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

MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

singularityhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#11

Post by zinkem »

Bud wrote: post #7

Did they try to control for Tea Party members or Christian fundamentalists? I'm not saying this just for snark value; if you don't believe in science or the scientific method, for instance, it would seem a bit hard for you to contribute much in the way of intelligence on such questions. Same thing with "social sensitivity"; I would guess that's not a strength among isolationists or fundamentalists of various types.

Singling out a group of people and then identifying their thoughts as not worthwhile seems to undermine the conclusion of the study.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#12

Post by Bud »

learc83 wrote: post #8
Bud wrote: post #7

Did they try to control for Tea Party members or Christian fundamentalists? I'm not saying this just for snark value; if you don't believe in science or the scientific method, for instance, it would seem a bit hard for you to contribute much in the way of intelligence on such questions. Same thing with "social sensitivity"; I would guess that's not a strength among isolationists or fundamentalists of various types.

Wow I'd really like to see some data to back up these assertions. Did they correct for poor welfare moms, blue collar union workers, or Muslims? To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than y…

Not ridiculous at all, although very predictable that this would be downvoted and controversial.

I didn't say "only" Tea Party folks or fundies, so I'd appreciate not being misquoted. I also didn't say anything about "understanding" the scientific method. I think a lot of those folks understand it quite well; they just choose to cynically lie about it for political reasons, which is the crucial difference here.

You bringing up Muslims or welfare moms says all we need to know about your particular attitudes. It's really not my fault if you have a problem acknowledging the factual reality here. The facts are, the Tea Party is actively hostile to science, the scientific method, and scientific conclusions in general. This isn't my opinion, it's not controversial, and it involves no tricky judgment calls. It's a fact.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#13

Post by learc83 »

VladRussian wrote: post #10
learc83 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I'd really like to see some data to back up these assertions. Did they correct for poor welfare moms, blue collar union workers, or Muslims? To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than y…

>To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than your average Tea Partier. even a 20 years old wearing a Che shirt would see a connection [possibly after several trials] between stepping on a ra…

I believe that political biases are blinding you to the even distribution of cognitive dissonance--no one political party has a monopoly.

Conservative: "There's no way I'm going to trust those idiots in washington with my healthcare" "I do, however, trust those idiots in washington to fight endless wars, and keep the streets free of the evils of Marijuana"

Liberal: "I don't trust those idiots in Washington. They lied to all of us, so that we would support an unjust war." "I do, however, trust those idiots in Washington to run our healthcare and education"

People on both sides will continue to make decisions without using past experience to attempt to determine the outcome.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#14

Post by learc83 »

Bud wrote: post #12
learc83 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I'd really like to see some data to back up these assertions. Did they correct for poor welfare moms, blue collar union workers, or Muslims? To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than y…

Not ridiculous at all, although very predictable that this would be downvoted and controversial. I didn't say "only" Tea Party folks or fundies, so I'd appreciate not being misquoted. I also didn't say anything about "understanding" the scientific method. I think a lot of those folks understand it quite well; they just choose to cynically lie about it for political reasons, which is the crucial difference here. You b…

This wasn't an argument on whether a Tea Party backed political party would be detrimental to science in general. Your assertion was that we should control for Tea Party members in a particular scientific study.

If what you say is true --That a certain subset of the population, that you find undesirable, will negatively impact the results of the study --Then, I will point out another subset of the population who, given you're apparent political leanings you won't find undesirable, that will impact the study in the same way.

I did this so that hopefully you would see the problem with arbitrarily deciding to exclude a group of people who you disagree with from consideration.

Btw I'm certainly not a conservative. I would also ask you to read my response to the comment below.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#16

Post by nightski »

learc83 wrote: post #13
VladRussian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than your average Tea Partier. even a 20 years old wearing a Che shirt would see a connection [possibly after several trials] between stepping on a ra…

I believe that political biases are blinding you to the even distribution of cognitive dissonance--no one political party has a monopoly. Conservative: "There's no way I'm going to trust those idiots in washington with my healthcare" "I do, however, trust those idiots in washington to fight endless wars, and keep the streets free of the evils of Marijuana" Liberal: "I don't trust those idiots in Washington. They lied…

Meh, I think it is that people really just don't feel like they have an optimal choice. So they decide based on what matters to them most. Some think healthcare and education are more important, others security and freedom. Either way you can't have it all.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#17

Post by yummyfajitas »

bfe wrote: post #15

This dovetails to some degree with recent studies showing female asset managers both are less risk-tolerant and provide better overall returns than male asset managers, on average.

Do you have a citation for this?

If true, it's counterintuitive - one would expect the risk-tolerant investors to have higher returns.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#19

Post by amirmc »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #17
bfe wrote: post #15

This dovetails to some degree with recent studies showing female asset managers both are less risk-tolerant and provide better overall returns than male asset managers, on average.

Do you have a citation for this? If true, it's counterintuitive - one would expect the risk-tolerant investors to have higher returns.

I vaguely remember what the GP is talking about. IIRC it basically came down to women being more likely to 'let go' and not pour more good money after bad. I don't remember it being about 'risk-tolerance' specifically. More about women having less 'ego' in the game.

Sorry I can't find the links.

Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

#20

Post by gwern »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #17
bfe wrote: post #15

This dovetails to some degree with recent studies showing female asset managers both are less risk-tolerant and provide better overall returns than male asset managers, on average.

Do you have a citation for this? If true, it's counterintuitive - one would expect the risk-tolerant investors to have higher returns.

The way I remember it, it was simply that men traded more and so the fees (combined with some bad choices) damaged their returns: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145...
Post reply on HN