Mark, have you read the article or is it just a suggestion that it is correlation and nor causation. I havent read it either but there seem to be some errors in the article.
Either the journalist or the authors of the paper have made some mistakes about the interpretation of the results. Both authors of the article are not Biologists. The abstarct of the paper says that they describe 3 theoretical models about group coordination. There is a huge logical error to assume that theoretical models that try to describe the phenotype of organisms in a specific environment could prove that this phenotype is due to an genetic characteristic of those organisms obtained through the evolutionary process. I doubt that the authors are putting into question the moto that "all people are made equal" The article is also probably intermixing social hierarchy with inequality, suggesting that social hierarchy is bad. In fact, there can be social hierarchy while retaining equality. Since our context is information, noone values the opinion of a random person the same as the opinion of a person which has specialized in the subject. If we disregard all those mistakes, what we should learn about this paper is that reputation matters. Apart from lowering the cost of communication we should create reputation networks that promote trustworthy and honorable people, otherwise things will get worse. 2012/7/18 Mark Adam <[email protected]> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Kevin Flanagan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120713-why-all-men-are-not-created-equal/2 >> >> "David-Barrett and Dunbar discover a particularly intriguing implication >> for our information age. One of the important factors in their model is the >> *cost* of communication: how hard it is to exchange information. It’s >> often suggested that by lowering the cost of communication, electronic >> networking will make it easier for everyone to access information and so >> will flatten the social hierarchy. The researchers find that, > > > Correlation does not equal causation. I think those researchers will find > that after the legal system judged (almost completely) in favor of wealthy > plaintiffs (RIAA vs. 17year-old, etc), the egalitarian nature at the heart > of the Internet dramatically got stifled after Napster, for example. > > >> if there is an initial inequality in how information is distributed, >> lowering communication costs counter-intuitively sustains this steep >> hierarchy and promotes inequality. There’s less incentive to spread >> information around: you can just keep on looking until you find it. > > > Big media doesn't want to "spread information around" -- it wants you to > go to their sites. Unfortunately, the lawsuits mentioned above was a big > blow to p2p, so now we have this rather stagnant internet where most of > people's time is on less than 1% of the net. > >> If we want to avoid this effect of cheaper communication, they say, then >> we’ll need ways of compensating for it – for example, by greater social >> investment in education to disseminate knowledge. The web won’t do it for >> us." >> > This is an example of a reporter who doesn't know how to do the research > well enough. As I said, it's not an effect of cheaper communication, it's > purely an inadvertant correlation. > > markj > > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
