Re: future language

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 23:10:46 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: future language"

    Received: by id XAA01167 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 10 May 2002 23:17:08 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: future language
    Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:10:46 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2002 22:10:47.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[894085D0:01C1F86F]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    >To: <>
    >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
    >that they
    >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:

    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