Matt Ridley - When Ideas Have Sex
Moderately related to the topic. Towards the end he mentions that he has no interest in, and even considers it irrelevant to understand human innovation, measuring individual intelligence.
For several hundred years, we've had the ability to collectively do things that no single human could do alone. Even 'simple' things, like manufacture a computer mouse.
Very cool. I didn't realize it'd be an economics lecture /boner.
I get where he's coming from, but I think he underestimates the power of individual intelligence in that intelligence web. SOMEONE needs to design that mouse. The top down design, where the actual ideas that are implemented come from, is itself a hyper-specialization. Without that role, the role of the egghead, the rest of the model falls apart.
What I mean is that if NO individual understood higher mathematics, physics, etc., NONE of us could benefit from the fruits of that understanding.
Agreed. That viewpoint is the economics of leveraging multiple peoples intelligence to do something bigger.
It's also part of why our advances have increased in pace dramatically. As ideas and concepts can get passed around easier and faster, more and more people are leveraging them into new ideas. I can't find my specific reference at the moment, but I was reading something about brainstorming and groupthink (either here or another forum) and amongst the various sources I came across, one was talking about the success of university programs that collaborated over the internet.
The upshot was that brainstorming in a large physically present group leads to groupthink, which is bad. Collaborations over e-mail, forum or G+, which record conversations over an extended period are typically able to avoid the common sources of groupthink, because the people aren't physically present and the extended time leads to deeper analysis. You say something, then I review it, but because I am solitary when I do my review, I am less likely to have my judgement clouded by peer pressure and the like.
|
But what constitutes a competent Authority? The largest group who hold some consensus that they are right and all others are wrong?
That would be extremely arrogant and Dangerous.
Generaly speaking, competent authorities are those who have had actual training in the area in question. I mean, if 4 out of 5 people who've studied something agree on an aspect of that thing, they're likely to be fairly close to correct.
But, of course, by 'studied' I don't necessarily mean 'read a lot of books on' per se, but rather 'have a lot of empirical data on'. Many books aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but actual empirical data from well orchestrated experiments and studies tends to be worth quite a lot.
And the data? None of it supports Gardner...which makes his position basically indefensible.
Eh, I suppose. I'm not a psychologist. I heard about it from Niel Borts.Neither am I as of yet. :)
But the data I've looked at, and my Psych Professor (who's both a psychologist and a specialist in the study of intelligence...and has thus looked at whole mountains more data than I), both support him being grossly inaccurate. This doesn't mean he's universally wrong on everything, mind you, just that anything accurate in his theory is pretty much accidental.
So what you are admitting is that a 'Competent Authority' is what I have described. Just because fifty reach the same conclusion doesn't mean they are right.
|
So what you are admitting is that a 'Competent Authority' is what I have described.
A competent authority is, as I said, one who has done good, serious, empirical, research on the subject, or looked over a lot of such research. And if you know what you're doing you can tell good research from bad.
That's not the same as "The largest group who hold some consensus..."
Not at all.
Just because fifty reach the same conclusion doesn't mean they are right.
No, but they're more likely to be right than one guy of the same level of expertise. Not 50 times more likely, but more likely.
Though quite possibly less so than one guy with a much greater level of expertise.
|
|
So what you are admitting is that a 'Competent Authority' is what I have described.A competent authority is, as I said, one who has done good, serious, empirical, research on the subject, or looked over a lot of such research. And if you know what you're doing you can tell good research from bad.
That's not the same as "The largest group who hold some consensus..."
Not at all.
Just because fifty reach the same conclusion doesn't mean they are right.No, but they're more likely to be right than one guy of the same level of expertise. Not 50 times more likely, but more likely.
Though quite possibly less so than one guy with a much greater level of expertise.
Still don't see this as a the largest possible group reaching the consensus that the world is flat because we all agree god says so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still don't see this as a the largest possible group reaching the consensus that the world is flat because we all agree god says so.Huh? I...really don't get what you're saying here at all. Please clarify.
Essentially, the dingo wants to get an exception agreed to in principle on syllogism semantics so that he can put forth claims that he has ideas, while not in popular, and/or majority, consensus, that may be more valid than the mainstream (according to him).
Ask him his position on invalidating string theory when you have a chance.
I'm not a clinician, but I do have a masters in Industrial Organizational Psychology. I know a good deal about psychological testing. Intelligence is a bit vague of a term. You'd either have to specify what type of intelligence you were looking for, such as spatial reasoning or emotional intelligence, or you'd have to use an overall relatively vague measurement like IQ. You could start here if you're really curious.
|
|
He also doesn't want validity to be based on any kind of study of or expertise in the field.Still don't see this as a the largest possible group reaching the consensus that the world is flat because we all agree god says so.Huh? I...really don't get what you're saying here at all. Please clarify.Essentially, the dingo wants to get an exception agreed to in principle on syllogism semantics so that he can put forth claims that he has ideas, while not in popular, and/or majority, consensus, that may be more valid than the mainstream (according to him).
Ask him his position on invalidating string theory when you have a chance.
Ah. Gotcha.
I've stated my position, and am done, in that case.
lol