Posted on 09/18/2016 11:19:55 PM PDT by aquila48
The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority. If it seems absurd, it is because our scientific intuitions aren’t calibrated for that (fughedabout scientific and academic intuitions and snap judgments; they don’t work and your standard intellectualization fails with complex systems, though not your grandmothers’ wisdom).
The main idea behind complex systems is that the ensemble behaves in way not predicted by the components. The interactions matter more than the nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony, no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent” property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple rules. The rule we discuss in this chapter is the minority rule.
Some great insights by the author of "Black Swan".
The Intellectual Yet Idiot
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb
https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.c4t41ymk8
That has been all too obvious, and especially in tolerant societies. Look around and we can see that the silent tolerant majority are in no way, in control. I feel that tide may be changing though, at least I see the best hope for that change in decades.
Good article BTW.
The “liberal elite”, i.e. the “intellectual elite”, for the most part, never drove a cab, dug a ditch, paints houses for a living, worked in a mine, or even walked a picket line. (Some minority did but they by-and-large don’t make leftist policies today).
George Orwell had them pegged back in the 1940’s (from personal experience in the Marxist Left), and let them define themselves when he wrote “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Marxism. We have factories and fields for those of you who believe in us; gulags for those who don’t.
All those in favor say AYE: 2
All those opposed say NAY: 98
By the fair, tolerant, and inclusive rule of 'minority rules,' the AYEs have it! Let the record show that men can use womens' restrooms.
He's a little bit hard to read because he inserts his own idiosyncratic stories and terminology, but investing time in studying the guy's writings is very worthwhile.
To me, the biggest takeaway from him is the notion of "Skin in the Game". Banks don't have skin in the game anymore because Governments (the taxpaper) bails them out of trouble because they are "Too Big to Fail"
But if banks knew they would really lose their money if they fail, then investors in banks would be a heckuva lot more diligent about making wise choices. And if a bank or automaker is too big to fail, then they should be forced to downsize and not be a burden on society.
Taleb has written several great books, but one of the best sources is simply reading the articles he points to on his website. Always an interesting read, often very funny guy.
Thanks for posting.
The dominant philosophy of think tanks like Heritage has been that all they need to do is inform the small minority in control of society to the facts of economics and other disciplines and the small minority will do the right thing.
When the USSR fell, they concluded “We won”.
People at Heritage type places were clueless to the intransigence of the minority in control. The Heritage types were mistaken in thinking that facts would change the minds of the intransigent.
You’re right. We have learned that capitalism and a democracy doesn’t run entirely on auto-pilot. It is massively susceptible to corruption and fraud.
Great finish and very true most science heralded by the media today is “scientism” or good old fashioned propaganda.
” Hayek, who had a deep understanding of the properties of complex systems, promoted the idea of “scientism” to debunk statements that are nonsense dressed up as science, used by its practitioners to get power, money, friends, decorations, invitations to dinner with the Norwegian minister of culture, use of the VIP transit lounge at Kazan Airport, and similar perks. “
What a great put down ...” get invitations to dinner with the Norwegian minister of culture.”
I have decided that I am against everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.