Blink 194
| Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking | |
| author | Malcolm Gladwell |
| pages | 288 pages |
| publisher | Little, Brown (January 11, 2005) |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | James Mitchell |
| ISBN | 0316172324 |
| summary | This book discusses in narrative style the mechanics of subconscious snap decisions. |
First, Gladwell introduces a concept called "thin-slicing." This involves the human brain's critical reduction of information to make predictions about complicated systems. For example, a system developed at the University of Washington can predict with 95% accuracy whether a couple will be divorced within fifteen years, based entirely upon one hour of observed interaction.
Next, Gladwell discusses analogous ways the human brain uses thin-slicing to make subconscious snap decisions. Interestingly, this rapid decision-making process can easily be primed by external influences. External influences affect more decisions than many people care to admit; these factors form the basis for snap judgments and first impressions.
Gladwell relates a study of how well a subject's personality was evaluated either by strangers who visited the subject's dorm room for fifteen minutes or by friends that knew the subject well. Friends were more accurate about extraversion and agreeableness, but the strangers were better at gauging conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to new experiences. Thin-slicing isn't always correct; it depends on having the right information.
Superficial traits can be used to the advantage of an actor trying to project a particular characterization. Similarly, an authority figure can dress and behave in a particular fashion to influence subordinates. Warren G. Harding made overwhelmingly positive first impressions throughout his political career, although he is considered by historians to be one of the worst American presidents. Despite his consistently lackluster performance, his attractive bearing and appearance camouflaged his shortcomings.
On the other hand, by understanding the fallibilities of intuition, one can influence others' unconscious decision-making processes and be more aware of influences on one's own intuition. People can control and develop their intuitive decision-making skills. For instance, a successful car salesman would never be distracted by the appearance of a customer to the detriment of a sale. A portion of the book discusses physiological tests that reveal the strength of stereotypes in subconscious decision making by measuring reaction times.
Having defined the capabilities and limitations of intuitive decision-making, Gladwell spends a chapter focusing on spontaneity through the story of General Paul Van Riper and Millennium Challenge '02. A technologically advanced military with a vast array of information collection and "common operational picture" was pitted against a less technologically capable adversary led by General Van Riper. Much as David defeated Goliath, Van Riper's force inflicted staggering losses on his information-gorged enemy. His victory illustrates the utility of pre-arranged structure (such as "commander's intent" or "desired endstate") to empower subordinates to make spontaneous decisions. The fog of war couldn't really be defied, but decision makers could be trained to cope well with uncertainty.
The latter parts of the book discuss how intuitive decision-making can fall short. Humans' senses and subconscious minds can be negatively affected in stressful environments where stimuli are distorted and thin-slicing can easily go awry. Gladwell takes examples from recent developments in police procedures designed to avoid situations that adversely affect law enforcement personnel. For instance, many departments make their officers patrol individually. Without partners, they are more likely to wait for backup before entering dangerous situations. The author also performs a detailed deconstruction of the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York City. He concludes that the tragedy was not a product of conscious injustice, but simply a chain reaction of impaired snap decisions made within seven seconds of violence.
Overall, Blink makes for a quick read and is sure to stimulate conversation. Its premise is simple, and it contains ample food for thought. Its discussion of priming the intuition with particular stimuli and impaired "thin-slicing" provides a useful tool in deconstructing human behavior. The strengths and weaknesses of intuition-priming and thin-slicing are useful knowledge for any professional decision-maker.
You can purchase Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Steve Sailor review on vdare.com (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Steve Sailor review on vdare.com (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Steve Sailor review on vdare.com (Score:3, Informative)
Nicely written review -- and he really does not like the book....
bad book (Score:5, Funny)
Re:bad book (Score:3, Funny)
Re:bad book (Score:5, Funny)
Bah! (Score:2)
Re:bad book (Score:2)
I'm sure that doesn't help the credibility of the book since its coming from the ad industry, and we all know the prejudices slashdot holds for that, but the book is supposed to be fairly decent if anybody was seriously considering it.
If you've read the synopsis, you've read the book (Score:2)
Now, what I wouldn't mind in the least is some steps towards developing a "Bene Gesserit" style technology of the quick mind. But I doubt this book advances the state of the art.
Re:If you've read the synopsis, you've read the bo (Score:2)
Ok, which one is it? Did you avoid the book or have you read it?
Cool exercise (Score:2)
Then write down five bad decisions you made.
Then notice how you originally felt about making the good decisions - what feelings they had in common. Lastly notice how you felt about making the bad decisions - what they had in common.
Re:Cool exercise (Score:2)
Will you be forever damned to agonize over decisions?
Is it worth 10 minutes of your time to find out whether or not you already know what the results of the exercise will be?
Presumably you agonize because you want to make good decisions. Wouldn't it be cool if you knew whether it was a good decision before you made it? Maybe then you could make the right decisions in your career, love life and social life... and be happy.
Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is that system, i want it.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
- shadowmatter
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, the University of Washington?
proof (Score:2)
Re:proof (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Although, the sumation seems disingenious. It was never a system, it was a study of interaction in married couples. He never offered to predict someones chances of success, but rather studied their interaction, and then kept track of their marriage. He then analyzed the data and published novel ideas on the importance of how the way we communicate affects our relationships. Third parties then plumbed the data to get media bytes like the one quoted.
Although, now he has written 2 or 3 books. *shrug*
Re:Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the "instant" is because the method relies on the study of a 15 minute conversation.
Actually fascinating math (from a lecture here at UW). They modeled the couple's happiness during the conversation on an X-Y axis (one axis for each person's happiness), then modeled each other's conversational tendencies on each other as a two state-variable dynamic system. If the system had a stable solution in mutual happiness: good marriage!
The theory was developed 15 years ago, and I remember about 8 years ago they started claiming success, as most of the couples they predicted would divorce got divorced in 2-3 years.
Dr. Gottman developed a therapy that involves changing your parameters of influence on each other.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Sounds like (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sounds like (Score:2)
Welcome to the Information Age - where having readily-available information means not using it.
Re:Sounds like (Score:2)
...
Sorry, I hit "Reply to This" on instinct. I didn't actually have any reply in mind.
I can name that book in three letters (Score:2)
Gut
as in, trust yours, it provides the best results... yes i know this is an over simplification of what he writes in the book but its closer to than farther from the truth...
i bought and read "The Tipping Point" His first book...and stopped after the first couple of chapters...
I think he should have named it:
Obvious...
Like Bruce Lee said.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I could tell in 2 secs Gladwell had already peaked (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't compare to the star-nosed mole [newscientist.com], who strikes me as two notes cooler by the fact it overclocks its own brain:
"The pace of the star-nosed mole's feeding is so fast that it is approaching the maximum speed at which its nervous system can process information."
More revelations worthy of a New Yorker article just make me yawn. And, more evidence of my, um, correct opinion is corroborated here, in Black Table's "believe the hype?" review. [blacktable.com]
I prefer to hope it's a sophomore slump (Score:2)
But I think he has a gift for finding interesting anecdotes and a general ability to spin them together.
So I'm hoping it's just a "sophomore slump" and later books will improve. In many ways, I just thought Blink lacked focus and tighter editing.
hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't that kind of news likely to be self-fulfilling?
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
Not necessarily... (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, you could react by saying, "Well, these guys see some problem signs. Let's figure out what they are, and start fixing things." If you follow through (consistently), you may well save the marriage.
I haven't looked at the study, but it wouldn't shock me if what they look for is whether the couple expects to have to continually work to make the marriage work, or if they just assume that it'll all work out fine on it's own.
I've been married almost 15 years, and we've had to kind of rebuild our relationship about ten or twelve times in those years. You can't just sit around and let entropy do a number on you...
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:3, Funny)
Only a dozen times? I have to do it every time I stay up all night playing computer games.
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
I don't know for certain, but I would expect they didn't. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be proper science.
Uh ... Plato? (Score:2)
Re:Uh ... Plato? (Score:2)
Author of The Tipping Point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Author of The Tipping Point (Score:4, Interesting)
Some other comment described the book as obvious. I'd strongly disagree. The conclusions were very surprising and interesting. I'd highly recommend The Tipping Point. Blink is now on my list.
Tipping Point vs. Blink (Score:4, Informative)
I think Gladwell had a ton of great stories like he did in Tipping Point. But I think Blink is a bit more diffuse -- no equivalent to the classification system in TP that you mention.
I like the concept of "thin-slicing" and very much enjoyed the stories in Blink. But I didn't think there was a core argument that stuck together, just a brief concept and some surrounding stories. I'm still not sure I know how to apply the idea of thin slicing myself or how to improve my abilities, other than to assume that with increasing expertise, it'll improve.
In another post, I suggested that people wait for the paperback or borrow it from the library. Blink is a solid book, but IMHO not worth the $$ right now.
Buzzword business (Score:2)
A question [possibly addressed by the book] (Score:5, Interesting)
I do a significant amount of research in an effort to predict certain kinds of market trends and behaviors but what bothers me is that he [often] gets the same results without that work.
Nevertheless, I wonder mostly, why he is dismissive of a technical method that produces his results. Sometimes, it produces different results, and for those times he is extremely grateful, but when it doesn't- that is, when a technical and exhaustive method yields the same result as his snap decisions, he is very frustrated that the technical method was performed at all.
Like it's "obvious" to those of us without the manager hair and posture...
Re:A question [possibly addressed by the book] (Score:2)
Re:A question [possibly addressed by the book] (Score:3, Interesting)
I do a significant amount of research in an effort to predict certain kinds of market trends and behaviors but what bothers me is that he [often] gets the same results without that work.
I suspect that this is somewhat like playing chess, which has alot to do with pattern recognition. You're working out the brute-force method (more tactical, but you can't see really deep that way), but he's doing it based upon strategic thinking. It's sort of like being able to glance at the board, and see that you'll be able to promote a pawn in a few moves, but the computer has to check every permutation before it can "see" the same.
Then again, maybe I've got my head up my ass.
Van Riper (Score:5, Interesting)
Van Riper (playing for Iraq) utilized (what seemed to the military brass to be) unorthodox methods and won. The military brass found this to be unacceptable and changed the rules of the war game midway, so that Van Riper lost. Then the US invaded Iraq.
Basically a case of "if the results of the test do not coincide with what we are looking for, change the test."
Re:Van Riper (Score:4, Informative)
Van Riper won.
Then the brass called a do-over, replaced Van Riper with their own kind of brass, and they won.
Of course, in real life, you do not get do-overs.
Re:Van Riper (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure you do! Just look at Iran! (in two years).
Re:Van Riper (Score:3, Interesting)
So, do think the military brass are a bunch of cry babies. The generation running the ship now are very good at using initial simulations to decide what is realistic and what needs to be fixed.
It's a war game, not a war. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a war game, not a war. (Score:2)
No, wait. Project X [imdb.com] is about the mistreated monkeys.
War Games is about this teenager who is really good with computers and almost accidentally starts World War III.
Your memory is way off.
Cleaned up a bit (Score:2)
So, Van Riper was "constrained" but that doesn't mean "the books were cooked".
Bullshit. When you limit the options, you tilt the results.
Re:Cleaned up a bit (Score:2)
That depends on what options were limited. If he was prevented from exploiting a bug in the simulation that doesn't exist in real life, then allowing him to exploit the big tilts results.
It is stupid to play out a losing simulation. Once everyone is agreed that one side has won quit. Analyze what went wrong and change things so that you don't lose again. As a tax payer I have no interest who wins the simulation. I do care who wins the war.[1]
When running a simulation it is preferred to make it as hard for your side as you can. You want to know all your weaknesses.
Bugs in the simulation can take many forms. From the simplistic "But Sadam's generals are not smart enough to do that" (which is a dangerous assumption to make), the real world physics are different (a .22 pistol cannot sink a ship), to you are not simulating people right. The last two are likely in this situation. It is unlikely that a bunch of small boats and surround a military ship and get off enough shots to sink them. Small boats generally don't have the firepower (though I have no idea what is meant by small boats, so these might), and ship captins should be shooting back, and one presumes the American forces can sink a lot of enemy boats. Seeing your friends go down tends to make people panic, something else that simulations tend to get wrong.
The article is far too short to draw any conclusions. However we do know that the US won, so any rigging didn't hurt.
[1] I know many are against the war, but that is a different issue. Given that the US is going to war, I want the US to win.
3 Books You Should Put On Your List (Score:4, Interesting)
The Tipping Point
The Wisdom Of Crowds
Contrast with "The Wisdom of Crowds" (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'm interested in reading both.
Folksonomies (Score:2)
An interesting idea I've been researching lately is "folksonomies" [wikipedia.org], emergent non-hiearachical taxonomies built bottom-up by the "wisdom of crowds". Flickr tags/keywords are a good example. Humans are good at the messy, ambigious parts of life. Harnessing that power programatically is very interesting.
Thanks for the review (Score:2)
First impressions... (Score:2, Insightful)
why do we need to learn about intuition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Intuition - we already got.
Funny also how he mentions that he got into the topic because cops jumped to the conclusion he was a bad guy 'cause he was a longhair.
Instant gratification (Score:2)
Should I play the lottery? I got a hunch that tonight is the night I am going to win so yes I should play.
Should I buy a new car? Yes, I can figure out how to pay for it later.
Reminds me of the scence from the "Matrix" when Neo asked his girl if she knew how to fly a heliocopter. She replies "not yet" and ten seconds later, after a quick upload, she does.
Instant gratification needs validation and now here is a book to validate not having to give anything more than a quick thought. Another step forward for our instant, microwave society.
Guess you should've spent more than 2 secs reading (Score:2)
If you'd read a little more before hastily posting to /. you'd discover that this is one of the core themes and purposes of the book. Here's more of the authors "own words":
"... I think that's an example of bad rapid cognition: there is something going on in the first few seconds of meeting a tall person which makes us predisposed toward thinking of that person as an effective leader, the same way that the police looked at my hair and decided I resembled a criminal. I call this the "Warren Harding Error" (you'll have to read "Blink" to figure out why), and I think we make Warren Harding Errors in all kind of situations-- particularly when it comes to hiring. With "Blink," I'm trying to help people distinguish their good rapid cognition from their bad rapid cognition."
Re:Guess you should've spent more than 2 secs read (Score:2)
For you next arguement please share some of your own words. I already read his.
Re:Instant gratification (Score:2)
I can make the snappy, thinly-sliced decision that I have the right of way at the crosswalk because I'm a pedestrian, but the bus will still surely kill me.
First Impressions (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod That Up (Score:2)
metafunny (Score:2)
Re:metafunny (Score:2)
I'm almost done with it (Score:2, Informative)
I highly recommend this one, and am glad I stumbled across it. As soon as I get home I'm gonna find a copy of Tipping Point.
bah (Score:5, Insightful)
two sides (Score:2, Interesting)
I started playing with an open question in mathematics a while back (the "twin prime conjecture"). Within the first month of working on it, I had arrived at quite a few interesting conclusions related to the problem and come up with some new and unique (to me) ways of looking at it.
I've spent the past four years proving that several of those initial observations were correct. Repeatedly.
The "gut reactions" that I had in that first month got me a long ways into the problem. Taking the time to prove the various results took me a long ways further: it got me less interested in the problem (a long-term form of ADD?), it vetted out many of my mistaken reactions (there were plenty of these), showed me how strong a couple of the initial month's ideas are, and allowed me to see the broader scope of the problem and the related ideas I came up with.
But that's the thing in mathematics: with any given problem, you try what you know about (gut reactions); if that doesn't work and you decide to keep working at it, you may have an incredibly difficult process to work through to find the solution (if one exists), but that part of the process is valuable in itself for when you might be faced with a similar problem in the future.
Same for "gut reactions" in real life... just like I didn't rush out and publish my twin primes findings right away, it's usually not a good idea to make irreversible decisions right away. You just keep the gut reactions in mind as you move forward and make decisions based on the reconciliation of your initial reactions with long-term knowledge of the subject.
Re:bah (Score:2)
If you know the subject matter, know the people you're dealing with and have a broad, deep enough knowledge base in the specific field (and are not financially motivated for get-rich-quick gain), it can work. Or are you saying that innovation only happens via blind luck, pure ignorant brilliance or religious belief?
Maybe the real problem is people who think they know more than they actually do and are too arrogant to admit what they don't know. Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns [effectiveeng.com], etc.. Yup, "unknown knowns" is a big joke now due to popular ridicule of a seemingly nonsensical concept, but just read the link above and learn.
Think about it a bit - if you know what you want to accomplish but are unsure about the details of getting there you have to realize what you don't know, right?
Why is this surprising? (Score:2)
Gladwell + Surowiecki Discuss (Score:2)
Go Barnes and Noble (Score:2)
There are problems w/Gladwell's argument (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't read the book myself, but Posner's somewhat scathing review doesn't keep me from wanting to read the book. It does, however, make me want to read it with a critical eye.
Tipping Point is better (Score:2)
I wanted to strongly recommend Blink, but I can't.
His first book, The Tipping Point, is much much better -- it has a tighter thesis and keeps a much better argument. By the end of Blink, I was increasingly annoyed that Gladwell kept mentioning previous points and restating his thesis. Enough already, I remember your concept and I'd rather not be beaten over the head with it.
When I finished Blink, I was also left unsatisfied. I love the concept of "thin slicing" and I loved the anecdotes. But unlike The Tipping Point, where he brought it all together successfully, when I finished Blink, I had little sense of where to go next.
Here's the problem -- Gladwell basically credits the intuition of experts. From art historians to Van Riper, the success stories are those who have honed an incredible expertise in an area. But Gladwell doesn't successfully explain how the rest of us can begin to hone our "thin slicing" abilities. (Honestly, I don't think he knows himself.)
In the end, I think it's a book people should read -- but borrow it from a friend or get it from the library. It's not worth the money in hardcover. (This from a family-owned bookstore person!) Better yet, wait for the paperback.
In the meantime, read The Tipping Point!
Gladwell Interview at espn.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Gladwell responds, though:
"I always thought that the critics of "Moneyball" misinterpreted what Lewis was saying. He wasn't saying that all instinctive scouting judgments are flawed. He was saying that there are some questions -- like predicting hitting ability -- that are better answered statistically, and that the task of a successful GM is to understand the difference between what can and can't be answered that way. That's my argument in Blink as well."
So the question becomes, then, how do we know when we can make an appropriate snap judgement about something? Why is "this statue looks like a fake" reasonable but "this guy looks like an athlete" not?
Gladwell makes the point that too much data can hinder, rather than help, but you end up needing to make a judgement on how much data is too much then. One of the examples Gladwell gives in "Blink" is of doctors making better diagnoses of heart trouble when they have less data- they jump to the heart, rather than investigating everything else chest pain could be. But do you really want your doctor operating on less than complete information- and if so, where do you set the line at? "Sorry, Doc, I'm afraid if I tell you how long I've had this pain, you might misdiagnose me."
I agree largely with Gladwell's ideas that snap judgements can be better than waffling, but he definitely should have done more to point out differences between good snap decisions and bad ones- he points out the "Warren Harding Effect" where someone "appears qualified" for something, but doesn't say enough in my opinion about knowing when your prejudices are boldly leading your gut astray.
Malcom Gladwel audio speach on IT Conversations (Score:2)
Waiting for months (Score:2)
The idea that autistic people can be used to model normal people in situations where there is not enough time to make a complex, socially-based decision. That police stopping a vehicle are safer if only one cop is at the scene than if there are two, because the presence of the other makes them proceed too quickly. The author even admits out that race and other prejudices are a factor in split-second decisions whether we like it or not, even when we don't consciously support it (ie raised in a blue state) -- regardless of how much as we might like that to be different.
Gladwell has clearly has done his research and has some really good ideas.
Where was the review again? (Score:2)
Sources of Power (Score:2)
One of my favorite books of all time is Sources of Power [amazon.com] by Gary Klein. Gary Klein studied how people made decisions in high pressure situations, like fire commanders and military personnel, and pioneered a lot of the concepts in intuitive decision making. This is one of the best written, most informative books I've ever read. I highly recommend it to everyone. The follow up The Power of Intuition [amazon.com] is great in that it teaches you how to become a better decision maker, but isn't as well written as Sources of Power.
When I heard of Malcolm Gladwell's book, I immediately thought "Awesome, the great popularizer is going to be bringing these concepts to the rest of the world and people will finally know what I'm talking about."
Seeing the subtitle Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, I knew that this was a reference to Klein's book.
If you like Blink, or even like the idea of Blink, definately check out Sources of Power [amazon.com]
Malcolm Gladwell Blinks At Racial Realities (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, it would be tremendously useful if Gladwell had figured out some general rules of thumb for when to rely on your instantaneous hunches and when not to.
But as far as I can tell, his book reduces to two messages:
Gladwell does make a genuinely useful point about how when people try to put their ideas into words, they often distort them into meaninglessness or falsehood.
Ironically, this happens to Gladwell every time he writes about race.
Because there were already plenty of books on the market advising corporate workers [vdare.com] in tiresome detail how to look before they leap, the sales potential of a book telling them, "Wotthehell, just go ahead and leap," was clear.
Unfortunately for Gladwell, the best-known examples of thinking without thinking [olimu.com] are racial and gender prejudices. But, then, you've forgotten Rule #2--Readers despise logic and consistency. So Gladwell just assumes that his otherwise beloved "rapid cognition" is 100% wrong whenever it's based on race or gender stereotypes. [amazon.com]
(And that's why he makes a $1 million annually and I don't.)
The most intriguing aspect of Gladwell's book is that its hopeless confusion and mind-melting political correctness stem from the author's own racial background. Although mostly white, Gladwell is partly of African descent (his mother [washingtonpost.com] was black, Scottish, and Jewish). But he doesn't look noticeably black in most [google.com] of his pictures [google.com].
The origin of Blink, he writes on his website [gladwell.com], came when, "on a whim," he let his hair grow long into a loose but large Afro.
As you can see in this picture of Gladwell with his Afro [isteve.com], he wound up with more of a Napoleon Dynamite Mormon 'fro [imdb.com] than the genuine kinky kind that ABA basketball players [remembertheaba.com] espoused back in the 1970s. Still, it does finally make him look marginally black.
As soon as Gladwell grew his Afro, he claims, he started getting hassled by The Man: highway patrolmen wrote him speeding tickets, [slashdot.org] airport security gave him the evil eye, and the NYPD [vdare.com] questioned him for 20 minutes because they were looking for a rapist [uexpress.com] with an Afro.
"That episode on the street got me th
Oh Yeah... (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't get good vibes from this guy (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe you don't get this but Dubya seems to (Score:2)
br. ok, that was a troll if you are from a red state but seriously...politics works the way it does because the "intuition" shit, so mystifying to nerds, is a pretty good model of behavior for the mythical average voter.
Re:maybe you don't get this but Dubya seems to (Score:2)
preview then submit
preview then submit
preview then submit
preview then submit
preview then submit
Didn't buy it yet (Score:2)
Not true, also accounts for probablities (Score:2)
When deciding to do just about anything, there are a large number of variables - most of which could never be fully determined. Not the least of these variables is how capabile are you, the desicion maker, of being successful with the choice you have made?
Thus the act of trusting your gut feeling is also one of understanding how you really feel about a project internally, and thus how likely you are to be able to bend unresolved probabilities that are at all alterable in your favor rather than letting the dice fall where they may. Plenty of things in life have succeded just because of extra effort on the part of those promoting them.
Furthermore I do think the brain is great at correlating all sorts of things for you automatically and thus you can get an accurate "feel" for if something is going to go right or wrong based only on a lot of loose data and seeming anecdote.
Re:Not true, also accounts for probablities (Score:4, Interesting)
In application of this, let's say we didn't have time to actually figure out whether the number is prime. I might say, "4,294,967,297 is a big number, which means it's generally unlikely to be prime." I look at the last digit, and there's no real clue there (an even number or 5, for example, would be a giveaway).
The question then becomes whether the OP is the sort of guy who would pull a big number out of nowhere, or whether he would go through the trouble of finding an actual prime number that was big enough that people wouldn't know immediately. With some loose data about the sort of people on /. and the amount of time generally spent composing /. posts, as well as the general tone of the message itself, I'd guess "no". I'm guessing he didn't bother to come up with a real prime number.
I could be right or I could be wrong, and I'm not really sure of exactly what went into that guess. I haven't even done the math to figure out if I'm right, but if I had to make an immediate guess whether 4,294,967,297 was prime, I'd have to make quick generalizations off of incomplete data and "go with my gut". Mathematical proof wouldn't be an option.
Re:I doubt this would work very well (Score:2)
Re:I doubt this would work very well (Score:2)
I have no idea if I'm right or not... but I decided pretty quickly.
Re:I doubt this would work very well (Score:2)
Reasoning only applies to decisions for which there are not standard rules governing the decision. If there's a rule that says "if greater than 2 and even, not prime" then any number that is encounter that fits the rule can be easily snap-judged, while anything that doesn't fit a rule needs to be reasoned/evaluated. A rule is a direct link from point A (in this case, a number) to point B (to determine the primeness of the number), while reasoning is the indirect path we take between point A and B when we don't have an appropriate and simple rule.
The more simple rules you're able to develop and understand, the more rapidly and capably you're able to interact with the world around you. Here's a couple fundamental rules that you don't even think about any more: red means stop, green means go. You don't really think about it though, you just act upon it because you know the rule. There isn't a reasoning process between "see green light" and "make car go" because it's a direct an unquestionable link. Green = go. It's a rule inside your head, and it makes you more efficient as a person.
Re:I doubt this would work very well (Score:2)
Re:An admission (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is what comes from making a knee-jerk reaction rather than actually thinking about it - you got the parties flopped. B-)
On most issues both Liberals and Conservatives want the same things: Peace, prosperity, justice. The main ways they differ on how to get them - and how they think about it.
Liberal ideology encourages making snap judgements on an emotional basis. (Notice the substution of "I feel..." for "I think..." in their rhetoric.) Their policies (when they think about them at all) are based on either direct action to solve perceived problems by pushing in the desired direction, or indirect action to suppress something that is conceptually associated with the problem. And they treat people as members of classes - dealing with all the members of the class on the bases of the steretypical member's behavior. All of these approaches have a common thread: "Damn the side effects."
Conservative ideology, on the other hand, promotes thought about problems. The targets are largely the same. But the solutions take into account the unintended consequences of directly attacking the problem - which are often a cure far worse than the disease.
Conservatives are often people who were liberal in their younger years. They TRIED the simple solutions and found out that they made things worked. Then they thought about THAT, and came up with (or signed on to) other approaches - that were counter-intuitive but actually made things better rather than worse.
Thus the Winston Churchill quote: "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
Unfortunately a lot of people either never find out that some "obvious" solutions don't work or never learn to think, and thus get stuck at 20. B-(
Re:An admission (Score:4, Insightful)
Both the Democrats and the Republicans base their ideologies on broken mythologies. The Democrat mythology is that if you allow the government to solve problems, it will. The Republican mythology, on the other hand, is that if you allow the private sector to solve problems, it will. Both mythologies are equally wrong.
There are aspects of Republican ideology which appeal to me, but, on the whole, I find that the Democrat ideology is more grounded in reality, which is why I tend to vote Democrat, in spite of having several very close friends who are Republicans (they're all very intelligent, just mistaken in their party choice; I don't hold it against them
My reactionary judgement against Republicans, as typified in my earlier post, usually stems from the way I perceive that the Republican party has gone: derailed from a party of intelligent and sincere conservatives (wither Goldwater?) to a mob of hard-core right wing Christian militants, of which our President is a typical example.
On a more positive note, I agree with you that both sides do want to find the best solutions to the problems that ail our nation and our society. Where I disagree is with the idea that "liberal thinking" is de facto wrong, and that "conservative thinking" is de facto right.
Addendum (Score:2)
Re:An admission (Score:2)
Conservative ideology, on the other hand, promotes thought about problems. The targets are largely the same. But the solutions take into account the unintended consequences of directly attacking the problem - which are often a cure far worse than the disease.
Conservatives are often people who were liberal in their younger years. They TRIED the simple solutions and found out that they made things worked. Then they thought about THAT, and came up with (or signed on to) other approaches - that were counter-intuitive but actually made things better rather than worse."
I agree that this is one common characterization, but it does not accurately reflect the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. today, nor does it accurately reflect the original notion of post-enlightenment western liberalism (i.e., not being limited to traditional viewpoints). In effect, you are comparing neo-liberals to classical conservatives, while the so-called neo-"conservatives" we have today much more closely follow the unthinking (neo-)liberal ideology which you describe.
Re:An admission (Score:2)
Sweeping labels like "liberal" and "conservative" have become nearly meaningless these days. Both sides contain sharp critical thinkers that are almost entirely drowned out by the popular idiots who rally people around hot-spot issues that they don't really want to understand fully.
Cheers.
Rep. != con Dem != lib (Score:2)
First of all, the Republican and Democratic parties may have a base of conservatives and liberals respectivly, but that's not the same as saying that they are conservative or liberal. The goals of both parties are the aquisition and retention of power. Serving their base is the means to that end.
Similarly, I see the Republican vs. Democrat dichotomy to be a false dichotomy akin to the con game (no pun intended) of 'lets you and he fight.' Both parties are advocates, ulitmatly, of the increasing centralization of power. The Republicans advocate increasing the power of institutions like the millitary and the CIA, with their buddies in the defense industry profiting. The Democrats advocate bringing in the Gov. to solve one social problem or another, which creates jobs they can distribute to their friends.
The alternative would be an anarcho-libertarian approach; having an inherant distrust of any centralization of power be it corporate or governmental ( though some centralization is necessary in both areas ) The reasoning behind this view is that seats of power will ultimatly be corrupted or else used to undermine democracy in favor of their own organizational interests. While I've heard both Republicans and Democrats effectivly employ this type of rhetoric, very few have followed through with across the board action. Usually it's more a matter of 'attacking the other side while protecting your own base' and plundering the enemy's larder to better stock your own. It's hard to ask people with power to take a stand against power.
Re:De ja vu (sp?) (Score:2)
Re:grokkage (Score:2)
thats a crock in some cases...ask a laywer. ask a judge. listen to a jury.