Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Evolution and the 'Wisdom of Crowds'

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the better-and-better dept.

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."

12 of 804 comments (clear)

  1. Crowds contain individuals ... by threaded · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  2. Two Ways of Summing it Up by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. :)

  3. He doesn't address the evolution of ideas by Chapter80 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Interesting discussion, but the obvious missing piece is the evolution of ideas.

    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.

    1. Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas by v01d · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I suspect that the original humans had no notion of religion - not that everyone was an atheist, but that every human on earth had no notion of a higher being, one way or the other.


      I've wondered about that as well. I suspect that the "believe your parents" bit is partially the origin of religion. My reason is partially the fact my daugher (3.5 years) wants an explanation for everything. "Just because" does not satisfy her, but she isn't quite ready for the real explanation for a lot of things. I'm sure I could get to quit asking "Why?" with enough references to god. Humans seem to want to understand but frequently don't have the capacity or knowledge required, so left to them selves they abstract the problem away another step. ie. Saying god causes the rain isn't a explanation of how or why god would want rain, but it answers the immediate question of why it's raining.

      I really don't want to read "The God Delusion" as you suggest. Why are you pushing your religion on me? ;-) That's my point!


      Just to be pedantic I did say, "if you read." I mentioned it more as a citation for an idea that wasn't really mine.
      But in reality I do believe the world would be a better place if religion would go away.

  4. Re:typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  5. Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society by TobascoKid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  6. Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually Darwinian evolution makes that extremely unlikely. Anything as common as religion can not poses a selective disadvantage.

  9. actually... by misanthrope101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
    Well, no. Japan, Holland, Canada, and a slew of other nations have a lower instance of religious belief, and a lower rate of crime, lower infant mortality, etc. Even within the USA, the Bible Belt states (actually the Red States in general) have higher infant mortality rates, lower productivity rates, higher crime rates, worse education systems, along with being worse-off in a range of other criteria. It isn't a stark difference--I'm not saying they're in the dark ages--but the difference is easy to spot if you look at the data.

    And in one way or another, we're all atheists. Is the world worse off because people don't believe in Thor anymore?

    1. Re:actually... by VenTatsu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've seen a few of those studies and they never really address causation. It is just as valid to assume that pour living conditions tend to promote a need for social and psychological support networks often found in religious institutions leading to religious belief, as opposed to religious belief causes pour living conditions.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion