acceptance of their role and the other individuals with whom they collaborate. Although the organizational network structure, like management systems or business models, is an output of consensus-building mechanisms, its unique role in the Intelligent Consortium warrants a separate introduction here.

Summary of Differences in approval Forms

Traditional commercial organizations typically exhibit a top-down structure. As noted in the section “Information Transmission Characteristics of the Intelligent Consortium” in “On the Intelligent Consortium,” information transmission in traditional organizations is confined to designated channels. In contrast, the Intelligent Consortium’s bottom-up structure enables information to flow freely in a fractal, divergent manner, with nearly all information eventually becoming publicly available.

In traditional organizations, individuals not involved in information transmission often lack sufficient information for informed approval judgments, relying instead on deliberately released or partially leaked information that may be incomplete or biased. This information dilemma means approval is often based on curated information, such as advertisements, brochures, embellished financial reports, or office spaces. Modern individuals may seek additional information through social media, news, or past consumers to verify and mitigate risks, but their approval remains based on relatively incomplete information.

In contrast, the Intelligent Consortium’s transparent information flow provides more open data for approval judgments. However, this requires individuals to conduct more extensive analysis and operational assessments. Due to its information transmission characteristics, approval in the Intelligent Consortium relies less on advertisements or office spaces and more on authentic operational data, consensus-building mechanism content, and network structures to evaluate the organization’s true state.

Consensus Expansion, approval Expansion, and Value Enhancement

When a theory undergoes consensus expansion and gains broader approval, leading to the construction of the Intelligent Consortium, it represents a stage of theoretical value realization, embodied in the organization’s formation. Both before and after formation, continuous consensus expansion reflects an increase in the group’s capability scope (handling more diverse matters within the organizational framework). This is because it enables individuals to access broader input channels, process diverse information, and generate corresponding outputs under the consensus framework. Approval expansion can manifest in various ways: increased loyalty or number of potential/actual consumers, increased capital from providers, reduced return demands, and increased labor or reduced labor costs from providers. This approval under the consensus framework represents obvious value enhancement in both traditional and Intelligent Consortium evaluation systems. Thus, the processes of consensus expansion and approval expansion are inherently processes of enhancing organizational or group value.

Pre-Construction approval Requirements for the Intelligent Consortium

Based on my vision for Intelligenism, the approval types required before constructing the Intelligent Consortium include: theoretical approval under Intelligenism, business plan approval, business timing approval, approval of consensus-building mechanisms, and approval of organizational network structure.

To achieve approval from potential groups or organizational individuals across these dimensions and ensure smooth organizational construction, initiators and early potential individuals must design consensus-building mechanisms to form consensus on these elements. The first approval type required is theoretical approval under Intelligenism, as only with some degree of approval of the Intelligenism framework can initial initiators and potential participants choose to become part of the Intelligent Consortium. Unlike future consumers or suppliers, these individuals face a “void” scenario with no products/services for sale or procurement needs. They cannot be mobilized through product/service or financial approval, so their primary motivation stems from theoretical approval under Intelligenism. This approval may arise from logical acceptance of the theory or from observing successful cases of other Intelligent Consortiums. In either case, this approval motivates individuals to push the theory toward organizational construction, involving critical thinking, theoretical refinement, and critique, ultimately forming a comprehensive understanding of the organization.

Once initiators and participants achieve some level of theoretical approval, they can envision business model possibilities under the Intelligenism framework for various commercial purposes. They can propose directions they believe the Intelligent Consortium can achieve with added value and form consensus with other participants under the consensus-building mechanisms. During this process, business plan approval and business feasibility approval gradually emerge. To refine and optimize business plans within a feasible framework, initiators and participants must propose an initial version of the consensus-building mechanisms, covering: 1) guidelines for optimizing and expanding the mechanisms, 2) guidelines for refining and achieving consensus on business plans and timing (collectively, business mechanisms), and 3) guidelines for refining and adjusting the theoretical foundation. In the early stages of Intelligenism, with few mature templates to reference, initiators and participants must invest significant effort in constructing these mechanisms. (I plan to attempt constructing consensus-building mechanisms in the next phase after completing this book.) During this process, the mechanisms gradually gain approval from potential participants through consensus-building mechanisms.

Once initiators and participants have achieved preliminary approval of the theory, business mechanisms, and consensus-building mechanisms, they must also reach an initial consensus on the Intelligent Consortium’s organizational network structure. As individuals preparing to join an organization or venture, they need to understand the organization’s principles, assess the likelihood of success, and have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the organization. Only by confirming the organizational network structure can potential participants clearly understand how they will contribute to development, exert influence, assume roles (positions), and participate in operations.

When initiators and future participants achieve consensus and sufficient approval across these three modules, the prerequisites for organizational construction are largely met, and the process of forming the organization can proceed. Pre-organizational materials are public, meaning the “consensus and approval process” may lead to the formation of multiple organizations, either from identical consensus-building mechanism systems or from theoretical differentiation during discussions, resulting in group divergence. In the former case, as the theoretical foundation and business models unfold, some potential participants may seek greater benefits by reissuing similar or identical mechanisms to become initiators. Disagreements during the construction process may lead to theoretical differentiation, preventing consensus on a single development plan or achieving sufficient approval, prompting the splitting of mechanisms’ provisions to foster group divergence for maximum approval across all participants.