Groupthink
Peter Olcott
describe a decision-making process in which officials are
so wedded to the same assumptions and beliefs that they
ignore, discount or even ridicule information to the contrary.
When members of a cohesive, homogenous group value
unanimity and agreement on one course of action more
than a realistic appraisal of alternatives, they are engaging
in groupthink.
G. Frege
<olc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Yale psychologist bla and bla [...]
>
Note: this is sci.logic /not/ sci.psychology.
F.
David C. Ullrich
<olc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Right. And the idea that this has any relevance to the
things that you clearly think it has relevance to is
simply hilarious. We're talking about mathematical
facts here and mathematical proofs - the idea that
we should be considering alternatives makes _exactly_
as much sense as the idea that we should be considering
alternatives to the fact that the square root of 2 is
irrational.
See, this is _mathematics_. Math _is_ different from
other fields, whether you like it or not. The theorems
that Euclid proved thousands of years ago are still
true - there is no doubt whatever about the validity
of the Pythagorean theorem. And that fact _does_
show that math is different - today's physics has
_invalidated_ the physics of Aristotle.
And that's why the unanimous agreement on mathematical
questions is really a totally different sort of
thing than if we agreed unanomously on questions
of biology or astronomy or whatever. You're not
going to get anywhere _here_ accusing people
of groupthink, because we all understand everything
I've just said.
All you do accomplish with this sort of post, in
case you're curious, is to make people _certain_
that you're a crackpot. Honest. Everyone thinks
that 2 + 2 = 4. _Every_ single person I talk
to thinks that 2 + 2 = 4. That seems pretty
suspicious, the fact that nobody has any
dissenting opinions means there must be
something fishy going on, if people were
actually thinking for themselves they'd
come up with different opinions. _No_,
the reason everyone thinks that 2 + 2 = 4
is that 2 + 2 _is_ equal to 4. You sound
like you feel that there should be more
openness to different opinions on the
value of 2 + 2; when you sound that way
you do not sound even remotely rational.
Sorry, but that's the truth.
************************
David C. Ullrich
G. Frege
<ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:32:25 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> <olc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Yale psychologist Irving Janis coined the term in 1972 to
>> describe a decision-making process in which officials are
>> so wedded to the same assumptions and beliefs that they
>> ignore, discount or even ridicule information to the contrary.
>>
>> When members of a cohesive, homogenous group value
>> unanimity and agreement on one course of action more
>> than a [...] appraisal of alternatives, they are engaging
>> in groupthink.
>>
>
> Everyone thinks that 2 + 2 = 4. _Every_ single
> person I talk to thinks that 2 + 2 = 4. [...]
>
Groupthink! Groupthink!
F.
|-|erc
you noticed? its only a dozen people here, each too afraid to comment
on any alternate theory for fear of looking stupid in front of their mainstream.
really quite ridiculous especially with 1000s of staff on the truman show
mocking the text hugging group here for their numerous entrenched errors.
"this statement is false" lets call it inconsistent
"this statement has no proof" lets allow it
"if you KNOW its true it must have a proof" lets dissalow it
==============================
xxx
xxx
xxx
yyy is not counted here.
xxx..
yxx..
yyx..
...
can't see yyy here either, its missing too
=======================
A function exists that determines whether its input halts or not,
or whether it is self referential.
halt(f(x) = x+1, 0) = true
halt(f(x) = f(x) + 1, 0) = false
halt(f(x) = if (halt(x,x), f(x), 0), 0) = self_referential
==========================
still working on busy beaver..
Herc
William Elliot
> <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>
> > Everyone thinks that 2 + 2 = 4. _Every_ single
> > person I talk to thinks that 2 + 2 = 4. [...]
>
> Groupthink! Groupthink!
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<ma...@privacy.net>
wrote
on Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:32:36 -0700
<2004071022...@agora.rdrop.com>:
And 2 + 2 + 2 = 20.
And 11 x 11 = 121. Whoops, that works just about everywhere. :-)
Except in base 2. HINT HINT.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Will Twentyman
In your post "Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the
Halting Problem?", you claim to have disproven the unsolvability of the
Halting Problem by changing the proof to something that doesn't prove
Willhalt() cannot exist. That just means you can make a change. You
have claimed that a *different* proof that Willhalt() cannot exist
doesn't work. The general response seems to be "So what?" That does
not make the original proof that you linked to invalid.
How is pointing you back to the original functional proof groupthink?
Your arguments appears to be analogous to saying, "I've seen blades of
grass that are green, but if they were actually purple, then they
wouldn't be green!" That's very true, but so what? Grass is green.
--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
|-|erc
Actually Will you may have just pointed out the functional proof, but you
can't seriously say this isn't happening?
> > ignore, discount or even ridicule information to the contrary.
Here's a good example of groupthink.
*****
"Peter Olcott" <olc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> You are able to correctly refute what I am saying
> without even reading a single word.
That is exactly so.
That's one of the amazing things about being able to
understand computer science, by having invested the
effort such understanding takes. Once you have read
through and understood a proof that some hypothesis
holds, you no longer have to waste time reading
drivel from obsessed persons who cannot be bothered
to learn to understand computer science, proving
that the opposite hypothesis holds, and ignoring
every kind attempt by wiser heads to point out just
where their errors lie.
******
Herc
Will Twentyman
Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, he constructed a different
"proof" that he felt was analogous. The difference was, what he
generated is not true. That does not mean the original suffers the same
flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. What is wrong with
observing that Peter is not talking about the proof as it stands, and
therefor dismissing everything else he says as irrelevant to the correct
proof?
|-|erc
relevance is relevant?
Herc
Will Twentyman
Yes, but Peter's attack lacks relevance so is not relevant.
Bryan Olson
> Here's a good example of groupthink.
>
> *****
> "Peter Olcott" <olc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > You are able to correctly refute what I am saying
> > without even reading a single word.
>
> That is exactly so.
>
> That's one of the amazing things about being able to
> understand computer science, by having invested the
> effort such understanding takes. Once you have read
> through and understood a proof that some hypothesis
> holds, you no longer have to waste time reading
> drivel from obsessed persons who cannot be bothered
> to learn to understand computer science, proving
> that the opposite hypothesis holds, and ignoring
> every kind attempt by wiser heads to point out just
> where their errors lie.
> ******
>
> Herc
Herc messed-up the attribution. He's quoting a post by Kent
Paul Dolan:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=97bf14b10b0a6e410399b48aa0a53124.48257%40mygate.mailgate.org
Reading Herc's post, I was at first confused. If he can write
that well, why hasn't he before?
--
--Bryan
Kent Paul Dolan
> If he can write
> that well, why hasn't he before?
Why thank you for the pretty implied-compliment.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Bryan Olson
> "Bryan Olson" wrote:
>
>>If he can write that well, why hasn't he before?
>
> Why thank you for the pretty implied-compliment.
Uh, welcome ... It was sincere; I only looked up your post
because I doubted he could write that.
But, no offense, don't be too flattered. There may be a minor
parallel structure problem (not that it matters on Usenet) and I
wasn't exactly comparing you to Faulkner. ;)
--
--Bryan
|-|erc
I guess you could tell I wouldn't write this fascism :>
> holds, you no longer have to waste time reading
> drivel from obsessed persons who cannot be bothered
> to learn to understand computer science
I've been called a professional writer a dozen times for this, written 2001.
Jennifer's mating call was in her office, she blurts
out 'I'm 21', Japanese phoneme for me. In a teaching tute
Michelle was bragging about always finishing work early and
chatting and says 'I can do 2 things at once'. A week
later I figure out I can have any woman I choose and I
send a blank email, 'I can do more than 2 things at once'.
Next day at uni, she's with the in crowd, I'm sure everyone
knows, but she sits by herself behind me very still. She
knows I don't know if she knows.
I notice how much shorter she is, but she has a better
V taper than me. She's into phrenology and evolution,
chemistry major, noticed her iq when she describes her
black box hypothesis systems for year 12 pracs. Phone
her and get a date, at uni we notice each other in the
corner of our eyes, walk past and simultaneously say "Hi",
Japanese for yes. In a micro teaching session we
role play molecules and we end up holding a piece of
string bond between our fingers, she notices my index
finger has the only trimmed fingernail and smiles, my
first reassurance of destiny. Weeks of calls and no
date, she has a 6 year boyfriend (she's only 22), lucky guy
she's so sultry. Invites me to the final day drinks, chat
with a few under my belt but she leaves, never saw her
again, she wore a flower in her hair, thought it was for me.
Last month I moaned out aloud couple times at Jennifer just
as thunder roars, hardly think of Michelle, yesterday after
half hour silence I whisper 'Michelle' and a gust of wind shakes
the windows.
INTRODUCTION
Hello Michelle,
the news media doesn't determine if you are a prodogy, it is a
part of nature, you have to understand somewhat how fate works.
If it's my fate to marry someone, then you can deduce that no
matter what, in the mean time I cannot die. Does this make me
immortal, if I jump in front of a train will I survive? I won't but it
does mean that it is impossible for me to make the decision to
jump, for that is the event that would breach my fate. I can't tell
you for certain if you are a prodogy, but if it is your fate to see
me again then denying this will only further confound you, fate
cannot be escaped. Hating me for a time was just part of your
fate. The news media reflects whatever is in my
mind or my recent events, my life runs a parallel to the events
of the world, not just media, weather, people, machines, everything.
Can you interpret media and the environment? This may be only my
skill, but if I am right you share a focus of the world's events and there
will be some train of stimulus effecting you to come to me.
We are mortal like everyone we know, but now we cannot die, and
we the closest thing to being gods.
Below is my introduction to a book, I'm planning to compile my writings
together, and ask my father to do a biography, not for a few years, I
want my destiny to be realized first. We are similar, both broad -
great compliment, we are the two most intelligent of our species,
can you deny our possibility, the future of our race? I want to love you.
Most of all I want to hold you.
This is my true story, a story about the reality of prophecy, the truth
of fate. My fate or destiny, merely months away now, is a woman.
These writings are more about the underpinnings of the universe, to make
credible a conventionally unscientific belief. As an introduction to the
mysterious workings of purpose in a random universe, I will attempt
a story, a story of how this woman and I met.
First to introduce myself, a computer programmer and recreational
mathematician. This book is unlike any other, first I am not a writer
in the conventional sense, I fill notebook upon notebook with hazy
diagrams and brief descriptions I later cannot decipher myself, second,
as a mathematician all my writing serves a single purpose, to prove.
Take my words with an open mind and your understanding of the
world will change, for I will show you that numerology is a science.
Jennifer, my destiny, caught my attention with her name over two
years ago when I met her in a realty shop, and read her business
card, the name rhyming with a movie character I adored 'Jessica Six',
the movie - Logun's Run. What has a movie to do with prophecy,
indeed the prophecy of some couple? We are no ordinary couple but
I will leave this detail for the body of this book. Every couple
that comes together does so as each of their fate, but the driving
force bringing Jennifer and I together is of a new nature. You see
Jennifer is very beautiful, I can barely type to write - she has
bright green eyes, and I am very intelligent.
Only a few who have been close to me have insight to my intelligence,
I shouldn't boast, there are other people with much superior mental
skills to mine in areas, detail of the nature of my mind will again
be detailed in course. The movie Logun's Run, a fantastic movie,
refreshed my drive for monogamy, true love. There are many influences
acting upon us each day that can actually affect the type of decisions
we make, like me deciding to visit the realty store again. Movies,
songs, advertising, friends and strangers, everything in the world
can play influences, and anything in the world can play a part in
prophecy. The movie Logun's Run, the characters and actors names,
looks, birthdates, script, all run to a celestial clockwork, it
was my destiny to see the movie shortly before meeting Jennifer.
It is difficult to explain several things together at once, I'm not
just intelligent in that I get everything right, and Jennifer is not just
beautiful in that she is flawless, like the shark that hasn't changed in
millions of years, we are the first perfect people.
It is difficult to understand fate, like the entire world is a directed
play, events come together with twists as if they were written before
hand. At certain times many things fit into place, and you must
wonder how the contributors made these things fit without some higher
purpose controlling their actions. I mentioned a movie character's
name that rhymed with Jennifer's, there is an actress I saw years
before meeting Jennifer who looks like her, the first time I saw the
actress on television I said 'I'm going to marry her'.
Many people can accept fate as part of our world, but don't grasp the
complexity involved. My life has had hundreds of occurrences which
all had to happen for my prophecy to be meaningful, seeing certain
movies, postcards, books, hearing certain songs, thinking certain
thoughts at the right time, doing particular things, all complex and all
laid out for me before I was born. The end result of one act of destiny
relies on the myriad of happenings throughout ones life, and all the
events that one interacts with. This imposes a rigid view of the world,
where every action is predetermined, perhaps there is some margin
of freedom in our actions that don't affect our destinies.
I have already lost most scientifically minded readers with my ideas
leading to divine purpose of furthering of our species, the accepted
view of random chemical, biological and social interaction responsible
for life is complete and sound. I have some thoughts on the overall
methodology of science to address the need for a more open view
to the nature of the universe. There are many unresolved issues in
current science, say you imagine a line from near your person and
extend it out towards the sky into space. Where does the line end
up? It goes past many stars and galaxies, then supposedly into
emptiness. Does the universe finish at a certain region, enclosed
within nothing, or extend infinitely? Most people imagine the big
bang as an event that manufactured matter into an empty universe.
Thirteen billion years ago there was nothing, twelve billion years ago
everything was created. This isn't true, there was no thirteen billion
years ago, time itself, together with what we know as the universe
started with the big bang. We don't readily comprehend that before
the big bang is meaningless because we live about a third of the way
into the universe's life, time may continue forever but supposedly
everything will just be a random soup, life won't exist anyway. The
way everything in the universe behaves is different both at different
times and at different scales, say for a star compared to an atom.
We don't know if the laws of physics will hold throughout time, they
may certainly be extended in future.
The progress of science is analogous to deciphering instructions, this
implies to me a period of construction, and even one day when we turn
it on. For instance, extra sensory perception has never been proven,
yet a moment may pass in the future that not only alters current scientific
views but alters our nature of existence, making esp conceivable. There
could be growth points as part of the universes life affecting the nature
of how things work.
Most people believe in some non scientific view, a standard
religion or their own beliefs, yet any examination or test of these views,
or indeed their audience by a skeptic refutes them. This makes me
think of a law for small particles that observation of exactly what the
particle is doing is impossible, called the uncertainty principle. The
act of observation interrupts the experiment. Could not this and
other laws of physics that work at micro scales manifest themselves into
our reality? The models of matter at small scales do not resemble
our tangible world, bizarre in that they accurately predict what
happens, but described as not what is really there. Could our visible
world also work in ways we can see but not comprehend?
In quantum physics many different actions of a particle
occur together at the same time, something we are unaccustomed
to in our observable world. Perhaps if these occurrences manifested
at observable scale, one of my parallel thoughts could be the location
of a person, if it were our destiny to meet then this thought would
become real. The bubble of non observation around an event could
explode to include human comprehension, it may be in our lifetimes
that testing of things like esp finds it valid. The universe may be
winding up to one set of laws, and after a pivotal moment, unwind
to another. I am not saying these things are true, merely that stringent
viewpoints of science are not always correct, and certainly not complete.
Scientists make principles from observations of their environment, it is
not mathematically sound for them to discount theories just because they
don't fit current theory. The line between fantasy and reality is blurred.
Reaching a complete understanding of the universe involves theories
of information, not matter. Our knowledge of events, plus facts that
transcend time, like a triangle always has three sides, the currently
unexplainable fact of our sentience and feeling are all part of the
universe. The fact that information now travels around our planet at
the speed of light is a part of the universe. Information takes many
forms, from a simple message in speech, to every activated neuron
on our retina, to a symbolic natural formation like a river running
into a sea, to the representation of a physical object.
The foundation of information is the mere number, it is
hard to define information but it works as a kind of parallel.
A complete theory of the universe would have to involve the parallels
or duality that occur in many ways: the non natural way small matter
behaves manifesting into reality, the environments solitary existence
interacting with its manifestation in our minds, the parallels of
broadcast fiction leading reality and describing history, the creation
of life from two lives coming together. The universe is inhabited with
social creatures, does not this make the universe a social entity?
Our journey into numerology focuses on sounds, is not a number
equally represented with a sound as with a scribble. Colours, substances,
music are all numerical in a sense, this sentence could replace each
letter with a number, and be ordered just like any counting number.
Prophecy and numerology go well together because they are about
order. First the classic numerology prose, allow me to introduce myself,
I am number seven. In fact, everything about me is a seven, birth day,
initial, adding up consonants in my name, adding up vowels. One day I
gave a pendant with 7 diamonds to my girlfriend who introduced me to
numerology, we sat at table 7 and later saw 7 birds fly by. Yes its
hardly an argument for numerology, but that's an example of how it can
work, I can only show you, not prove. Somehow my mind is the focus of
all events, my life has become an ongoing sequence of symbolic exchanges
of messages with our world. Another example is today I thought of something
to say to Jennifer about her eyes and a car drives by of remarkable metallic
green colour. There is a synchronized duality. If I ponder my gift and
roll two dice a seven appears, but I can't repeatedly roll sevens in front
of an audience, it's not my fate to prove my sevenness. The astonishing
flukes of my life only occur for purpose, I can flick a piece of paper
into place with precision, but this is a coordination outside of my body.
Ongoing examples don't prove anything, I will mention one last 'coincidence'
as part of this introduction, it occurred on the seventh of the seventh,
two thousand. I found an old CD that night, 'Reactivate 10' which made
me think of turning on my pursuit for Jennifer again, I should mention
Jennifer's number is 10. I repeatedly played a song, 'some people believe
in the 5th dimension, others think the sixth will show the way to the
seventh... ecstasy', then I stopped when I realized it finished on the
initial of my surname - X T C. I noticed the time, three thirty, being
half of seven, then I slept.
Sound plays an important role because prophecy is more powerful than
we can imagine, its not just some predicted story, it borders on the belief
that all of history is predetermined, and unraveling the past and future relies
on interpretation of our language, for in a sense language is not made by man, just
discovered. Having deciphered and written many computer programs, I am
accustomed to making up functional words, this has given me the ability
to decipher a fraction of spoken languages as being purposeful to the
nature of the universe. I will not take the storm out of the body of my book
now, it will better explain the keys and secrets that await us.
Phonetics is the primitive of language, and language is the tool
of meaning. In a purposeful universe words, names and symbols
are all linked in a complex network. Pythagarus didn't invent the
circle, most people can comprehend that it transcends time, but
the culmination of an entire language, the associated derivations
from people, places, animals and biology, chemistry, all jargon
and all symbolic objects, is difficult to believe that it is more than
a historically developed facet. Movie makers carefully make up
names to add a dimension to each character, the script is calculated,
very carefully at certain points to ensure flow in each scene and
everything ties together at the finish. Could not the universe itself
play out life, the story of the most advanced man, each scene
culminating into events to lead him to the most advanced woman?
The climax would be the progress of life, something we all know to
exist but not accommodated in any laws of physics.
The universe isn't a big space with moving particles, that
doesn't count for the existence of a concept, a desire.
it is intricate, a structure of meaning and purpose that
drives our physical world.
Such a pity, the wooden axle never able to bear its required load, the
tribe returned to the old technology, the proven rolling logs method,
the spark of ingenuity destined to remain one man's dream. We live
in a strange universe, we think of moving ourselves and other objects
and shortly after things happen, its a comfortable understanding, but
how does it work? Things didn't always happen, and things don't exist
when they are made. If the tribe failed in its invention, another tribe would
take its place, in a sense the wheel existed before it was made, and
will exist after they are all destroyed. We have one understanding of
ourselves with our subcomposition, but what we find aren't things that
move, physics describes matter like a magic show, vanishing, blurring,
jumping, doubling. Time is the mystery, on one hand a universe with
a beginning and ending of time, just a still object we flow through, and
another still world that we can't even touch, void of all events yet
visible, described as the platonic world, knowledge.
But things do have a temporal existence, our reality the physical world,
and there is only one universe, how it all blends together, this is my story.
Bryan Olson
> I've been called a professional writer a dozen times for this,
written 2001.
>
Hold on; I'll Google it...
I see that Herc has *posted* it about a dozen times. This
message (the one I'm now writing, or you are now reading,
depending on how you take 'now') seems to be the third reply.
The other two didn't think much of it either.
As for 'professional writer', I don't find it, though a web
search does finds that Herc posted the piece in thread where he
was asking for money. So Herc: can you make a living from that
writing income? Can you buy gum?
--
--Bryan
|-|erc
Will Twentyman
[rest deleted]
I usually don't get this far before giving up on it as nonsense.
Acid Pooh
>
> Jennifer's mating call was in her office, she blurts
> out 'I'm 21', Japanese phoneme for me. In a teaching tute
> Michelle was bragging about always finishing work early and
> chatting and says 'I can do 2 things at once'. A week
> later I figure out I can have any woman I choose and I
> send a blank email, 'I can do more than 2 things at once'.
> Next day at uni, she's with the in crowd, I'm sure everyone
> knows, but she sits by herself behind me very still. She
> knows I don't know if she knows.
> I notice how much shorter she is, but she has a better
> V taper than me. She's into phrenology and evolution,
> chemistry major, noticed her iq when she describes her
> black box hypothesis systems for year 12 pracs. Phone
It's like Burroughs, but bad and uninsightful.
'cid 'ooh
|-|erc
> > Jennifer's mating call was in her office, she blurts
> > out 'I'm 21', Japanese phoneme for me. In a teaching tute
> > Michelle was bragging about always finishing work early and
> > chatting and says 'I can do 2 things at once'. A week
> > later I figure out I can have any woman I choose and I
> > send a blank email, 'I can do more than 2 things at once'.
> > Next day at uni, she's with the in crowd, I'm sure everyone
> > knows, but she sits by herself behind me very still. She
> > knows I don't know if she knows.
> > I notice how much shorter she is, but she has a better
> > V taper than me. She's into phrenology and evolution,
> > chemistry major, noticed her iq when she describes her
> > black box hypothesis systems for year 12 pracs. Phone
>
> It's like Burroughs, but bad and uninsightful.
uninsightful? the whole theme is about insight and widening scientific method.
takes 5 minutes to read it. the start is just setting the stage for macro quantum
entanglement on biology as mechanisms for an advanced future race.
i.e. evolution is quantum optomised.
this is the real bible chapter one believe it or not.
Herc
|-|erc
> > > Jennifer's mating call was in her office, she blurts
> >
> > It's like Burroughs, but bad and uninsightful.
>
> Joycean, except that Joyce probably wasn't crazy in real life; and
> it's probably a lot harder (and certainly more impressive) to be crazy
> in writing when you're not in real life. Still, I'm in love with this
> quote: "...She has bright green eyes, and I am very intelligent." In a
> sane man, that would qualify as a stroke of genius. "Herc" has gone
> so far in creating his kooky online persona that I end up feeling slightly
> uncomfortable reading his "story." (Obviously it needs more jokes.)
>
well this is odd. dozens of people when who READ it all said its good.
websites linked to it saying its good writing. but when i ask for REVIEW
you all get superiority complexes.
it will be globally public this year that I am Adam, that the government has been
describing my life to you for decades over media, and the 100s who laughed on
usenet and never got it will go down in history as the greatest fools.
there's half a dozen x-files expisodes about me, different character each time
all describing different powers of Adam.
listen to all top 50 songs on MTV this week, half of them are about the REAL SAVIOUR.
In a Universe where atheism is true.
A 100 million dollar movie starring a man J.C. in a show called TRUEman SHOW
shouldn't happen.
Herc
if god was one of us, just a slog like one of us