Madness of Crowds Single Ants Beat Colonies at Easy Choices

12��3�յ�SAT�������������¯

ʱ�䣺2016-12-03 16:52:19  ��Դ��;����ѧ  ���ߣ�Hugo

һת�ۣ�������12��3�գ���ӭ����һ��SAT���ԣ����գ����ǵ���ʦ����ѧ����������·���ֱ�ӹ��ݡ��麣����������ۡ�

������������

�ڸ�����Ҳ����ˢ���ͬѧ�ǣ����ǰ����գ�

����С�ֶӵ�����ۣ����ܲ���Ӱ����һ���أ�

�ŶӵȺ���뿼������ֱ�Ȼƽ��ܵ����ξ��㻹����

�˴���ͬѧ����һͬ���뿼�������ǵ�Ada��Eva��ʦ

���ˣ� ��ο�����ȫ��������

��ο��Ե��Ѷ�������˵����������

���11��������

�Ķ�

�˴��Ķ����ֵ�����˳��Ϊ��С˵����ʷ����Ȼ��ѧ������ѧ����Ȼ��ѧ��������Ȼ��ѧ������ƪ����ʷ����Ϊ˫ƪ��

��һƪС˵��Chapter X: Cecil as a Humourist�� С˵��Ҫ���ˣ�Ů���˹�lucy��������ص�Ӣ��֮����������۶����ˣ��������Ϲ����Ǽ�����һ�ס�

����һ�����ѵĴʻ���board������plain  indelicate   worldly

�Ѷȣ�����

ԭ�ģ�

The society out of which Cecil proposed to rescue Lucy was perhaps no very splendid affair, yet it was more splendid than her antecedents entitled her to. Her father, a prosperous local solicitor, had built Windy Corner, as a speculation at the time the district was opening up, and, falling in love with his own creation, had ended by living there himself. Soon after his marriage the social atmosphere began to alter. Other houses were built on the brow of that steep southern slope and others, again, among the pine-trees behind, and northward on the chalk barrier of the downs. Most of these houses were larger than Windy Corner, and were filled by people who came, not from the district, but from London, and who mistook the Honeychurches for the remnants of an indigenous aristocracy. He was inclined to be frightened, but his wife accepted the situation without either pride or humility. "I cannot think what people are doing," she would say, "but it is extremely fortunate for the children." She called everywhere; her calls were returned with enthusiasm, and by the time people found out that she was not exactly of their milieu, they liked her, and it did not seem to matter. When Mr. Honeychurch died, he had the satisfaction—which few honest solicitors despise—of leaving his family rooted in the best society obtainable.

The best obtainable. Certainly many of the immigrants were rather dull, and Lucy realized this more vividly since her return from Italy. Hitherto she had accepted their ideals without questioning—their kindly affluence, their inexplosive religion, their dislike of paper-bags, orange-peel, and broken bottles. A Radical out and out, she learnt to speak with horror of Suburbia. Life, so far as she troubled to conceive it, was a circle of rich, pleasant people, with identical interests and identical foes. In this circle, one thought, married, and died. Outside it were poverty and vulgarity for ever trying to enter, just as the London fog tries to enter the pine-woods pouring through the gaps in the northern hills. But, in Italy, where any one who chooses may warm himself in equality, as in the sun, this conception of life vanished. Her senses expanded; she felt that there was no one whom she might not get to like, that social barriers were irremovable, doubtless, but not particularly high. You jump over them just as you jump into a peasant's olive-yard in the Apennines, and he is glad to see you. She returned with new eyes.

So did Cecil; but Italy had quickened Cecil, not to tolerance, but to irritation. He saw that the local society was narrow, but, instead of saying, "Does that very much matter?" he rebelled, and tried to substitute for it the society he called broad. He did not realize that Lucy had consecrated her environment by the thousand little civilities that create a tenderness in time, and that though her eyes saw its defects, her heart refused to despise it entirely. Nor did he realize a more important point—that if she was too great for this society, she was too great for all society, and had reached the stage where personal intercourse would alone satisfy her. A rebel she was, but not of the kind he understood—a rebel who desired, not a wider dwelling-room, but equality beside the man she loved. For Italy was offering her the most priceless of all possessions—her own soul.

�ڶ�ƪ��˫ƪ���£�����Adams������Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams��

�Ѷȣ�����

��һ��

Philadelphia July 3. 1776

Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men. A Resolution was passed without one dissenting Colony "that these united Colonies, are, and of right ought to be free and independent States, and as such, they have, and of Right ought to have full Power to make War, conclude Peace, establish Commerce, and to do all the other Acts and Things, which other States may rightfully do." You will see in a few days a Declaration setting forth the Causes, which have impell'd Us to this mighty Revolution, and the Reasons which will justify it, in the Sight of God and Man. A Plan of Confederation will be taken up in a few days.

When I look back to the Year 1761, and recollect the Argument concerning Writs of Assistance, in the Superiour Court, which I have hitherto considered as the Commencement of the Controversy, between Great Britain and America, and run through the whole Period from that Time to this, and recollect the series of political Events, the Chain of Causes and Effects, I am surprized at the Suddenness, as well as Greatness of this Revolution. Britain has been fill'd with Folly, and America with Wisdom, at least this is my judgment. -- Time must determine. It is the Will of Heaven, that the two Countries should be sundered forever. It may be the Will of Heaven that America shall suffer Calamities still more wasting and Distresses yet more dreadfull. If this is to be the Case, it will have this good Effect, at least: it will inspire Us with many Virtues, which We have not, and correct many Errors, Follies, and Vices, which threaten to disturb, dishonour, and destroy Us. -- The Furnace of Affliction produces Refinement, in States as well as Individuals. And the new Governments we are assuming, in every Part, will require a Purification from our Vices, and an Augmentation of our Virtues or they will be no Blessings. The People will have unbounded Power. And the People are extreamly addicted to Corruption and Venality, as well as the Great. [The letterbook copy of this letter includes the following sentence:] [ I am not without Apprehensions from this Quarter.]-- But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable [ as] the Faith may be, I firmly believe.

�ڶ���

Philadelphia July 3d. 1776

Had a Declaration of Independency been made seven Months ago, it would have been attended with many great and glorious Effects . . . . We might before this Hour, have formed Alliances with foreign States. -- We should have mastered Quebec and been in Possession of Canada .... You will perhaps wonder, how such a Declaration would have influenced our Affairs, in Canada, but if I could write with Freedom I could easily convince you, that it would, and explain to you the manner how. -- Many Gentlemen in high Stations and of great Influence have been duped, by the ministerial Bubble of Commissioners to treat .... And in real, sincere Expectation of this effort Event, which they so fondly wished, they have been slow and languid, in promoting Measures for the Reduction of that Province. Others there are in the Colonies who really wished that our Enterprise in Canada would be defeated, that the Colonies might be brought into Danger and Distress between two Fires, and be thus induced to submit. Others really wished to defeat the Expedition to Canada, lest the Conquest of it, should elevate the Minds of the People too much to hearken to those Terms of Reconciliation which they believed would be offered Us. These jarring Views, Wishes and Designs, occasioned an opposition to many salutary Measures, which were proposed for the Support of that Expedition, and caused Obstructions, Embarrassments and studied Delays, which have finally, lost Us the Province.

All these Causes however in Conjunction would not have disappointed Us, if it had not been for a Misfortune, which could not be foreseen, and perhaps could not have been prevented, I mean the Prevalence of the small Pox among our Troops .... This fatal Pestilence compleated our Destruction. -- It is a Frown of Providence upon Us, which We ought to lay to heart.

But on the other Hand, the Delay of this Declaration to this Time, has many great Advantages attending it. -- The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning tho weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. -- Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. -- This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago.

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

����ƪ����A Blog by Ed Yong Madness of Crowds: Single Ants Beat Colonies At Easy Choices �� ��Ҫ���ݣ����˵�������������������Žᣬswarm intelligence�����һ����������ȸ��˸��õľ������������¼ҵ�ʱ�򣬵��Ǻ����о�����ʵ�鷢�֣�ֻ�е�������ѡ��nests�dz����ƣ����Ծ����ʱ��Ⱥ�������ľ����űȸ���������ǣ�һ������nests��������һ�۾��ܿ�����ʱ������ľ������Ⱥ��ľ���Ҫbetter�����µĺ��������һ��Ϊʲô��������

�Ѷȣ���

ԭ�ģ�

Virtually every article or documentary about ants takes a moment to fawn over their incredible collective achievements. Together, ant colonies can raise gardens and livestock, build living rafts, run vaccination programmes, overpower huge prey, deter elephants, and invade continents. No individual could do any of this; it takes a colony to pull off such feats.

But ants can also screw up. Like all animal collectives, they face situations when the crowd's wisdom turns into foolishness.

Takao Sasaki and Stephen Pratt from Arizona State University found one such example among house-hunting Temnothorax ants. When they need to find a new nest, workers spread out from their colony to search for good real estate. In earlier work, Sasaki and Pratt have shown that, as a group, the ants are better at picking the best of two closely matched locations, even if most of the workers have only seen one of the options. It's a classic example of swarm intelligence, where a colony collectively computes the best solution to a task.

But Sasaki showed that this only happens if their choice is difficult. If one nest site is clearly better than the other, individual ants actually outperform colonies.

When a worker finds a new potential home, it judges the site's quality for itself. Temnothorax ants love dark nests, in particular; with fewer holes, it's easier to control their temperature or defend them. If the worker decides that it likes the spot, it returns to the colony and leads a single follower to the new location. If the follower agrees, it does the same. Through these "tandem-runs", sites build up support, and better ones do so more quickly than poorer ones. When enough ants have been convinced of the worth of a site, their migration gathers pace. Workers just start picking up their nestmates and carrying them to the new site.

In past experiments, the team have always found that ant colonies make better decisions than individual workers. Even though each worker might only visit one or two possible sites, the colony collectively explores all the options and weighs them against one another. And since many individuals need to "vote" for a particular site, "this prevents any one ant's poor choice from misleading the entire colony," says Sasaki.

This time, the team wanted to see if the colony keeps its superiority for easy tasks as well as difficult ones. They presented Temnothorax ants with two possible nests—one held in constant darkness and another whose brightness could be adjusted. Sometimes, the ants had an easy choice between a dark nest and a blindingly illuminated one. Sometimes, they had to choose between two similar sites, one just marginally dimmer than the other.

As the light difference between the nests got bigger and the task became easier, the ants, whether as individuals or colonies, made more accurate choices. The team expected as much. But to their surprise, the single workers showed the greatest improvements and eventually outperformed their collective peers. In the easiest tasks, they chose the darker nest 90 percent of the time, while the colonies peaked at 80 percent accuracy.

To understand why this happens, consider how the ants choose their nests. If an individual is working by herself, she might visit a few sites in a row and gauge the difference between them. If they're very similar, there's a good chance she'll make the wrong decision. But the colony doesn't work off the recommendations of any individual; it relies on a quorum, just like the up- and down-voting system of social websites like Reddit. Together, the colony can amplify small differences between closely-matched sites and smooth out bad choices from errant individuals.

Still, this system isn't perfect. If many ants happen to find a bad site very quickly, they might reach a quorum before other workers have time to rouse support for a better alternative. "A bad choice can happen even if one site is much better than the other, because the ants at the bad site will have no information at all about the existence of the much better alternative," says Sasaki.

A single ant isn't as vulnerable to this problem. "She will visit both sites, easily see that one is better than the other, and nearly always make the right choice," says Sasaki. Colonies, however, put less effort into comparing their options than lone individuals, which sometimes leads them astray.

Does that sound familiar? Perhaps the same vulnerability can explain why the collective intelligence of humans often flips into the so-called "madness of crowds". Sasaki certainly thinks so. "For example, I just went to an online site to buy a fan," he says. "Instead of comparing options carefully, I blindly bought the most famous one. This ant-like consuming behaviour may lead to a similar pattern—the crowd fails when quality of options is easy to distinguish."

����ƪ����The best lie detectors in the workplace�� �������ݣ����ǻ���û����߸�����detect��˭��˵�ѣ�����ʵ��֤������ʵ���˸�����ʶ���˭��˵�ѣ����µĺ��������һ��Ϊʲôhonest people ���ܹ�detect lie��ԭ��

�Ѷȣ���

ԭ�ģ�

By Adam Grant April 5, 2013

Lie detection is a notoriously difficult skill to master. In fact, even most so-called lie detection experts — experienced detectives, psychiatrists, job interviewers, judges, polygraph administrators, intelligence agents and auditors — hardly do better than chance. In a massive analysis of studies with more than 24,000 people, psychologists Charles Bond Jr. and Bella DePaulo found that even the experts are right less than 55 percent of the time.

Still, some people are better judges of character than others. So when we need to count on people to assess honesty, we tend to turn to the skeptics among us, expecting that they'll be thorough and discerning.

Consider a clever study by psychologists Nancy Carter and Mark Weber, who presented business professionals with a scenario about an organization struggling with dishonesty in its hiring interviews. They had the chance to choose one of two highly competent senior managers to be the company's job interviewer. The major difference between the two managers wasn't experience or skill, it was a matter of personality: One manager was skeptical and suspicious, whereas the other manager had a habit of trusting others. Eighty-five percent chose the skeptical manager to make the hiring decisions, expecting the trusting manager to be naïve and easily duped.

But are we right that skeptics are better lie detectors? To find out, Carter and Weber created videotapes of eight business students interviewing for a job. Half of the interviewees told the truth throughout the interview, while the other half was instructed to tell three significant lies apiece.

Carter and Weber recruited a group of people to watch the videos. Several days beforehand, they had completed a survey about whether they were generally skeptical or trusting of others. After watching the videos, the participants placed their bets about which candidates lied and which told the truth, and then made a choice about which ones they would hire.

The results were surprising. The more trusting evaluators better identified the liars among the group than the skeptics did, and were also less likely to hire those liars.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's the skeptics who are easiest to fool. Why would this be? One possibility, according to Carter and Weber, is that lie-detection skills cause people to become more trusting. If you're good at spotting lies, you need to worry less about being deceived by others, because you can often catch them in the act.

The other possibility is that by trusting others, we sharpen our skills in reading people. Skeptics assume that most people are hiding or misrepresenting something. This makes them interpersonally risk-averse, whereas people who habitually trust others get to see a wider range of actions — from honesty to deception and generosity to selfishness. Over time, this creates more opportunities to learn about the signals that distinguish liars from truth tellers. It's this latter explanation, that trust improves our lie detection skills, that I find more plausible. Children develop beliefs about the integrity and benevolence of others early in life, often years before they can master the art of spotting con artists.

So what signals do trusters use to spot lies? One of the study's findings is that they pay more attention to vocal cues than skeptics do. This lines up beautifully with a breakthrough review led by the psychologist Alder Vrij. His team examined several decades of research and concluded that most of us rely heavily on nonverbal cues, such as nervousness or confidence, even though they can be misleading.

����ƪ��New Look at Ancient Mineral Could Scrap a Test for Early Oxygen�� ��Ҫ���ݣ����������о����ڵ����ϵ�����������ȱ����ô���ϵı�������Ӧ��Ϣ����ʯ����������˵��һ����ʯ���������Ϻ�����������ˣ������о�������������ۣ�˵�Ǹ��������ʲô�����ǣ��Ǵ���ײ��ؿ��˶������ģ����DZ������������γɵġ�

�Ѷȣ�����

ԭ�ģ�

�﷨

�﷨�Ŀ���ȫ�dz����Ŀ��㣺�ִ��߼�����һ�£����ֱ����ţ����ţ�ð�ţ��ֺţ����ۺŵ��÷���������������ӣ��̶����俼�� confer on

��һƪ����һ��GIS���¼��������԰���������ֲ������

�ڶ�ƪ�������ǽ�����������ƽʱ̫�ٶ������飬��ϸ˵�����������������кܶ�ô���ͬʱ��˵�˲�����ʲô������

����ƪ�������ǵ���Ҫ��Ҫ�����˵����������Ŀ��Գ�Ϊ���ӵĺ����ѣ���Ϊ�о�����Сʱ��Ӵ�Խ�������ϸ�����ͣ������˾�Խ�����ܶ����ֶ���������

����ƪ������ʱ�Ͷ���ʱ��ȱ���Լ�ԭ��������߽���ϳ�����ʱ�Ͷ���ʱ�ƶ�

��ѧ

�˴���ѧ��˵���廹��򵥣�û��ʲô����Ŀ��㣬��Ҫ���ǣ� һ�κ�������ؾ��һ����ϵ���� ����ʽ����������ƽ���� ��λ���� ͼ�����ݡ� �ı����ڽǺ͡����������Σ�Բ�����ܳ��ȡ�

�

д��������ѡ����2012��9�³������the Washington Diplomat����������Linda Moore

���³�����

karraftyrand.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.tuguanliuxue.com/TGNews/24.html

Share this post