真实民意的辨识理念和方法革新

A New Philosophy and Methodology for Identifying Genuine Public Opinion

——从美国中期选举到共生经济学的总体效能检验

From the U.S. Midterm Elections to the Assessment of Overall Effectiveness in Symbionomics

钱 宏（Archer Hong Qian）

2026年11月2日晨于温哥华

今天是我的生日，明天就是将可能影响美国及世界格局的中期选举日。

有趣的是，有朋友发来一张图，《你不投票就别抱怨》，其中列举了10个选项，又有朋友归结为：

选择坚守常识，还是选择癫狂？

我想，这是美国当下多数决选举制度与自愿投票参与机制共同作用下出现的一种极端现象级问题，也确实是当今美国政治乃至世界政治值得追问的问题。

加上我昨天写《若非必要，勿增实体》时让AI画的插图，两幅图放在一起，很有意思。第一幅图，从川普常识新政出发，讨论世界秩序如何重构，最终落到“组织信托”与“万事交互主体共生”。第二幅图，把民主党与共和党描绘成常识与癫狂的对立。可是，当政治竞争被压缩成这样的标签，谁来辨识真实民意？谁来检验公共政策的实际后果？

一、从两党对立的现象，看民意的辨识对象

保护儿童、打击犯罪、维护边境秩序、控制财政成本、保障公民权利，都是可讨论的公共目标。民主党2024年纲领同样提出边境安全、打击犯罪和扶持小企业等主张。真正需要辨识的，是具体政策怎样实施、权责怎样安排、代价由谁承担。

选举中的多数，是候选人组合、选举规则、参与意愿与信息条件共同形成的多数。它决定合法授权，却无法穷尽全体公民对每一项政策的真实判断。尤其在自愿投票条件下，沉默者、弃权者、无适当选择者与摇摆者的意愿，不能简单塞进胜负数字。

皮尤研究中心2026年7月调查发现，美国成年人在经济政策上较认同民主党的占37%，共和党的36%，认为两党均不符合自己看法的25%。政治图像可以黑白分明，社会现实却有交错、矛盾、迟疑与尚未表达的孞念。关键问题已经出现：民调究竟在辨识什么？

二、给旧方法打补丁，无法创造新的认识对象

传统民调把参与者放在被提问、被抽样、被归类的位置。改进抽样、增加权重、校正偏差，可以修正部分统计误差，却仍主要围绕特定时点的回答组织知识。问卷测到了表态，未必辨识了主体的真实利益、潜在愿望、承担能力与选择后果。

这个问题远远超出民调。经济统计重产出，政治组织重选票，政府部门重预算，文化传播重流量，AI重数据、算法和算力。可计量的东西越来越多，生命真正得到什么、失去什么，反而常常被数字遮蔽。组织把工具变成目标，指标便可能吞噬创造指标的生命。

2025年3月，我完成了《论富豪治国》，4月1日又基于此文，运用共生经济学（Symbionomics）“健康黄金率五因交互权能”模型（即降本C、赋能E、健康因子H、信托结构T、和平因子P），设计了《全新民调基准率纲要》（Symbiotic Benchmark Poll Outline，SBPO）。在SBPO中，提出“健康黄金律五因交互权能”的新民调基准。其起点是交互主体共生（Intersubjective Symbiosism）的民众参与活力：让被调查者从被动答题、勾选“Yes/No”，转为自主表达、点透新知、共鸣互动、自组织交互，激活潜藏在心里的孞念（Mind Intent）。在心智交互（Inter-minds）的过程中，民调可以成为一次自我发现，也成为公共认知与责任生成的过程。Inter-minds在这里说明心智之间的交互，不替换“交互主体共生”的正式英文名称。

这个构想包含一项根本变化：参与者有权发现问题、提出自己的问题，也有权在了解到新事实、他人的处境和政策代价后修正意见。调查者的任务，是保障这种主体性交互得以真实发生，而非借“教育”“共识”之名诱导出预定答案。使意见发生变化的证据、过程及其原因，也应成为真实民意的一部分。

AI的问题也在这里。发现缺陷便追加规则，扩大模型便增加算力，仍不能由数据、算法、算力与神经网络的总和自动生成Mind。提出将AI升格为AM（Artificial Mind & Amorsophia），所要解决的是认识主体、判断与责任的根本问题。真实民意的辨识也必须从这里起步。

三、以生命为本位，建立总体效能的辨识尺度

共生经济学（Symbionomics）以生产—生活—生態—生命的内在联系为视野。生命具有主体性，工具延展生命能力，组织汇聚主体行动；主体的自组织动能与共生、共襄生成势能相应相辅相成。工具与组织创造了什么实际价值，转嫁了多少社会代价，须由生命及其交互共生的结果来回答。

GDP可以记录经济产出，却难单独核算组织固化、交易摩擦、生態背负、健康损耗与信托流失。共生经济学由此提出效能系数η，并以国内生产效能总值GDE检验产出与实际效能的关系：

ηᵢ = GDEᵢ / GDPᵢ      GDE = Σ(GDPᵢ × ηᵢ)      R = GDE / GDP

η是核心，GDE是总体表达，R是总体效能相对于产出的比率。它们不是把GDP换个名字；必须在具体核算边界内，说明贡献、损耗、受益者、承担者及归因依据。政治、文化等活动还须建立与其对象相应的效能账目，不能机械地把生命的一切价值折算为货币。

实际效能来自哪里？五个问题必须一起问：是否降本（C），减少组织、交易与生態背负；是否赋能（E），释放主体创造和行动能力；是否增进健康（H），改善生命及经济运行状态；是否建立信任（T），实现权责一致、承诺可兑的组织信托；是否促进和平（P），降低冲突损耗、扩展持续合作。由此构成“五因指数”（Five-Cause Index）。

η是效能系数，GDE是产出经效能检验后的总体表达；五因指数则从降本、赋能、健康、信任、和平五个相应方面，揭示效能从哪里生成、在哪里受损。健康黄金率把效能与生命健康联系起来；民调基准率则将这种认识用于公众对政治、经济、文化活动的体验与判断。民调因此是共生经济学总体效能辨识的一项具体应用。

去年纲要还提出健康值（Health Value，HV）的交互试算式：

HV = (C ÷ E) × H × T × P / STC

其中，C为降本（Cost Reduction），E为赋能（Empowerment），H为健康因子（Health Factor），T为信托结构（Trust Structure），P为和平因子（Peace Factor）；STC为社会交易成本（Social Transaction Cost），涉及官僚摩擦、寻租和不透明等，原纲要设默认值为1，并以HV＝1作为基准线。这里必须把原模型的思想、参数和实验基准完整保留下来，作为2025年方法构想的明确记录。

健康值模型提出了将政策感受、交互关系与执行摩擦一起辨识的途径。HV与η、GDE各有核算对象：五因主观评分记录公众感知，STC需要可核实的社会交易成本口径，η与GDE则检验可归因的实际效能。2025年原式HV＝(C÷E)×H×T×P/STC应作为方法发展记录完整保留；但若C与E分别表示“降本改善”和“赋能改善”，二者同为正向因素，E置于分母便会出现赋能越高、HV反而越低的方向冲突。把C改释为“成本率”、E改释为“赋能率”，仍不能消除这一冲突：成本下降使C变小，同样会使HV下降。可实施的下一步是把五因的指标方向统一、以明确基准归一化，另行校准同向的健康值计量式，并在样本与政策效果中检验；原式与校准后的试算式应分别标识，不能混用。

四、从“被调查的对象”到“参与辨识的主体”

SBPO有一条完整的交互路径：直觉（Intuition）—打分（Scoring）—算账（Calculation）—对比（Comparison）—结论（Conclusion）。其中贯穿多维评估、点透新知、共鸣互动、自组织交互四种活动。五个步骤不是五道固定题，而是让主体、事实、责任和效能发生联系的一次完整过程。

直觉：先问“你怎么看”，让参与者不受选项束缚地表达立场、疑问、利益期待和真实顾虑，形成未经引导的初始基准。打分：对同一政策分别就C、E、H、T、P作出评估，记录不同维度的取舍，拒绝以单一赞成率掩盖复杂判断。算账：展示五因评分及健康值HV的试算，同时列出资金来源、组织交易成本STC、健康与生態背负以及各主体实际承担的代价；公众感受与可核实的实际效能分别记录。对比：将个人判断与群体分布、不同人群处境和政策证据作交互呈现，询问“调不调？为什么？”，保留原始分数及修改理由。结论：呈现初始意愿、知情后判断、五因分布、仍存异议，并以日后政策兑现的效能反馈持续复核。

因此，新民调基准率调查表（Symbiotic Benchmark Poll Form，SBPF）应有两本账：一本记录“民众怎样感知、理解和选择”，一本记录“政策怎样投入、执行与兑现”。前者展示主体意愿、HV试算及其变化，是社会心理的晴雨表，也可为组织信托、健康损耗和公共成本发出早期信号；后者以可核查的投入、损耗、归因和结果检验η、GDE等总体效能。前哨信号引导复核，实际账目反过来检验公众感受；两本账互相参照、各守边界。GDP增长不能仅凭公众满意度认定为GDE增长，群众的真实体验也不能因宏观数字好看而被抹去。参与者可以形成新共识，也有权保留异议；从“我”到“我们”的共鸣，来自自由、自律与知情交互，不能用一个平均值代替众私的正当权利。

2025年纲要用国内政策、外交政策及其组合，设计了具体的练习：减税是否真的减轻总体成本，制裁会否伤及健康与和平，关税谈判与国内减税相结合时由谁承担代价，政府精简省下的财政费用是否转为居民和企业的新负担。这些案例最值得吸收的是同一项政策的五因交互分析：降本可能伴随信托损耗，短期赋能可能带来长期交易成本；一个人也可能同时支持某项政策的目标、反对其执行方式。单一“Yes/No”统计无法呈现这样的民意结构。

例如，有人赞同减税，却担心公共服务萎缩；有人赞同边境秩序，却要求正当程序；有人支持贸易谈判，却担心消费者承担关税。这些都可以先开放陈述，再作五因辨识，通过健康值试算与STC核查呈现不同代价，最后让参与者面对账目、事实与他人处境重新判断。民意因此同时包含选择、理由、条件与后果。

原纲要还设计了线上评分、可视化、AI处理开放式意见以及数据透明机制。今天可进一步借助AM（Artificial Mind & Amorsophia）的孞態交互能力服务主体辨识，但任何技术都须明确数据来源、隐私保护、公开审核及误差纠正；工具不能代替主体判断，组织不能用算法暗中操控民意。这也使新民调有机会从一次性的选前预测，发展为长期的公共效能追踪和组织信托建设。

五、真实民意辨识，如何进入现实政治与世界秩序

以川普新政为例，边境、能源、贸易、财政、产业与盟友责任，都不宜停留在口号与支持率上。关税的最终负担落在哪里？政府精简省下的成本，是否被新的支出和生態背负抵消？边境治理如何兑现安全与正当程序？盟友分担能否形成可持续的共同安全？每项政策都应接受同一套五因效能检验。对民主党、共和党及其他政治组织亦然。

公众可以先表达支持或反对，再看到相关事实、成本归属和可能后果，经过交互重新判断，待政策实施后继续检验。如此便能辨明：谁只是善于动员选票，谁承诺了什么，谁兑现了多少公共价值，谁把组织成本转嫁给了别人。这比一次支持率更接近真实民意的生成过程，也更接近公共责任的实质。

世界政治大洗牌，背后有组织固化、利益错配、财政与信托成本累积的共同难题。民众对既有秩序的质疑、对变革的期待，往往被归入左、右、激进或保守的阵营；而究竟哪些组织失去效能，哪些新举措能够修复生命与社会的联系，却缺少同等严密的检验。

“若非必要，勿增实体”，由此获得政治经济学的可追责尺度：凡要求扩大组织、增加权力、财政及社会成本者，都应证明必要性，交付相称的公共价值。减少机构本身也要接受效能检验；成本降在账面上，损失转嫁到社会，仍然不是实际降本。

常识始于事实，成于责任，验于效能；癫狂始于偏执，陷于权力，终于代价。

真实民意的辨识，由此连到经济、政治、文化活动的总体效能：民众如何从被动受测走向主动判断，生命如何借助工具与组织拓展创造，国家及国际组织又如何在信托和责任中兑现公共价值？新民调基准率让真实利益、生命感受、政策代价和履约后果进入同一场公开交互，使标签对立重新面对事实与责任。选举的一次性多数与持续生成的民意、政策的短期成绩与长期净效能，都要接受同一生命尺度的检验。世界秩序的共生重构，才有能够辨识、核算、追责的基础。

最后，我恳请读者诸君一道来完善《全新民调基准率纲要》的操作部分，有兴趣的朋友可留言索取《纲要》，向皮尤等有影响力的民调机构推荐，也不排除我们组建一家全新民调机构的可能。

参考依据

钱宏：《新民调基准率纲要——基于“健康黄金律五因交互权能”模型》，2025年4月1日（未刊纲要；含SBPO与调查表）。

钱 宏（Archer Hong Qian）:《共生经济学概论（修订版）》（Symbionomics: An Overview, Revised），2026。

钱 宏（Archer Hong Qian）:《将AI升格为AM》（Elevating AI to AM），2026。

Pew Research Center, “As the 2026 Midterms Approach, Economy Is Front and Center,” July 23, 2026（调查时间：7月6日至12日）。

Federal Election Commission, “Election and Voting Information”（2026年联邦大选日期：11月3日）。

Democratic National Committee, 2024 Democratic Party Platform.

A New Philosophy and Methodology for Identifying Genuine Public Opinion

From the U.S. Midterm Elections to the Assessment of Overall Effectiveness in Symbionomics

Archer Hong Qian

Morning of November 2, 2026 | Vancouver

Today is my birthday. Tomorrow is the U.S. midterm Election Day, which may influence the political landscape of both America and the wider world.

Interestingly, a friend sent me an image titled “If You Don't Vote, Don't Complain,” presenting ten contrasting choices. Another friend summed it up in one question:

Will America choose to uphold common sense, or embrace madness?

I believe this is an extreme, almost emblematic phenomenon arising from the combined effects of America's majority-rule electoral arrangements and voluntary voter participation. It is indeed a question worth asking about American politics and, more broadly, world politics today.

Together with an illustration I asked AI to create yesterday for my essay “Entities Should Not Be Multiplied Beyond Necessity,” the two images make an interesting comparison.

The first illustration begins with Trump's common-sense New Deal, examines the reconstruction of the world order, and ultimately arrives at Organizational Trust and Everything Intersubjective Symbiosism (EIS).

The second portrays the Democratic and Republican parties as opposing embodiments of common sense and madness.

But when political competition is reduced to such labels, who can identify genuine public opinion? And who can examine the actual consequences of public policies?

I. Beyond Two-Party Confrontation: What Exactly Are We Trying to Identify?

Protecting children, combating crime, maintaining border order, controlling fiscal costs, and safeguarding citizens' rights are all legitimate public objectives.

The Democratic Party's 2024 platform likewise advocated border security, fighting crime, and supporting small businesses. What requires closer examination is how particular policies are implemented, how rights and responsibilities are arranged, and who ultimately bears the costs.

An electoral majority emerges from a particular combination of candidates, electoral rules, willingness to participate, and information available to voters.

It determines legitimate political authorization, but cannot exhaust the genuine judgments of all citizens on every policy.

Especially under voluntary voting arrangements, the preferences of silent citizens, nonvoters, those who find no suitable choice, and undecided voters cannot simply be absorbed into the numbers determining victory or defeat.

A July 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that, among American adults, 37% identified more closely with Democratic economic policies, 36% with Republican policies, while 25% felt that neither party reflected their views.

Political imagery may be sharply divided into black and white. Social reality, however, contains overlapping interests, contradictions, hesitation, and Mind Intent (孞念) that has yet to find expression.

A fundamental question therefore arises:

What, exactly, are opinion polls identifying?

II. Patching Old Methods Cannot Create a New Object of Understanding

Traditional opinion polling places participants in the position of being questioned, sampled, and classified.

Improving sampling procedures, adding statistical weights, and correcting biases can reduce certain measurement errors. Yet these techniques continue to organize knowledge primarily around responses given to particular questions at a particular moment.

A questionnaire may measure expressed attitudes without identifying people's genuine interests, latent aspirations, capacity to bear consequences, or the actual outcomes of their choices.

This problem extends far beyond opinion polling.

Economic statistics emphasize output. Political organizations emphasize votes. Government departments emphasize budgets. Cultural communication emphasizes audience traffic. AI emphasizes data, algorithms, and computing power.

More and more things can be measured, while what human life actually gains or loses may become increasingly obscured by numbers.

When organizations turn their instruments into ends in themselves, the indicators may begin to consume the very lives for which they were created.

In March 2025, I completed On Government by the Wealthy. On April 1, drawing on that essay and the Golden Rule of Health Five-Factor Interactive Empowerment Model of Symbionomics—Cost Reduction (C), Empowerment (E), Health (H), Trust Structure (T), and Peace (P)—I developed A New Symbiotic Benchmark Poll Outline (SBPO).

In the SBPO, I proposed a new polling benchmark grounded in the Golden Rule of Health and five-factor interactive empowerment.

Its starting point is the vitality of public participation under Intersubjective Symbiosism.

Participants move beyond passively answering questions or checking “Yes/No” boxes. They engage in independent expression, insight ignition, resonant interaction, and self-organized interaction, activating the Mind Intent (孞念) that may lie dormant within them.

Through Inter-minds interaction, polling can become a process of self-discovery, as well as one through which public understanding and responsibility are generated.

Here, Inter-minds refers to interaction among minds. It does not replace Intersubjective Symbiosism, the established English designation of 交互主体共生.

This conception involves a fundamental change.

Participants have the right to discover problems and raise questions of their own. They also have the right to revise their opinions after encountering new facts, understanding the circumstances of others, and recognizing the costs of public policies.

The responsibility of poll organizers is to ensure that such interactions among autonomous subjects genuinely take place, without using “education” or “consensus” as a pretext for steering participants toward predetermined answers.

The evidence, processes, and reasons behind changes in opinion must themselves become part of genuine public opinion.

The same fundamental problem appears in AI.

When defects emerge, more rules are added. When models need to expand, more computing power is introduced. Yet data, algorithms, computing power, and neural networks, even taken together, do not automatically generate Mind.

My proposal to elevate AI to AM (Artificial Mind & Amorsophia) addresses the fundamental questions of the knowing subject, judgment, and responsibility.

The identification of genuine public opinion must begin from the same philosophical foundation.

III. Taking Life as the Foundation: Establishing a Measure of Overall Effectiveness

Symbionomics examines the intrinsic connections among Production, Living, Ecology, and Life.

Life possesses its own subjectivity. Tools extend the capabilities of life, while organizations bring together the actions of different subjects.

The kinetic energy of self-organization and the potential energy of symbiosis and co-generative development are mutually responsive, complementary, and mutually reinforcing.

What actual value do tools and organizations create? How much social cost do they transfer to others?

The answers must ultimately be found in the consequences for life and its intersubjective symbiotic relationships.

GDP records economic output, but cannot, by itself, fully account for organizational rigidity, transaction friction, ecological burdens, health losses, and the erosion of trust.

Symbionomics therefore introduces the effectiveness coefficient η and Gross Domestic Effectiveness (GDE) to examine the relationship between economic output and actual effectiveness:

ηᵢ = GDEᵢ / GDPᵢ     

 GDE = Σ(GDPᵢ × ηᵢ)     

 R = GDE / GDP

The effectiveness coefficient η is the core measure. GDE expresses aggregate effectiveness, while R measures overall effectiveness relative to economic output.

These concepts do more than rename GDP. Within clearly defined accounting boundaries, they require the identification of contributions, losses, beneficiaries, cost-bearers, and the evidence supporting causal attribution.

Political, cultural, and other activities also require effectiveness accounts appropriate to their respective objects. The full value of human life cannot be mechanically converted into monetary terms.

Where does actual effectiveness come from?

Five interconnected questions must be asked:

Does an activity reduce costs (C), including organizational expenses, transaction costs, and ecological burdens?

Does it empower (E), releasing the creative and practical capabilities of individuals and other participating subjects?

Does it improve health (H), strengthening the continuing vitality of human life and economic activity?

Does it generate trust (T), establishing consistency between rights and responsibilities, credible commitments, and reliable organizational trust?

Does it promote peace (P), reducing the losses caused by conflict and expanding the possibilities of sustained cooperation?

Together, these dimensions constitute the Five-Cause Index.

The effectiveness coefficient η measures effectiveness, and GDE expresses aggregate output after effectiveness has been taken into account.

The Five-Cause Index, through Cost Reduction, Empowerment, Health, Trust, and Peace, reveals where effectiveness is generated and where it is diminished.

The Golden Rule of Health connects effectiveness with the health of life. The symbiotic polling benchmark applies this understanding to public experiences and judgments concerning political, economic, and cultural activities.

Opinion polling thus becomes one specific application of Symbionomics' broader methodology for identifying overall effectiveness.

The 2025 outline also introduced an interactive trial formula for Health Value (HV):

HV = (C ÷ E) × H × T × P / STC

Here:

• C = Cost Reduction

• E = Empowerment

• H = Health Factor

• T = Trust Structure

• P = Peace Factor

• STC = Social Transaction Cost

STC encompasses bureaucratic friction, rent-seeking, lack of transparency, and other costs arising in implementation.

The original outline assigned STC a default value of 1 and established HV = 1 as the benchmark.

The original model, its parameters, and its experimental benchmark should be preserved in full as a clear record of the methodological conception developed in 2025.

The Health Value model provides an approach to identifying policy perceptions, interactive relationships, and implementation friction together.

HV, η, and GDE, however, have distinct objects of measurement.

Subjective five-factor scores record public perceptions. STC requires a verifiable measure of social transaction costs. η and GDE assess actual effectiveness that can be attributed to identifiable activities.

The original 2025 expression,

HV = (C ÷ E) × H × T × P / STC

must be preserved as part of the methodology's development.

However, if C and E respectively represent improvements in cost reduction and empowerment, both are positive factors. Placing E in the denominator creates a directional conflict: greater empowerment would produce a lower HV.

Redefining C as a cost ratio and E as an empowerment ratio does not resolve the conflict. A reduction in costs would lower C and therefore also lower HV.

The practical next step is to align the directions of the five indicators, normalize them against explicit benchmarks, independently calibrate a Health Value formula with consistent directional properties, and test it against empirical samples and policy outcomes.

The original expression and any subsequently calibrated trial formula must be clearly distinguished and must not be used interchangeably.

IV. From “Subjects of a Survey” to “Autonomous Participants in Identification”

The SBPO establishes a complete interactive pathway:

Intuition → Scoring → Calculation → Comparison → Conclusion

Four activities run throughout this process: multidimensional assessment, insight ignition, resonant interaction, and self-organized interaction.

These five stages are more than five predetermined questions. Together, they create a complete process connecting autonomous subjects, facts, responsibility, and effectiveness.

Intuition: Begin by asking, “What do you think?” Allow participants to express their positions, questions, expectations, and genuine concerns without being confined by predetermined options. This establishes a baseline of spontaneous, unprompted judgments.

Scoring: Evaluate a particular policy separately along the five dimensions C, E, H, T, and P. Record the trade-offs between dimensions rather than allowing a single approval percentage to conceal the complexity of public judgment.

Calculation: Present the five-factor scores and the trial calculation of Health Value (HV), while also disclosing funding sources, organizational transaction costs (STC), health and ecological burdens, and the costs actually borne by different subjects. Public perceptions and independently verifiable effectiveness must be recorded separately.

Comparison: Present individual judgments alongside the distribution of group responses, the circumstances of different populations, and relevant policy evidence. Ask participants: “Would you change your assessment? Why?” Preserve their original scores and the reasons for any revisions.

Conclusion: Present initial preferences, judgments made after receiving additional information, five-factor distributions, and unresolved disagreements. Continue to verify the findings through feedback on the actual effectiveness of policies after implementation.

Accordingly, the Symbiotic Benchmark Poll Form (SBPF) should maintain two distinct sets of accounts.

One records how people perceive, understand, and choose.

The other records how policies are funded, implemented, and fulfilled.

The first account presents participants' preferences, trial HV calculations, and changes in judgment. It serves as a barometer of social psychology and may provide early warning signals concerning organizational trust, health losses, and public costs.

The second examines verifiable inputs, losses, causal attribution, and outcomes to evaluate overall effectiveness through indicators such as η and GDE.

Early warning signals direct attention to matters requiring verification, while actual performance accounts, in turn, help test public perceptions.

The two accounts refer to and cross-check each other while maintaining their respective boundaries.

GDP growth cannot be declared GDE growth merely because public satisfaction is high. Equally, genuine public experiences cannot be erased simply because macroeconomic indicators look favorable.

Participants may develop new consensus, but they also retain the right to dissent.

Resonance between “I” and “We” emerges through freedom, self-discipline, and informed interaction. An average score cannot replace the legitimate rights and interests of individual subjects—the foundation of the symbiosis of legitimate individual interests.

The 2025 outline designed concrete exercises involving domestic policies, foreign policies, and their combinations.

Does a tax cut genuinely reduce total social costs?

Might economic sanctions damage health and peace?

When tariff negotiations are combined with domestic tax reductions, who bears the ultimate costs?

Might fiscal savings achieved through government downsizing become new burdens on households and businesses?

The most valuable feature of these examples is their five-factor interactive analysis of a single policy.

Cost reductions may be accompanied by losses of trust. Short-term empowerment may generate long-term transaction costs.

An individual may simultaneously support the objectives of a policy and oppose the way it is implemented.

A simple Yes/No survey cannot reveal such a structure of public opinion.

For example, someone may support tax reductions while worrying about the deterioration of public services.

Another person may support border order while insisting on due process.

Someone else may favor trade negotiations while fearing that consumers will ultimately bear the burden of tariffs.

Such views can first be expressed openly, then examined through the five factors.

Health Value trial calculations and STC verification can reveal the different costs involved. Participants can then reconsider their judgments in light of actual accounts, relevant facts, and the circumstances of others.

Public opinion thereby encompasses choices, reasons, conditions, and consequences.

The original outline also proposed online scoring, data visualization, AI-assisted analysis of open-ended responses, and mechanisms for data transparency.

Today, the interactive capabilities of AM (Artificial Mind & Amorsophia) and Minds-based interaction may further support the autonomous identification and evaluation of public opinion.

Yet every technological application must clearly identify its data sources, protect privacy, permit public scrutiny, and provide mechanisms for correcting errors.

Tools must not replace independent human judgment. Organizations must not secretly manipulate public opinion through algorithms.

This also opens the possibility of transforming polling from a one-off exercise in pre-election prediction into continuous monitoring of public effectiveness and the rebuilding of organizational trust.

V. How the Identification of Genuine Public Opinion Can Inform Politics and the Reconstruction of World Order

Consider Trump's New Deal.

Border policy, energy, trade, public finance, industrial development, and the responsibilities of allies should all be examined beyond slogans and approval ratings.

Who ultimately bears the burden of tariffs?

Are the savings from government downsizing offset by new expenditures or ecological burdens transferred elsewhere?

How can border governance deliver security while respecting due process?

Can greater burden-sharing among allies produce sustainable collective security?

Every policy should be subjected to the same five-factor effectiveness examination.

The same standard applies to Democrats, Republicans, and other political organizations.

Citizens may initially express support or opposition, then examine relevant facts, the distribution of costs, and possible consequences.

Through informed interaction, they may reconsider their judgments and continue to evaluate actual effectiveness after policies have been implemented.

This process makes it possible to distinguish who is merely effective at mobilizing votes, what particular actors have promised, how much public value has actually been delivered, and who has transferred organizational costs to others.

It comes closer to understanding how genuine public opinion develops—and to the substance of public responsibility—than any single approval rating.

Behind the great realignment of world politics lie common problems of organizational rigidity, mismatched interests, and accumulating fiscal and trust-related costs.

Public dissatisfaction with established arrangements and expectations of change are frequently classified under ideological labels such as left, right, radical, or conservative.

Yet equally rigorous examination is often missing when it comes to identifying which organizations have lost effectiveness and which new initiatives can repair the connections between life and society.

“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.”

This principle thus acquires an accountable standard in political economy.

Any proposal to expand organizations, increase power, or impose additional fiscal and social costs must demonstrate its necessity and deliver corresponding public value.

Reducing the number of institutions must itself undergo effectiveness examination. If costs disappear from government accounts only to be transferred to society, there has been no genuine reduction in costs.

Common sense begins with facts, takes shape through responsibility, and is verified by effectiveness; madness begins with prejudice, becomes trapped in power, and ultimately exacts its price.

The identification of genuine public opinion is therefore connected to the overall effectiveness of economic, political, and cultural activities.

How can citizens move from passive survey respondents to autonomous participants in judgment?

How can life expand its creative capacities through tools and organizations?

And how can national and international organizations fulfill their commitments to public value through trust and responsibility?

The new symbiotic polling benchmark brings genuine interests, lived experiences, policy costs, and the consequences of fulfilled—or broken—commitments into a common process of open interaction.

It compels polarized political labels to confront facts and responsibilities once again.

The temporary majority produced by an election and the continuously evolving reality of public opinion, just like short-term policy achievements and long-term net effectiveness, must all be examined in relation to the same fundamental measure: life.

Only then can the symbiotic reconstruction of world order acquire a foundation that can be identified, measured, and held accountable.

Finally, I sincerely invite readers to join me in refining the operational components of A New Symbiotic Benchmark Poll Outline.

Interested friends are welcome to leave a comment to request the outline, recommend it to influential polling institutions such as Pew Research Center, or explore the possibility of establishing an entirely new polling organization ourselves.

References

Qian, Archer Hong. A New Symbiotic Benchmark Poll Outline: Based on the Golden Rule of Health Five-Factor Interactive Empowerment Model. April 1, 2025. Unpublished outline, including the SBPO and survey form.

Qian, Archer Hong. Symbionomics: An Overview (Revised Edition). 2026.

Qian, Archer Hong. Elevating AI to AM. 2026.

Pew Research Center. “As the 2026 Midterms Approach, Economy Is Front and Center.” July 23, 2026. Survey conducted July 6–12, 2026.

Federal Election Commission. “Election and Voting Information.” U.S. federal election date: November 3, 2026.

Democratic National Committee. 2024 Democratic Party Platform.