tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post115070017525429171..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: "Allocation vs Markets" - an ancient struggle with strange modern implicationsDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67653094272331853392019-01-15T19:06:28.969-08:002019-01-15T19:06:28.969-08:00David, regarding your statement:
"The Suprem...David, regarding your statement:<br /><br />"The Supreme Court could, on a simple basis of one-person one vote, require that states allocate E-C votes proportionately... if it were argued well and if we had a real court."<br /><br />Do you support the idea that the Constitution means anything that 5 justices on the Supreme Court agree on? I believe that would be a very bad principle. Article II of the Constitution reads, in relevant part: <br /><br />"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . ."<br /><br />If the Court were to mandate "one person, one vote" contrary to this specific language, then there would be no constraints on what the Court could rule. That type of decision would possibly destroy the Court's legitimacy and allow a demagogue the President and/or Congress to start a wAR of words with the Court that the Court would probably lose. Hugh Greentreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38574826196351044162013-09-12T18:03:42.098-07:002013-09-12T18:03:42.098-07:00Dr. Brin, if you can substantiate some of these cl...Dr. Brin, if you can substantiate some of these claims with hard evidence and statistical tests, you will go down in history as contributing more to social science than all those you mention, combined. This sounds more like arm-chair historianism, especially since you stay at the level of high abstraction and give no concrete examples or evidence. The condescending tone doesn't help. I haven't read Huber and Mills, but I am surprised you think Simon or Lomborg would disagree that there is a role for the state. Have events that took place since you posted this (massive bailouts of oligarchs) encouraged you or discouraged you? You advise us to transcend this dichotomy, but it's heavy on griping and light on suggestions for effective action. Harrumph!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90070657892921786012012-10-20T08:10:49.281-07:002012-10-20T08:10:49.281-07:00Excellent on FIBM.
Too bad the typically mistaken...Excellent on FIBM.<br /><br />Too bad the typically mistaken use of the term,"Darwinism," in the first comment says more about culture (this one) and its memes than about Darwin. Darwin is about co-evolution, speciation, diversity, and change on the geologic timescale. That's a book in itself. One would have to try "Spencerianism," or something else,<br />to suit the comment's purpose. But it's not Darwinism. Darwin is not a Darwinist. Darwin, himself, does not fit the meme that has been constructed around him and projected. FIBM is a disembodied platonic notion, a fond invention of human minds. The scope of Darwin is correctly perceived in Dobzhansky's essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." In biology-- till now--structure is history, and history is utterly interactive. That's Darwin's key insight. Co-evolution is the only meme that belongs around Darwin.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75346071418620672932012-09-07T17:35:15.449-07:002012-09-07T17:35:15.449-07:00Bit rot: the link in the main post to the alternat...Bit rot: the link in the main post to the alternate political map is broken and the site is for sale; http://reformthelp.org/<br /><br />oh, and spam above and, if it's not cleaned up, probably spam below.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152966655570098832006-07-15T05:30:00.000-07:002006-07-15T05:30:00.000-07:00Hello Michael, Tony, Anonymous (if any of you are ...Hello Michael, Tony, Anonymous (if any of you are still looking back) ...<BR/><BR/>Social change method of proven functionality: discuss around/with kids your best-guess social find them transformative but are more likely to see them as simply interesting (if they are accepted at all), children who have not developed the ability to critically consider your propositions are more likely to acept them as "reasonable until proven otherwise."<BR/><BR/>Yes this is--or at least can be--pretty evil. It produces, one generation later, a set of world actors who assumes the ideals the parents may have only toyed with.<BR/><BR/>----<BR/><BR/>One has to teach children something, at least as a parent (which I am) ... I try to keep concious awareness of both the "opportunity"(?) and the potential pitfalls.<BR/><BR/>My social ideal? I use the concept of "careful":<BR/><BR/>Be full of care, both in your thinking (develop your critical capacity and knowledge) and in your emotional life (again, develop your critical capacity and knowledge!).<BR/><BR/>Be full in your caring: care for the fullest system you can conceptualize: you, your family, your political group, humans, sentient beings, semi-sentient beings, non-sentient beings, the physical world, the spritual/energetic world, God ... consider ramifications for your actions across the entire world system you perceive.<BR/><BR/>Every person is fully responsible to, and should expect to be held so by, themself, other people, and every other part of your system. Everything resonates. <BR/><BR/>(Yes, I hold my children "responsible" at developmentally appropriate levels. Even as adults, we are learning beings.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152950930645313792006-07-15T01:08:00.000-07:002006-07-15T01:08:00.000-07:00Michael -"I agree that it's probably possible to f...Michael -<BR/><BR/>"I agree that it's probably possible to find a better social model and maybe even implement it."<BR/><BR/>Only if you are really looking for, not playing with "base instincts" as they are glorified in works of fiction.<BR/>And I don't mean sex or greed but <B>social</B> base instincts like "defending the tribe" and "chasing the deviants".<BR/>Get a clue, read Konrad Lorenz.<BR/><BR/>"Democracy is the worst form of government possible, except for all those other ones."<BR/><BR/>That is from <A HREF="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu164161.html" REL="nofollow">Winston Churchill</A> but he also said:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu105424.html" REL="nofollow">The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.</A><BR/><BR/>So...<BR/><BR/>"Things work. They could work better, it'd be nice, but we need to keep in mind that they could also work a lot worse"<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://members.aol.com/leanan7/tainter.htm" REL="nofollow">Indeed</A>, so we better hurry up before we ALL get <A HREF="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html" REL="nofollow">screwed</A>.<BR/><BR/>" - changes should be approached with an appropriate degree of caution."<BR/><BR/>Total agreement.<BR/>However the point is that the <B>context</B> IS changing at an unsustainable pace for our poor adaptation capabilities.<BR/>We are likely doomed, that does not mean we should not try.<BR/>But try SERIOUSLY, not mucking around with old saws in antiquated ethics and politics.<BR/>These did not worked too well since Plato, Confucius and the like, did they?<BR/>I know, I know, YOU are satisfied with this, not everybody is, not me at least.<BR/>We should use the whole wealth of knowledge in social sciences which is fortunately available today, not keep stirring emotional flicks like any PR guy.<BR/>Emotions v/s rationality IS the problem and it may even be that rationality is NOT attainable.<BR/>We are not rational creatures, we are not "in control" and even when we try to this brings so serious drawbacks that one has to wonder which option is worse.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.picoeconomics.com/Articles/MunichRepr.pdf" REL="nofollow">A Selectionist Model of the Ego: Implications of Self-Control</A> [PDF]<BR/>also <A HREF="http://www.picoeconomics.com/Articles/HatfieldAI1051.pdf" REL="nofollow">Emotion as a Motivated Behavior</A> [PDF]<BR/>The problematic aspects of "rational control" are explained in <A HREF="http://www.picoeconomics.com/Breakdown.htm" REL="nofollow">Breakdown of Will</A> from <A HREF="http://www.picoeconomics.com/Ainslie.htm" REL="nofollow">George Ainslie</A>.<BR/>This is just <B>one</B> piece of knowledge among MANY that are likely to be needed.<BR/>Forget about Superman...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152754541126326202006-07-12T18:35:00.000-07:002006-07-12T18:35:00.000-07:00Michael -"not all of whom are foolish at any given...Michael -<BR/><BR/>"not all of whom are foolish at any given moment."<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, however it takes <B>chance</B> for the good ideas to emerge.<BR/>The "filtering process" is awfull a <B>lot</B> is lost and a enormous amount of <B>crap</B> dilutes the good stuff.<BR/>May be it is idealism but I would expect that <B>some</B> (yet unspecified, alas...) other form of social control would give better results.<BR/><BR/>"Society works. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to have this discussion right now."<BR/><BR/>A variant of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle" REL="nofollow">Anthropic principle</A> which DOES NOT prove that society will work <A HREF="http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm" REL="nofollow">tomorrow</A>, that is, given the <B>current</B> state of the world.<BR/>Lots of clues that it will NOT.<BR/>Generals prepare to fight the last war rather than the next one...<BR/>This is what happens on this blog.<BR/>It would have been GREAT to sort out all this stuff at the beginning of the 20th century.<BR/>For the 21th century it is totally off mark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152695367355806942006-07-12T02:09:00.000-07:002006-07-12T02:09:00.000-07:00Michael -May be we don't read the same underlying ...Michael -<BR/><BR/>May be we don't read the same underlying "model" from the same text.<BR/><BR/>Because, as you say:<BR/><BR/>"... but all it shows is that concerns follow a "foolish" pattern.<BR/>Which may well be true, but doesn't mean 'knowledge' or 'solutions' have to."<BR/><BR/>HOW could reasonable 'knowledge' or 'solutions' emerge from foolish concerns?<BR/><BR/>Especially in a "democratic" setting where the majority borders psychosis?<BR/>(or "the most vocal near majority", this is enough for the damage to happen)<BR/><BR/>I am on the pessimistic side in that I assign a near 100% probability to a disaster scenario like <A HREF="http://www.greatchange.org/footnotes-overshoot-easter_island.html" REL="nofollow">Easter Island</A>.<BR/>I have not much hope either in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator" REL="nofollow">"benevolent dictatorship"</A>, not because the "dictator" may be self-serving (popular wrath ultimately deal with those) but because he is subject too to antiquated emotional drives which will make him have the same foolish concerns or "at best" have to follow the foolish concerns of the CROWD to stay in power (<A HREF="http://www.watchfuleye.com/mencken.html" REL="nofollow">demagoguery</A>).<BR/>The whole debate democracy v/s authoritarianism seems to me as irrelevant as the left/right debate.<BR/>The proper solution is likely to be found with some "orthogonal" view.<BR/>Any suggestion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152575254286300322006-07-10T16:47:00.000-07:002006-07-10T16:47:00.000-07:00...Well, until you do, the point will remain moot.......Well, until you do, the point will remain moot.<BR/>And presenting one example as proof is illustrative and convenient (hey, I do it myself!) but not definitive.<BR/><BR/>*sigh* the firefront moves on, and I'm left talking into the void...Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152501458993502172006-07-09T20:17:00.000-07:002006-07-09T20:17:00.000-07:00Tony - "well, it *is* an assumption, and no justif...Tony - <BR/>"well, it *is* an assumption, and no justification for that assumption is given"<BR/><BR/>I could argue directly to prove this "assumption" but it will be lengthy and require some knowledge (and common agreement) about systems dynamic.<BR/>There is a simpler and more compelling reason that the CROWD will always be wrong.<BR/>The crowd "ideas" are in essence emotional reactions based on neolithic life conditions:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-gilbert2jul02,0,7539379.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions" REL="nofollow">If only gay sex caused global warming</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152494225854281752006-07-09T18:17:00.000-07:002006-07-09T18:17:00.000-07:00MonkyBoy: Don't worry, I can tell the difference b...MonkyBoy: Don't worry, I can tell the difference between constructive criticism and jeering.<BR/><BR/>Do you really feel that manners have been deteriorating in your area, or is it that you're noticing a few jerks (who will always be with us, and who tend to stick out) after reading my comment recently? <BR/><BR/>Anon: I read the links you gave (or, at least, the 'up to date' one). I don't necessarily agree that the web can be equated to a hunter gatherer society as opposed to an agricultural society. Even if it is, I don't necessarily believe it is therefore inferior.<BR/><BR/>More seriously, I am unmoved by the assumption that a 'non-dispersed' crowd (ie one whose members' judgment is influenced by that of others) is necessarily going to tend to the lowest common denominator because, well, it *is* an assumption, and no justification for that assumption is given.<BR/><BR/>NB: I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I don't find the argument compelling.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152210939642400582006-07-06T11:35:00.000-07:002006-07-06T11:35:00.000-07:00I wasn't disagreeing with you, Tony. I'm just a b...I wasn't disagreeing with you, Tony. I'm just a big fan of Hobbes.<BR/><BR/>On your escalator story...I've noticed that people in my American bubble of prosperity are much less likely to obey all the little rules that allow for harmonious transit lately.<BR/><BR/>From the roads to store aisles, they act as if they are the only one around and feel free to run red lights or stop anywhere to chat on their cell phones...<BR/><BR/>A subtle sign America is moving from crowd to mob?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152162604816825892006-07-05T22:10:00.000-07:002006-07-05T22:10:00.000-07:00Anon:Not ignoring your reply. Just a bit busy at t...Anon:<BR/>Not ignoring your reply. Just a bit busy at the moment.<BR/>Later.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152081839355033192006-07-04T23:43:00.000-07:002006-07-04T23:43:00.000-07:00Tony - "First of all, the article refers to the sp...Tony - <BR/>"First of all, the article refers to the specific implementation of a model, *not* necessarily how people en masse actually behave."<BR/><BR/>This is a bit restrictive.<BR/>Beyond this specific Digg model the article DO argue about about the general lack of qualitative wisdom of crowds.<BR/>And they keep expanding the argument:<BR/>http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/07/05/the-unwisdom-of-crowds/<BR/>http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/06/20/web-20-back-to-hunter-gatherer-society/ (older, but see the comments)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152061941331814452006-07-04T18:12:00.000-07:002006-07-04T18:12:00.000-07:00Fair pick. I think my basic assertion still stands...Fair pick. I think my basic assertion still stands, though.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1152012796298327122006-07-04T04:33:00.000-07:002006-07-04T04:33:00.000-07:00tony,Your quote from The Leviathan, Hobbes was tal...tony,<BR/><BR/>Your quote from The Leviathan, Hobbes was talking about a state of war, "where every man is enemy to every man."<BR/><BR/>The exact opposite of mobs or crowds.<BR/><BR/>The actual quote is:<BR/><BR/>"...and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."<BR/><BR/>He was arguing for a strong government that held people in "awe" so they'd obey the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151990219286853532006-07-03T22:16:00.000-07:002006-07-03T22:16:00.000-07:00As a matter of fact, I did read the article. It wa...As a matter of fact, I did read the article. It was attacking the Diggett voting system and the underlying 'wisdom of crowds' model it uses. It claimed that crowds were good at quantitative things, but poor at assessing subjective merit. It concluded this from the observed hit rates received on the same article published under two titles of different (subjective) levels of sensationalism.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the article refers to the specific implementation of a model, *not* necessarily how people en masse actually behave.<BR/><BR/>Second, it simply describes a crowd's initial responses to two different stimuli (the titles) without describing what happened next. So what? Of course a sensational title will grab the attention of more people than run of the mill stuff. How else do we filter information? The piece might have had more impact if it then went on to compare the 'diggett' ratings of the two (otherwise identical) articles, but it didn't, as far as I can see.<BR/><BR/>As it is, there is a question of impartiality (does the author have an axe to grind with Diggett because it apparently censored an article?)<BR/><BR/>In short, I don't the article has anything useful to say about wisdom in crowds or its lack.<BR/><BR/>However, since we're discussing crowds, I'd like to suggest that there is a distinction between 'crowds' and 'mobs'.<BR/><BR/>A mob can be easily identified by its chanting:<BR/><B>'What do we want? *brains!*</B><BR/><B>'When do we want it? *brains!*</B><BR/>The actual chant doesn't really matter, all it signifies is a commonality of purpose: a surrender of the individual's will to that of the collective... which is defined by a few ringleaders.<BR/>Hobbes defined life under mob rule to be nasty, brutish, and short. Zombies are expendable.<BR/><BR/>A crowd doesn't do this. It's quieter. Everyone acts on their own volition, but adjusts their actions to cater for what their fellows are doing.<BR/><BR/>To repeat an excerpt I gave from 'A Force More Powerful' on the Pope's visit to Krakow in 1979:<BR/><I>"In the days before the Pope came, there were chilling rumours about what would supposedly happen: Millions of peasants would swamp the city, sleeping anywhere, leaving behind 'disease, excrement and corpses'. Thousands would be crushed in the huge crowds. But when one writer ventured onto the streets, he found 'a different way of walking, a change in style and rhythm...the crowd undulated slowly, people moved without bumping into each other, made way for each other.... Civilians kept order;there was not a policeman in sight' A crowd had beheld itself and been strengthened by feeling its own presence."</I><BR/><BR/>One crowd that did not behave like a mob.<BR/><BR/>More mundanely, I see, daily, on the station escalators, people routinely standing on the left while others stride past them on the right. No rules or instructions about how to use the escalators. Yet, every day, thousands of people just... do it!<BR/><BR/>(Sorry if I offend any 'Flashmobbers' but, what's in a name? ;-)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151785073913831672006-07-01T13:17:00.000-07:002006-07-01T13:17:00.000-07:00Frank is right. I can think of multiple examples n...Frank is right. I can think of multiple examples not only in politics but also in my personal life where a group has clearer thinking than an individual. It’s not always the case, but if you stay away from bars and sports events it happens all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151755939212447582006-07-01T05:12:00.000-07:002006-07-01T05:12:00.000-07:00Anonymous: "Accountability requires power to enfor...<I>Anonymous: "Accountability requires power to enforce it.<BR/>Where does the power come from..."</I><BR/><BR/>There's no clear source of power in a liberal democracy. There's the voting behavior of the population, the spending behavior of consumers and investors, the political powers of the government, the media's powers to expose and criticise,the judicial powers of the courts, the investigative powers of scientists, the power of employers to fire employees, the power parents have to raise their children etc...<BR/><BR/>In the end it's all about peoples' (or a crowd's) ability and freedom to criticise.<BR/><BR/><I>"Crowds are very poor at making decisions, they always favor the most "obvious" option which is CRAP in 99.99% of the cases." </I><BR/><BR/>The average or "obvious" option is not likely to be ideal, but usually it doesn't have to be since there are many feedback systems in society with an error correction function. It is rarely one crowd that rules them all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151752765071996002006-07-01T04:19:00.000-07:002006-07-01T04:19:00.000-07:00Tony Fisk says:"accountability"Accountability requ...Tony Fisk says:<BR/><BR/>"accountability"<BR/>Accountability requires <B>power</B> to enforce it.<BR/>Where does the power come from...<BR/><BR/> "Crowds are wiser than mobs."<BR/>Did you read the link ?<BR/><A HREF="http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/diggs-biggest-flaw-discovered/" REL="nofollow">Crowds are not wise</A><BR/>Crowds are great at guessing the outcomes of any kind of bet.<BR/>Crowds are very poor at making <B>decisions</B>, they always favor the most "obvious" option which is <B>CRAP</B> in 99.99% of the cases.<BR/>This is why they are called "mobs" whenever they decide to act on their own :-PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151632185308931532006-06-29T18:49:00.000-07:002006-06-29T18:49:00.000-07:00Back on topic:- I don't have faith in blind market...Back on topic:<BR/>- I don't have faith in blind markets (interesting emergent properties, but no long term reliability).<BR/><BR/>- I have more faith in guided allocation, but no trust (may have vision and planning, but too prone to self-interest and hubris.)<BR/><BR/>- I have more faith and trust in many-eyed markets (whence cometh our help...and accountability)<BR/><BR/>- Crowds are wiser than mobs. (the latter taking its cue from a leader or cabal of leaders => GAR, which appears to be what happened with Diggett)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151631225504876172006-06-29T18:33:00.000-07:002006-06-29T18:33:00.000-07:00Off topic: Sad news.Jim Baen passed away on June 2...Off topic: Sad news.<BR/><BR/>Jim Baen passed away on June 28.<BR/><BR/>David Drake's obituary can be found at <A HREF="http://www.baens-universe.com/articles/JB_Obit" REL="nofollow">Universe Magazine</A>. <BR/><BR/>Messages and discussion can be directed to either <A HREF="http://bar.baen.com" REL="nofollow">Baen's bar</A>, or to the <A HREF="http://www.baensuniverse.com/bbs" REL="nofollow">Universe Forums</A> and will be passed along to the family.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151622682972041892006-06-29T16:11:00.000-07:002006-06-29T16:11:00.000-07:00Frank: yes. (But wouldn't it be nice if more of t...Frank: yes. (But wouldn't it be nice if more of the crowd tried for wisdom sometimes ;) ?)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anonymous: we are all individually and societally in a constant state of experiment. The experiment we call the United States of America has hardly been 100% positive.<BR/><BR/>Both organics and SRI can be arrived at rationally, although certainly lots of people do them for emotional fulfillment. I don't see that that is necessarily less valid of a reason for action. Rationality can lead one down false paths as easily as emotionalism, because both are only as good as the evidence we perceive and accept.<BR/><BR/>Since I was a supporter of both organics and SRI long before they became popular, your Wisdom of the Crowd objection doesn't apply to me. If it applies to others, that is something they need to own. But again, an impetus unsavory to you does not necessarily make the actions less potentially good.<BR/><BR/>Accountability is what will make or break these movements--as it should be. Not whether or not a movement's mental gymnastics were done on the pommelhorse or on the mat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151592006674936992006-06-29T07:40:00.000-07:002006-06-29T07:40:00.000-07:00Anonymous: 'I DO NOT believe in the "wisdom of cro...<I>Anonymous: 'I DO NOT believe in the "wisdom of crowds" '</I><BR/><BR/>Neither do I. I also don't believe in the "wisdom of the individual". It's not wisdom that you should put your faith in but accountability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1151585732461283812006-06-29T05:55:00.000-07:002006-06-29T05:55:00.000-07:00kr says:"changing the way people think is more or ...kr says:<BR/><BR/>"changing the way people think is more or less the way a couple of markets have changed in my lifetime (rise of organic food, potential rise of Socially Responsible Investing)"<BR/><BR/>Yes, but what was the <B>reason</B> of such changes?<BR/>Rationality or just emotional fads?<BR/>It is far from obvious than even "friendly looking" ideas are truly good in the long run.<BR/>Here I don't pretend to set universal norms by myself, I mean <B>only</B>: will the ultimate results be good to their <B>own beholders</B>.<BR/>I DO NOT believe in the "wisdom of crowds":<BR/><A HREF="http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/diggs-biggest-flaw-discovered/" REL="nofollow">Crowds are not wise</A><BR/><BR/>kr says:<BR/><BR/>"I am surprised you put yourself through the pain of reading Brin's stuff"<BR/>Wow! Pain?<BR/>No, and since I (partly) disagree I find it usefull to be kept informed of the "crowd's fantasies"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com