a new study finds that the average of two of someone's guesses is more accurate than the first or second guess alone. the authors posit that we draw from an internal probability distribution instead of having one best guess. further research could help us make a better estimates, critical for professions such as medicine and the military.

this indicates that the "wisdom of crowds" idea, roughly that averaging a crowd's answers is better than asking one person, applies to individuals as well. as surowiecki notes, this has many caveats. however, scienceblogs is curiously attempting to falsify it using this guessing study.

how is that? well, they erroneously claim that under w-o-c each person must give stable answers over time, their "best guess." they then misinterpret this guessing study to say that second guesses were more accurate (the study clearly states the reverse). ergo, w-o-c is false because people don't give best guesses first.

rather, this study may bolster woc: even though people are possibly drawing from some internal distribution of answers, the woc effect persists. this study simply illustrates the benefits of "benefits from polling the 'crowd' within" when making your own estimates, leaving the idea of polling from the crowd outside to stand on its own merit.

Labels: decision making

an interesting, seemingly contradictory, quote from wired:

He's a merciless competitor, a shameless "fan" of other people's ideas and an unapologetic monopolist. And because of all that, Bill Gates has done more to create the thriving computer industry than anybody else.

update: internet robot pirates must have stolen the link to the wired article. i've put it in (again?).

Labels: economics

chicago's mayor daley, though seemingly incapable of stringing together a coherent thought on camera, has actually done something decent. he bullied city council into repealing the foie gras ban last week.

unfortunately, the ban was repealed not because the council realized it has no purview over foods we eat:

Anybody who has traveled anywhere in this country knows that people are just laughing their heads off at us.
-Council member on the ban, which he supported

it was repealed almost unanimously, the same way it was passed. here's a great article on the year-long silly saga.

Labels: political

at 6 p.m. last night, chicago police cornered and shot a wild cougar. the chicago tribune reports that it is the first to roam city streets since chicago's founding.

this is not entirely accurate, as i have it on good authority that many locals are well-practiced in the art of cougar hunting.


note: this is not the FH's first cougar post. she was almost eaten by the feline variety in 2004.
also, thanks for the tribune link, jdt!

Labels: personal

i have been paying particularly close attention to the jefferson 1 situation (see the press release). though response has generally been outrage, a not-insignificant portion of blog/youtube comments are in the "she was being irresponsible" camp.

to me, this is certainly not about the questionable dancing of some participants, or the questionable activities of thomas jefferson. to me this is not about misuse of public property, it is not about race. this is not about the interaction between the jefferson 1 and the officer, the group's motives, or what the law should be.

this is about the transparent enforcement of a clear rule of law, and the need for easy access to laws. officers could not cite any type of rule authorizing the arrest. this strongly suggests they either a) didn't know one or b) didn't think she needed to know. this is about detaining a human being without citing or, as it seems, having, just cause. it's moreover about the real possibility that countless individuals outside the jefferson 1's socioeconomic status are arrested without being shown the law in writing. and they may not have the resources to fight back. they mayn't feel that they even should fight back. that is what this is about.

the albeit flawed founders were generally in favor of a government with clear, set rules not subject to the whim of the ruler like their former king, or his extensions in the form of a state. this is about that perhaps-impossible ideal, as certainly there are unavoidable gray areas in enforcement. but this is about asking the law's representatives to move a little closer towards that ideal.

that's what i think, anyway.

Labels: personal, political

i just completed my recording for the subjection of women by john stuart mill on librivox. in this essay, mill provides a theory on the development of power-seeking personalities:

An active and energetic mind, if denied liberty, will seek for power: refused the command of itself, it will assert its personality by attempting to control others.

he (and likely, his wife) further argue:

To allow to any human beings no existence of their own but what depends on others, is giving far too high a premium on bending others to their purposes. Where liberty cannot be hoped for, and power can, power becomes the grand object of human desire; those to whom others will not leave the undisturbed management of their own affairs, will compensate themselves, if they can, by meddling for their own purposes with the affairs of others.

this puts to mind another theory on power-seeking, a rephrasing of adler's theory in j. burns' leadership:

human beings strive toward power to overcome and compensate for inevitable childhood feelings of inferiority, impotence, and dependence on adults

so, subjection creates the desire for subjecting in its victims. (n.b. the cycle of subjection bastiat attributes to other causes)

of course, mill's essay has many more gems than this. visit the librivox project page to be notified when the audiobook is complete. better yet, volunteer yourself!

Labels: misc. psych, political

in honor of thomas jefferson's birthday, last night twenty individuals gathered with ipods at the tj memorial in dc to hold a "silent" dance party. unfortunately i wasn't there, but i hear that quiet dancing ensued at midnight... and ten minutes later a participant was arrested.

find details here from:
the event's co-organizer
the agitator
megan at the atlantic
outside the beltway
below the beltway
julian sanchez
f & s .org

peaceful assembly is, at times, restricted. what about this case? certain elements seem suspicious, including that police refused to give badge numbers or cite cause for arrest. the memorial website states that it is open 24/7, but that "for planned events dependent upon the activity and number of participants a permit may be required." the number and nature criteria are oddly missing. the phone line is closed on weekends so we must wait for monday to find out.

but whatever the case, it reminds me of a certain movie about dancing...

update: eye-witness interview
update 2: great article in the american spectator on the incident. though the eye-witness interview is down, footage of the incident is online now.

Labels: personal, political