4 ms·

Let's imagine we have a group of 100 people and we want them to reach consensus on a controverted topic. Let's apply a divide and conquer approach: pair people

by slx26 6y ago

Let's imagine we have a group of 100 people and we want them to reach consensus on a controverted topic. Let's apply a divide and conquer approach: pair people 1 on 1, and if they can agree (even if the agreement involves different resolutions depending on personal preferences), you join them with another group of 2 and repeat the process. Now, why doesn't this work? Well, this could work if people's opinions were static and perfectly stated on the first try. But in practice, and even under an ideal setup, people will be changing opinions too fast to ever be able to reach an equilibrium. They might realize that what they previously stated doesn't really match what they believe, or they didn't consider certain things that, when revealed, will now be considered important. And even more, this is if they were actively trying to reach a consensus while being patient, listening carefully, properly considering other people thoughts, expressing their own in a very precise and faithful way and being able to keep all that information in their heads and prioritize without bias. Which is not realistic. At this point, we might as well say that the problem is that the more people and points of view you introduce in a discussion, the more precise the consensus needs to be, and precise consensus is unachievable in a continually changing scenario. So, when we believe there's consensus on something, then it must be because either the problem is simple or vague enough, or the consensus itself is vague and imprecise. Which is fine too: vague consensus is not useless, nor it does make sense to reach perfect consensus for everything each time, but that's what we would be lead towards if we all tried to have "better arguments online"... which is never reached anyway at a big enough scale due to the issues previously described. (yeah, we don't need arguments to reach consensus, you can learn from what others say without agreeing with them, but... I don't even agree with myself, I'm gonna delete th-

austincheney 6y ago
If it’s 100 random people off the street serving as a fair representation of the larger population there are some fair assumptions you can make. 1. Half that population, 50, represent people who abhor originality in any form. This could be due to low intelligence, poor focus, loneliness, or a variety of other reasons. This group will accept any opinion that binds people together, such as knowingly false appeals to popularity. 2. About 12 of the people left over are narcissistic. They do not have a personal opinion on any argument. Instead they will identify that former 50 and do what they can to influence them, which often means fighting with other narcissistic people to build tribal factions of echo chambers. 3. About another 12 people are outsiders. They don’t care about any of the arguments presented. They will sit in a corner and do whatever the fuck they want. These are the hermits and are social as necessary for resources. 4. About 8 of the people are super objective. Weighted distribution of evidence and data matter most. These are your scientist. Nobody listens to them. These people are a pain in the ass to the sheep and wolves. 5. About another 8 are influencers. They spread ideas around and keep people informed. Sometimes they might even offer an original contribution, but it’s rare. 6. The final 10 people are comedians. Really though, the actual subject of any argument provided to that population is irrelevant. The motives of the various participants dictate the acceptance, validity, and attention of any subject.
- slx26 6y ago
  Yeah, and here I was talking about arguments and consensus when most people are indeed playing other games on top of it. Good points.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  Very interesting. These numbers match my intuition, but could you say how you derived them?
  - austincheney 6y ago
    A combination of anecdotal observations and observed metrics from various intelligence/IQ/personality tests. These numbers are half derived from real numbers and represented in a way that matches my personal opinions of the world and not the data from which I sourced them. Another way to think about those numbers: Those 12 people who ignore everybody and do whatever the fuck they want... those are your soldiers or crime lords. If provided proper direction and motivation they are the ones who actually get things done. Those 10 people left over as comedians. About 4 of them are your natural leaders.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  A perfect answer :-)

by slx26 6y ago

austincheney 6y ago

If it’s 100 random people off the street serving as a fair representation of the larger population there are some fair assumptions you can make. 1. Half that population, 50, represent people who abhor originality in any form. This could be due to low intelligence, poor focus, loneliness, or a variety of other reasons. This group will accept any opinion that binds people together, such as knowingly false appeals to popularity. 2. About 12 of the people left over are narcissistic. They do not have a personal opinion on any argument. Instead they will identify that former 50 and do what they can to influence them, which often means fighting with other narcissistic people to build tribal factions of echo chambers. 3. About another 12 people are outsiders. They don’t care about any of the arguments presented. They will sit in a corner and do whatever the fuck they want. These are the hermits and are social as necessary for resources. 4. About 8 of the people are super objective. Weighted distribution of evidence and data matter most. These are your scientist. Nobody listens to them. These people are a pain in the ass to the sheep and wolves. 5. About another 8 are influencers. They spread ideas around and keep people informed. Sometimes they might even offer an original contribution, but it’s rare. 6. The final 10 people are comedians. Really though, the actual subject of any argument provided to that population is irrelevant. The motives of the various participants dictate the acceptance, validity, and attention of any subject.

slx26 6y ago
Yeah, and here I was talking about arguments and consensus when most people are indeed playing other games on top of it. Good points.
anaerobicover 6y ago
Very interesting. These numbers match my intuition, but could you say how you derived them?
- austincheney 6y ago
  A combination of anecdotal observations and observed metrics from various intelligence/IQ/personality tests. These numbers are half derived from real numbers and represented in a way that matches my personal opinions of the world and not the data from which I sourced them. Another way to think about those numbers: Those 12 people who ignore everybody and do whatever the fuck they want... those are your soldiers or crime lords. If provided proper direction and motivation they are the ones who actually get things done. Those 10 people left over as comedians. About 4 of them are your natural leaders.
mbrodersen 6y ago
A perfect answer :-)