Re: future language

From: Philip Jonkers (philipjonkers@prodigy.net)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 22:02:16 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Scientology cult pays $8,674,643 to ex-member to end 22-year legal battle."

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA01039 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 10 May 2002 22:15:50 +0100
    Message-ID: <004001c1f865$f85cc820$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <philipjonkers@prodigy.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FCBA@fillan.stir.ac.uk> <007801c1f840$23a38940$856c4518@no.shawcable.net>
    Subject: Re: future language
    Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:02:16 -0700
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Douglas:
    > The mathematical error is a neglect of the importance of error-covariance.
    It
    > is explained on my homepage, (all too inadequately, sad to say), with a
    > stock-market prediction example (roughly, don't hire the triplets to
    predict
    > the market, they won't correct each other's mistakes but will reinforce
    them,
    > and also then mistakenly believe their consensus bodes well for accuracy),
    > instead hire three very different people to do it, so they are only likely
    to
    > agree when all three are right about something. On my home page I take
    many
    > more words to say this, and have only an artificial example, but there is
    a
    > telling little table, so it's better than nothing. If tolerant but
    determined,
    > try visiting it at www.SocialTechnology.Org/dpwilson.html.

    Error-covariance, interesting... indeed it all adds up.

    If you define the term rational as being a well-thought through kind of
    decision-making
    process which takes all possible options into consideration, then a diverse
    team of decision-making people is not only desirable but often essential.
    Hence a rational board means that it has to consist of a group of people
    with diverse opinions, mind-sets etc. OTOH, if you have a bunch a people
    who all roughly share the same opinions, ideas, idealogy etc. it is likely
    that they
    fail to take all options into consideration prior to the act of
    decision-making.
    Then such narrow-minded decision-making boards
    are irrational by definition. Hence, fascism being based on such political
    uniformity
    is intrinsically irrational. A fact we all already knew intuitively (at
    least) of course.

    Thanks Douglas,

    Phil.

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 22:27:33 BST