Slashdot Mirror
Evolution and the 'Wisdom of Crowds'
An anonymous reader writes "An essay by a developer of recommendation systems makes a case for why so many people have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution. Downplaying its conflict with religion, the essay suggests that evolution is in a specific class of "equilibrium seeking" concepts that tend to be extremely counterintuitive to most people. The hypothesis is supported by the observation that so many people reject the notion that evolution-like systems such as Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems can actually be effective. Particularly fascinating is the description of his surprisingly simple algorithm for competing in the Netflix prize contest."
Crowds contain individuals, and some of these individuals know what they are on about. Collect together a sufficiently large crowd and you will find a number of experts on many different subject.
Isn't that the obvious conclusion?
threadeds blog
1. People -- as a general rule -- process complex ideas granularly. People are also generally lazy thinkers who do not attempt to refine their comprehension with falsifiable methodology. As a result, individual perceptions of value are often biased towards the simplest conclusions at the greatest level of granularity that a person can casually grasp rather than on evidence that intellect and practiced reasoning might produce. In large groups, it is possible to predict behaviors through statistical sampling using assumptions based on this model of granularity and intelligence. The conclusions of such studies are, themselves, subject to individual evaluation under the same model of granular perception. People who don't understand this are stupid religious types. If those same people were smart then they would be compelled to believe in evolution.
:)
2. Most people can't see the forest for the trees. Everybody who is not as smart as the author needs to take remedial education and secular-deprogramming classes.
Now you don't have to read the article.
You're welcome.
Societies may have "invented" the notion of religion because religion led to ethics, which led to less killing of their neighbors. All of the sudden, it's survival of the fittest, as non-ethical tribes tended to be killed off, while religious tribes thrived.
An obvious second example is the notion of being against birth control (or for large families). Tribes that were for large families and passed those beliefs down to their children tended to grow.
So my question is: Even if there is no God, and you are an atheist, is it possible that a world containing religious people is actually a "better" society than a world full of atheists? The Earth's people evolved into a world of mixed beliefs (some religious, some not), which could be argued to be the survival of the fittest idea or world. The mixed-belief world appears to be the "fittest" world, as opposed to such less-fit worlds of all atheists or all Christians, as examples.
If we evolved to be a mixed world of beliefs, as the "fittest", perhaps we should accept that, and quit trying to convert people with arguments for our favorite religious/non-religious belief.
Just a n-dimensional random distribution, with small adjustment steps. The 'n' of the system being chosed by hand, not even automatically computed. It works for Netflix because the domain being modeled is not 'wild' statistically, and have a very simple topology.
The 'presumed' relation with a 'wisdom of the crowds' concept is just coincidence, try to apply such a simple system to a really complex domain (ie: natural language syntax) and it will fail.
On the other hand, it's true that simple statistics can be used for a lot of tasks (ie: language/topic detection), but nothing really new here.
What's in a sig?
I recently had to start a Wiki for 1st year undergraduate students. I found it really hard to make it writable by everybody, since I was sure that it would result in a lot of vandalism. However, if you think about Wikipedia, the vast majority of pages can be edited by anyone and yet you almost never see malicious edits by people just dicking about. In the limit, people who visit Wikipedia prefer order. That's actually quite a comforting idea.
Obviously the more subtle stuff is harder to protect against.
that's 12% of adults are atheists and agnostics, 24.8% of the population are under 18, and well, more kids believe in santa and the easter bunny...
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
But you're cowards, so simply lamenting that the universities of ankara or teheran or baghdad for example preaches creationism, you just don't do. Because doing it, might get you actually hurt. Ok brave guy, get your facts straight: Ankara is in Turkey, a secular country where religion and state are separate. Women with Islamic head garb are not allowed into universities, let alone preach creationism at institutions of higher learning. Until we (americans) moved in, Baghdad was in a secular country, with a definite anti-religion bent. It's only because we f**ked it up that worthless religious leaders found the ability (and the arms and the encouragement) to kill people who do not think like them. Read this for a heartfelt, first-person account of what it was like before and after americans moved in. Tehran is a mess where creationism is indeed taught in universities. True secularism is probably a very foreign concept to most Americans, as the usual middle-class American experience is to belong to a church or synagogue from a very early age. That kind of education colors your thinking (and non-thinking) for life. But you just wanted to engage in bashing muslims. Too bad your xenophobia was coupled with ignorance (not very surprising). You picked 3 examples, and 2 were outright wrong. I'm sure you'll try your muslim-bashing again, in another thread. Better luck next time!
Are you saying that the United States is not as civilized, as say, the united kingdom, france, germany or italy ?
Of course. That's where the problem lies. The United States is powerful and rich but as a civilization it's more primitive than any West European country. That's why you need to mention China, India or islamic countries. Your standards are so low you wouldn't even think of comparing yourself to us.
Here in France, I know plenty of Christians but none of them ever heard of intelligent design, and they think of young earth creationism (adam, eve et al.) as a metaphor, a "picture", not the actual numbers and reality. I never heard a french christian on a french forum ever mentioning "intelligent design".
There is a part of me hoping this article gets discussed by Dilbert creator/evolution denier Scott Adams, and another part dreading it. link
Do you have figures on the asian population and whether or not they accept evolution?
Also, if you're going to call someone a fucktard for only considering one more continent then try mentioning more than one other. South America is largely catholic (a religion that explicitly supports evolution theory). Africa is quite diverse, Australia is evolution accepting, though australasia may not be, depending on where you draw borders, due to indonesia. Though I'm not familiar enough with indonesian islam to know what their opinions are.
Religion is hence, more of a survival tool for a society that shields away a person's insecurities.
Alternatively, it is a tool used by some in society to control others. Use some peoples fear, uncertainties and doubts and offer them an easy, quick fix and watch the wealth and power flow in.
1) invent god(s)
2) market said gods
3) profit
If it is a "survival tool", it's the survival tool of a few at the expense of the many.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us
Apart from the fear thing, I have exactly that reason to explain why I have always believed in evolution (since reading about it myself in a book at 7). Even then I was struck by the vastness of the universe, and the idea that some god person had made it all seemed a bit too simple. Even then I was utterly fascinated by astronomy, and looking at the night sky, especially in Australia, where we actually had a visible star scape, was an experience that filled me not with religious conviction, but with a determination to find explanations for what I saw. 'God did it' was never an option.
Having grown up now I realise why so many people need to believe in the biblical creation myth. Believe that and everything becomes easy, simple enough that you don't have to worry about it. Reject it and boy have you got a lot of work to do. For one thing you actually have to understand things, not pass it of as 'the work of god'.
I find it amusing that creationists/ID'ers seem to want a stupid god, incapable of anything but focusing on one planet in the vast universe, as interested in the fall of birds (why is it always bad stuff?) then the formation of galaxies. I prefer the idea that if god exists, he was smart enough to set things in motion at some point (at the start of this universe? a previous one, no idea), and it all works without intervention. Of course this implies that there is no god, since a system that does not require a god to run doesn't need one to exist at all.
You realize that "most" people aren't in "western" nations don't you? That chart ignores the Middle East, South America, Canada, Africa, Australia, and that little scrap of land called Asia.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
If I'm reading this correctly, the reason that religious folks reject evolution is the exact same reason why leftists reject free markets and are champions of central planning. One side is a God figure and on the other, that figure is subsumed by an all-wise, all-knowing State that will run things. Both have no faith, to use a loaded term, in the wisdom of the masses. Iiiiiinteresting!
/// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pat Robertson said what he said, and was condemned by many Christians. How many prominent Muslims have openly condemned the contract on Salman Rushdie's life?
Yes, the Bible contains a lot of violence, and yes, many Christians say they believe "every word," but in reality they aren't going to kill their kid for reading a book on Wicca. Well, there might be one nutjob out there who would, but every other Christian would consider the thought horrific. You don't see Christians in Colorado City stoning people to death for adultery or for breaking the Sabbath. How many are stoned to death in Muslim nations?
There are Christian nutjobs, and some have been caught with nerve gas, bombs, whatever, but the fringe of the fringe of the fringe of Christian zealotry is not comparable, size-wise, to the support the suicide bombers find in the Muslim world. I'm an atheist and I'll argue all day that faith undermines rational thinking, that Christianity doesn't make you moral, and that we should keep US society secular, but it is just vastly wrong to conflate the scale of violence perpetrated by the faithful of each of these communities qua their faith. Violent rhetoric isn't violence.
I'm not saying Christianity is violence-free. There IS violence (Matthew Sheppard getting stomped to death, etc) but it isn't as prevalent, sanctioned, or, well, normal as it is in Muslim nations. I'd say that religious killing in the Muslim world is probably as frequent, if not worse, as race lynchings were at the ugliest point in US history. No, I don't have the numbers to support that, but I think the scales are similar.
Actually Darwinian evolution makes that extremely unlikely. Anything as common as religion can not poses a selective disadvantage.
And in one way or another, we're all atheists. Is the world worse off because people don't believe in Thor anymore?
Background info:
"Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later "as an effectively proven fact." (ROA, 82) "
And then:
"(Associated Press, Nov. 11, 2005)
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order." "
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Get back to me when that happens.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is such a narrow view of a skeptic. To every person religion offers something, and that is why it is a survival tool for everyone. Like this forum, religion is a form of sub-culture, a way people bond without knowing each other. Like every tool it is mis-used, and it might very well be a product of some "evil" brain, but it sells and continues to sell because at the end, people buy it. If it a survival tool for just a few, just a few would have survived religion/religious commitment. But that's not the case now is it?
The old saw-horse that we're no different than our caveman ancestors is simply not true. It's just another religious weapon in the fight against science.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Evolution by natural selecton isn't the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator. The story of Creation as given by the Old Testament follows the form of Hebrew poetry. And the author of it clearly could not have been at the point of Creation. Those who say that the author was somehow inspired to write the exact sequence of events of the creation of the world by God such that they would be exact are... well, putting things into the Bible that aren't there. Trying to apply scientific logic to fails even in the absence of evolutionary theory, given that there is day and night as early as the first day, but no sun until later. Only the dim-witted would consider the Creation myth a literal retelling of the story of Creation.
The theory of Evolution, our growing understanding of our universe and how we apply it are, if anything, fulfillment of Genesis 1, verses 27-28: "(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (28) God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"
So it's hardly accurate to call Evolution a strong argument against an OT-type Creator. The text of Genesis 1 itself is the strongest argument against Creationism, but hardly any argument at all against the existence of a Creator as the Bible describes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Young Earth Creationists can claim that their interpretation is derived from neither a literal nor an educated interpretation of the Bible. Creationism is ultimately anti-Biblical. But it's taking that silliness to an extreme to then say that Evolution somehow is an argument against the existence of a God.