Talk straight to Vam if that gets you your relief, not through me, please.
On 16 Feb., 16:21, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Been spending a bit of time at the male revue, eh? > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The way I see it, it looks different when not only the Emperor waggles > > his naked belly. > > > On 16 Feb., 11:48, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > " But it does indicate the importance of recruiting active leaders to > > > a cause ..." > > > > Neil, whatever happened to your pathological aversion to " leaders " > > > and leadership ? > > > > On Feb 16, 1:57 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Democracies work better. It has long been held that decisions made > > > > collectively by large groups of people are more likely to turn out to > > > > be accurate than decisions made by individuals. The idea goes back to > > > > the "jury theorem" of Nicolas de Condorcet, an 18th-century French > > > > philosopher who was one of the first to apply mathematics to the > > > > social sciences. Now it is becoming clear that group decisions are > > > > also extremely valuable for the success of social animals, such as > > > > ants, bees, birds and dolphins. And those animals may have a thing or > > > > two to teach people about collective decision-making. > > > > Animals that live in groups make two main sorts of choices: consensus > > > > decisions in which the group makes a single collective choice, as when > > > > house-hunting rock ants decide where to settle; and combined > > > > decisions, such as the allocation of jobs among worker bees. > > > > > Condorcet's theory describes consensus decisions, outlining how > > > > democratic decisions tend to outperform dictatorial ones. If each > > > > member of a jury has only partial information, the majority decision > > > > is more likely to be correct than a decision arrived at by an > > > > individual juror. Moreover, the probability of a correct decision > > > > increases with the size of the jury. But things become more > > > > complicated when information is shared before a vote is taken. People > > > > then have to evaluate the information before making a collective > > > > decision. This is what bees do, and they do it rather well, according > > > > to Christian List of the London School of Economics, who has studied > > > > group decision-making in humans and animals along with Larissa Conradt > > > > of the University of Sussex. > > > > Dr List looked at colonies of honeybees (Apis mellifera), which in > > > > late spring or early summer divide once the swarm reach a certain > > > > size. The queen goes off with about two-thirds of the worker bees to > > > > live in a new home leaving a daughter queen in the nest with the > > > > remaining worker bees. Among the bees that depart are scouts that > > > > search for the new nest site and report back using a waggle dance to > > > > advertise suitable locations. The longer the dance, the better the > > > > site. After a while, other scouts start to visit the sites advertised > > > > by their compatriots and, on their return, also perform more waggle > > > > dances. The process eventually leads to a consensus on the best site > > > > and the swarm migrates. The decision is remarkably reliable, with the > > > > bees choosing the best site even when there are only small differences > > > > between two alternatives. By tinkering around with a computer > > > > simulation they found that computerised bees that were very good at > > > > finding nesting sites but did not share their information dramatically > > > > slowed down the migration, leaving the swarm homeless and vulnerable. > > > > Conversely, computerised bees that blindly followed the waggle dances > > > > of others without first checking whether the site was, in fact, as > > > > advertised, led to a swift but mistaken decision. The researchers > > > > concluded that the ability of bees to identify quickly the best site > > > > depends on the interplay of bees' interdependence in communicating the > > > > whereabouts of the best site and their independence in confirming this > > > > information. > > > > > Simon Hix, also of the London School of Economics, and his colleagues > > > > examined voting in the EU Parliament and concluded that, as might be > > > > expected, it was along party-political lines even though the > > > > incentives to do so were far less than at national parliaments. Dr Hix > > > > and his colleagues reckon that European parliamentarians share the > > > > collection of information but, unlike the honeybees, they do not > > > > necessarily progress to investigating the issues for themselves before > > > > taking a vote. > > > > > There is danger in blindly following the party line, a danger that the > > > > honeybees seem to avoid. Condorcet's theory fails to consider whether > > > > there is an inbuilt bias among a group that comes together to consider > > > > a problem. This "groupthink" occurs when people copy one another. > > > > According to Dr List: "The swarm manages to block and prevent the kind > > > > of groupthink that can bedevil good decision making." Dr List adds > > > > that people demonstrate this kind of bad decision-making when > > > > investors pile into a stock and others follow, creating a bubble for > > > > which there is no good reason. > > > > > Another form of groupthink occurs when people are either isolated from > > > > crucial sources of information or dominated by other members of the > > > > group, some of whom may have malevolent intent. This too has now been > > > > demonstrated in animals. José Halloy of the Free University of > > > > Brussels used robotic cockroaches to subvert the behaviour of living > > > > cockroaches and control their decision-making process. In his > > > > experiment, reported in an earlier issue of Science, the artificial > > > > bugs were introduced to the real ones and soon became sufficiently > > > > socially integrated that they were perceived as equals. By > > > > manipulating the robots, which were in the minority, he was able to > > > > persuade the cockroaches to choose an inappropriate shelter—even one > > > > which they had rejected before being infiltrated by machines. Could > > > > this form the basis of a new way of catching them? > > > > > The way animals make collective decisions can be complex. Nigel Franks > > > > of the University of Bristol, in England, and his colleagues studied > > > > how a species of ants called Temnothorax albipennis establish a new > > > > nest. In the Royal Society journal they report how the insects > > > > mitigate the disadvantages of making a swift choice. If the ants' > > > > existing nest becomes threatened, the insects send out scouts to seek > > > > a new one. How quickly they accomplish this transfer depends not only > > > > on how soon the ants agree on the best available site but also on how > > > > quickly they can migrate there. When a suitable place is identified, > > > > the scouts begin to lead other scouts, which had remained behind to > > > > guard the old nest, to the new site. The problem is that if the > > > > decision is reached rapidly, as it might have to be in an emergency, > > > > then relatively few scouts know the route. It would then take much > > > > longer to train all the scouts needed to achieve the transfer, which > > > > involves carrying the queen, the workers and the brood to the new > > > > nest. > > > > > Dr Franks and his colleagues identified a type of behaviour called > > > > "reverse tandem runs" that makes the process more efficient. During > > > > the carrying phase of migration, the scouts lead other scouts back > > > > along the quickest route to the old nest so that more scouts become > > > > familiar with the route. Thus the dynamics of collective decision- > > > > making are closely entwined with the implementation of these > > > > decisions. How this might pertain to choices that people might make > > > > is, as yet, unclear. But it does indicate the importance of recruiting > > > > active leaders to a cause because, as the ants and bees have > > > > discovered, the most important thing about collective decision-making > > > > is to get others to follow. > > > > > The above is cut down from this week's Economist. This work is recent > > > > but much of it has been known since the beginning of my career. I > > > > wonder what it is in human decision making that screws us up? The > > > > idea of robots being intentionally used to feed us mis-information > > > > seems rather likely! Indeed, we seem to be governed by them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
