Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#71

Post by agsdfgsd »

fsloth wrote: post #64
agsdfgsd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since modern states don't have an entrenched hereditary aristocracy We absolutely do, but because we are bombarded with propaganda telling us they "earned it" by "working hard" and "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" we pretend it is just a co-incidence that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there. >After public schooling became…

Sure, I simplified a lot. The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was rather that the unwashed masses rose to their level, and it was not anymore sufficient to say that god has decreed duke X a distinguished gentleman and commoner Y a filthy peasant. It is not easy to rise social ladder…

>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism.

That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off.

>The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was

Well really that is exactly what aristocracy was, as originally conceived. Some places ended up with a corrupt form where it was rule by birth rather than rule by excellence (the literal definition of aristocracy), but mostly people just mistakenly refer to monarchies as aristocracies.

>but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe.

Why? The modern myth that nobility was defined purely by birth is just that, a myth. If you believe that excellence is given by god, it does not also follow that you must believe god only gives excellence to the offspring of others he gave excellence. In reality it was seen as no different than with livestock. If a good specimen is born you make it part of your breeding stock, even if its parents were not.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#72

Post by naasking »

ajuc wrote: post #28
thenaturalist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t follow your reasoning. How does asking you the exact same question twice improve your accuracy? If you don’t know how high the Eiffel Tower is, why would you know it the second time? Conversely, you likely created a mental anchor when giving an estimate the first time and would be hard pressed to provide an answer contradicting your first estimate - even if it might be more accurate. There were no answers pro…

Given more time I can remember something, or I can notice that the last question gives some hints or even unrelated associations that help to answer the first question. I don't think "if you don't know the answer in 20 seconds you won't ever know it" is true.

> I don't think "if you don't know the answer in 20 seconds you won't ever know it" is true.

Exactly. And being placed on the spot with someone waiting for an answer makes me more forgetful. Once the pressure is off, I immediately think of many possibilities and can more accurately evaluate their likelihood.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#73

Post by naasking »

agsdfgsd wrote: post #71
fsloth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I simplified a lot. The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was rather that the unwashed masses rose to their level, and it was not anymore sufficient to say that god has decreed duke X a distinguished gentleman and commoner Y a filthy peasant. It is not easy to rise social ladder…

>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" s…

> We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off.

This smacks of rosy retrospective bias. Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable, we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies.

We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. Also, the mentally ill are no longer shunned as harshly and so they don't die of starvation. Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#74

Post by JoeAltmaier »

agsdfgsd wrote: post #71
fsloth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I simplified a lot. The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was rather that the unwashed masses rose to their level, and it was not anymore sufficient to say that god has decreed duke X a distinguished gentleman and commoner Y a filthy peasant. It is not easy to rise social ladder…

>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" s…

We have orders of magnitude safer food, fewer mentally ill than feudal folk. And we have medicine that works. Its disingenuous and incorrect to dismiss it so glibly.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#75

Post by reggieband »

Whenever I come across such ideas it makes me want to more deeply investigate the Communicative Rationality [1] of Jurgen Habermas. Despite modern trends towards a conservative stoicism (e.g. Jordan Peterson) I actually think Social Critical Theory feels to be moving in the more-correct direction. However, the current negative association with moral-relativism and postmodernism is a new McCarthyism. The bridge should be pragmatism but even that is too closely associated with socialism.

Too many isms but the ones that are scaring me most now are authoritarianism, fascism and totalitarianism. Ideas like communicative rationality feel to me like the most reasonable solutions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#76

Post by agsdfgsd »

naasking wrote: post #73
agsdfgsd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" s…

> We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off. This smacks of rosy retrospective bias. Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable, we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suff…

>Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable

It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products.

>we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies.

Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. You can't just look at rich countries now compared to everyone centuries ago. You have to compare like to like. We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies, and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis.

>We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival.

People were not scrounging for survival then either. They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do.

>Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable.

We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Everything is debatable, but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. As population density grows, social cohesion, trust and relationships all decline. We just didn't evolve to be friends with 5 million people.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#77

Post by agsdfgsd »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #74
agsdfgsd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism. That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" s…

We have orders of magnitude safer food, fewer mentally ill than feudal folk. And we have medicine that works. Its disingenuous and incorrect to dismiss it so glibly.

I am not dismissing medicine. But the existence of medicine now does not mean life centuries ago was a horrifying existence struggling to survive as popular culture suggests. There are still primitive people now, whose existence is far closer to that subsistence stereotype than medieval Europeans were. They are overwhelmingly happy and healthy. They eat better than we do, are healthier than we are, and work less than we do. If they had modern medicine, it is hard to argue they wouldn't be better off than us in every way.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#78

Post by jdblair »

brianpgordon wrote: post #52
amelius wrote: post #36

Perhaps we can save democracy by replacing the voting mechanism by placing people in groups of 10, and letting them reach consensus before making a vote.

That would not be the same situation at all. In the case of general knowledge questions, obviously the small groups will do better because people who are uncertain and would have voted randomly will instead listen to whomever is confident. And everyone works together to pool knowledge. In political voting the problem is not a lack of information- everyone has a strong opinion about everything already and putting them…

Perhaps everyone has a strong opinion of headline candidates, like senators, presidents, governors and such. However, I think small group concensus would really improve the voting for everything else: state constitutional amendments, bonds, school board and other local administrative positions.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#79

Post by jdblair »

amelius wrote: post #36

Perhaps we can save democracy by replacing the voting mechanism by placing people in groups of 10, and letting them reach consensus before making a vote.

Or groups of 11, so if they can't reach consensus there is at least a tie breaking mechanism.

Re: Knowledge from small number of debates outperforms wisdom of large crowds (2017)

#80

Post by vidarh »

agsdfgsd wrote: post #70
vidarh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea of nations "their ancestors spent hundreds of generations creating is historical fiction. A hundred generations is around 2500 years. Look at some maps of migrations in Europe over the last 2500 years, and the idea of people mostly staying put over that time frame is demolished. Modern English is a West Germanic language, coming from the Germanic tribes that pushed aside the Celts, for example. The reason i…

>the idea of people mostly staying put over that time frame is demolished. That idea was never put forward. Again, a nation is a people. >It's about fear, where origin is a proxy. It seems rather arrogant to tell other people what their beliefs are and what they are about. Would you tell Indians that they were evil racists for being "afraid" of the British invaders? That they just don't have enough experience, and yo…

> That idea was never put forward. Again, a nation is a people.

"A nation is a people" does not say anything. It's a totally empty phrase given that the notion of what makes up "a people" is totally fluid, and changes dramatically over time, as I pointed out. You won't find anyone in England who consider themselves Germans, for example, but most of them are descendants predominantly of Germanic tribes. And despite "British" as an identity is even more of a fabrication you'll find plenty of people who see no distinction between English and Scottish people, for example

And it changes rapidly: Even surveys of what nationality people in the UK consider themselves to have shows massive shifts over even the last 30-40 years. These things can not be measured meaningfully in "hundreds of generations" - they often change dramatically in as little of 1-2 generations.

The irony of what one finds in such surveys is that contrary to your earlier attempt to paint this as something lasting, families of recent immigrants to the UK tend to show much stronger feelings of national belonging than "ethnic British" people, and are largely accepted as British. Unsurprisingly given how much of the culture of many of these immigrants have become an integral part of British culture.

> It seems rather arrogant to tell other people what their beliefs are and what they are about.

Not when there is plenty of evidence.

> Would you tell Indians that they were evil racists for being "afraid" of the British invaders?

I wouldn't tell anyone they're racist for being afraid of people who are actually invading and taking their country. That you even try to equate this with immigration says enough.

> dictate to them who is allowed in their country?

You're the one assuming I am suggesting I should have a right to dictate to them. People are free to be xenophobes and bigots if they wish. That does not make them any less so, and I'm equally free to call them out on it.

> being so much more wise and experienced know better than they do

In terms of the UK for example, as I pointed out, it is not at all about my experience. It's about the fact that anti-immigration sentiments linked to opposition to the EU was strongest in the areas where people have the least personal experience with it, and in fact opposition to the EU in general was largest in areas with the least immigration. If they had actual experience of it, I'd have slightly more sympathy for their position, but most of this xenophobia is linked to lack of experience.

Living in London, as an immigrant, the vast majority of British people I meet are equally exasperated over the xenophobia in "Middle England", because most people here know immigrants, work with immigrants, or are in relationships with immigrants.

Post reply on HN