Interesting article. Not everyone is equal... that is true and there seems to be bias to those that are less competent in group decision making. That is a real concern as we in the west try to make everyone equal... when they are not.
Were are all the same.... I'm not.................
Treating everyone as equal is a recipe for disaster
All of us are equal, but some are more equal than others, and this Orwellian doublethink appears to be costing us dearly.
An “equality bias” that leads people to give the same weight to the opinions of others, regardless of whether they are experts, “damages” groups, according to a study.
Scientists have found that men give too much influence to colleagues with bad judgment and too little to those who are competent, even when the discrepancy is plain to see.
Bahador Bahrami, a neuroscientist at University College London and one of the researchers in the study, said that not even money was enough to make people abandon their fixation on equality. “People are incredibly bad at taking differences in competence into account when making group decisions,” he said. “Even when we showed them exactly how competent they were, they still gave each other more or less equal say. Incredibly, this still continued when people were rewarded with real money for making correct decisions.”
Psychologists split 98 men —30 from Denmark, 30 from Iran and 38 from China — into pairs and set them the task of spotting targets on a screen.
When a pair disagreed with each other, one of them judged who was right. The more competent spotters, who were right about in about 70 per cent of cases, followed their hapless partners’ verdict almost half the time.
Conversely, the men who were bad at the game and picked the correct answer in only 30 per cent of contested rounds placed more confidence in their own judgment than they deserved.
The result was that both partners tended to lose out, even when the researchers displayed clearly on a screen who was more likely to be right and when the pairs were offered money for correct answers.
“We tend to think that everyone deserves an equal say in a debate,” the psychologists wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “This seemingly innocuous assumption can be damaging when we make decisions together as part of a group. . . This equality bias, whereby people behave as if they are as good or as bad as their partner, is particularly costly for a group when a competence gap separates its members.”
One reason why we are so reluctant to treat people’s opinions with the respect or disdain they merit is thought to be the fear of leaving people out. Studies have found that the feeling of being excluded “may resemble physical pain”.
“The reasons behind equality bias are unclear, but one explanation could be that people are reluctant to take sole responsibility for group decisions,” Dr Bahrami said. He said that the findings would have implications for a wide range of events from cabinet meetings to squabbles over household finances.
“For example, when people living together are deciding the best way to select utility suppliers and divide bills, they are likely to give each other’s views equal weight,” he said. “However, if one person is far more financially competent, then the best strategy for the group might be to give their judgment more weight.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/a ... 377417.ece
Treating everyone as equal is a recipe for disaster
Forum rules
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. Random guest posting.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. Random guest posting.
- Super Nova
- Posts: 11787
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Treating everyone as equal is a recipe for disaster
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
- Super Nova
- Posts: 11787
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: Treating everyone as equal is a recipe for disaster
Maybe in Asia it's different.....
These guys fulfilled their purpose in life... the continuance of their genes.
Genghis Khan: father figure to 16 million men
Hundreds of millions of men in Asia can trace their descent back to just 11 extraordinarily prolific founding fathers, a study in the European Journal of Human Genetics suggests.
Genghis Khan, the Mongol warlord, is estimated to have around 16 million male descendants, while Giocangga, a 16th-century Manchurian general, is thought to account for 1.5 million.
Their achievements, however, are dwarfed by one nomad and eight kings of ancient agricultural societies who appear to have passed on their genetic legacy to as many as 800million people.
Geneticists collected 460 DNA samples from men in central Asia and compared them with samples from 127 different Asian populations. Analysing their Y chromosomes, which are inherited only from the father, researchers found 11 types. Three of the 11 dynasties seem to be medieval nomads from the steppes of central Asia, while the other eight are older, settled civilisations.
Mark Jobling, professor of genetics at Leicester, who led the study, said the tyrants of the steppe were highly mobile horse-riders who spread their Y chromosomes far and wide.
In the absence of DNA samples from the warlords, however, it is impossible to be certain of the bloodline’s origins. All genetics can definitely say is that 11 men in central Asia had a whale of a time between 700BC and 1300AD.
These guys fulfilled their purpose in life... the continuance of their genes.
Genghis Khan: father figure to 16 million men
Hundreds of millions of men in Asia can trace their descent back to just 11 extraordinarily prolific founding fathers, a study in the European Journal of Human Genetics suggests.
Genghis Khan, the Mongol warlord, is estimated to have around 16 million male descendants, while Giocangga, a 16th-century Manchurian general, is thought to account for 1.5 million.
Their achievements, however, are dwarfed by one nomad and eight kings of ancient agricultural societies who appear to have passed on their genetic legacy to as many as 800million people.
Geneticists collected 460 DNA samples from men in central Asia and compared them with samples from 127 different Asian populations. Analysing their Y chromosomes, which are inherited only from the father, researchers found 11 types. Three of the 11 dynasties seem to be medieval nomads from the steppes of central Asia, while the other eight are older, settled civilisations.
Mark Jobling, professor of genetics at Leicester, who led the study, said the tyrants of the steppe were highly mobile horse-riders who spread their Y chromosomes far and wide.
In the absence of DNA samples from the warlords, however, it is impossible to be certain of the bloodline’s origins. All genetics can definitely say is that 11 men in central Asia had a whale of a time between 700BC and 1300AD.
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
- AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7259
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: Treating everyone as equal is a recipe for disaster
There was a book published some years back called The Seven Daughters of Eve that purports that the entire population of Europe is descended from only 7 clan mothers. Genghis Khan can't touch that.
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: Treating everyone as equal is a recipe for disaster
Sounds to me like they're extrapolating their specific study into the real world.
They set up an artificial study, where people unknown to each other are put in an artificial decision making situation. When dealing with people you don't know, your are much more likely to give them an equal say, I'll admit that. It's probably hardwired into most of us, because we are social apes. It's the right move, socially, not to dismiss out of hand, what other apes have to contribute, until you know they're not going to go ape-shit on you
What an absolute load of bollocks. Either it comes down to who can be arsed doing it, or whoever is the stronger personality.“For example, when people living together are deciding the best way to select utility suppliers and divide bills, they are likely to give each other’s views equal weight,” he said. “However, if one person is far more financially competent, then the best strategy for the group might be to give their judgment more weight.”
They set up an artificial study, where people unknown to each other are put in an artificial decision making situation. When dealing with people you don't know, your are much more likely to give them an equal say, I'll admit that. It's probably hardwired into most of us, because we are social apes. It's the right move, socially, not to dismiss out of hand, what other apes have to contribute, until you know they're not going to go ape-shit on you
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests