Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA01167 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 May 2002 23:17:08 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: future language Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:10:46 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F168RMahQ89GQCiYgyH000115c9@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2002 22:10:47.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[894085D0:01C1F86F] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: "Philip Jonkers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: future language
>Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:02:16 -0700
> > The mathematical error is a neglect of the importance of
> > is explained on my homepage, (all too inadequately, sad to say), with a
> > stock-market prediction example (roughly, don't hire the triplets to
> > the market, they won't correct each other's mistakes but will reinforce
> > and also then mistakenly believe their consensus bodes well for
> > instead hire three very different people to do it, so they are only
> > agree when all three are right about something. On my home page I take
> > more words to say this, and have only an artificial example, but there
> > telling little table, so it's better than nothing. If tolerant but
> > 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
>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
>fail to take all options into consideration prior to the act of
>Then such narrow-minded decision-making boards
>are irrational by definition. Hence, fascism being based on such political
>is intrinsically irrational. A fact we all already knew intuitively (at
>least) of course.
Isn't there some sociological phenomenon known as "groupthink" where when
you've got a large committee trying to make a decision to take an action
there's too much of a consensus and those who might offer possible options
wind up not getting them across or these possible or viable alternatives are
squelched altogether? I remember "groupthink" from the prehistoric times
when I took a sociology course, but I'm not sure how it fits in here.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 23:28:52 BST