Re: Groupthink

From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 07/13/04 

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:57:52 -0400

|-|erc wrote:

> "Will Twentyman" <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in
>
>>Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yale psychologist Irving Janis coined the term in 1972 to
>>>describe a decision-making process in which officials are
>>>so wedded to the same assumptions and beliefs that they
>>>ignore, discount or even ridicule information to the contrary.
>
>
>>>When members of a cohesive, homogenous group value
>>>unanimity and agreement on one course of action more
>>>than a realistic appraisal of alternatives, they are engaging
>>>in groupthink.
>>
>>In your post "Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the
>>Halting Problem?", you claim to have disproven the unsolvability of the
>>Halting Problem by changing the proof to something that doesn't prove
>>Willhalt() cannot exist. That just means you can make a change. You
>>have claimed that a *different* proof that Willhalt() cannot exist
>>doesn't work. The general response seems to be "So what?" That does
>>not make the original proof that you linked to invalid.
>>
>>How is pointing you back to the original functional proof groupthink?
>>Your arguments appears to be analogous to saying, "I've seen blades of
>>grass that are green, but if they were actually purple, then they
>>wouldn't be green!" That's very true, but so what? Grass is green.
>>
>
>
> Actually Will you may have just pointed out the functional proof, but you
> can't seriously say this isn't happening?
>
>>>ignore, discount or even ridicule information to the contrary.
>
>
> Here's a good example of groupthink.
>
> *****
> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
>
>>You are able to correctly refute what I am saying
>>without even reading a single word.
>
>
> That is exactly so.
>
> That's one of the amazing things about being able to
> understand computer science, by having invested the
> effort such understanding takes. Once you have read
> through and understood a proof that some hypothesis
> holds, you no longer have to waste time reading
> drivel from obsessed persons who cannot be bothered
> to learn to understand computer science, proving
> that the opposite hypothesis holds, and ignoring
> every kind attempt by wiser heads to point out just
> where their errors lie.
> ******

Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, he constructed a different
"proof" that he felt was analogous. The difference was, what he
generated is not true. That does not mean the original suffers the same
flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. What is wrong with
observing that Peter is not talking about the proof as it stands, and
therefor dismissing everything else he says as irrelevant to the correct
proof? 

-- 
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Groupthink
    ... > understand computer science, by having invested the ... > that the opposite hypothesis holds, ... Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, ... flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Groupthink
    ... > understand computer science, by having invested the ... > that the opposite hypothesis holds, ... Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, ... flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Groupthink
    ... >> that the opposite hypothesis holds, ... > Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, ... > flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. ... relevance is relevant? ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Groupthink
    ... >> that the opposite hypothesis holds, ... > Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, ... > flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. ... relevance is relevant? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Groupthink
    ... >> that the opposite hypothesis holds, ... > Peter didn't attack the proof as it stands, ... > flaws, but rather that he introduced a flaw. ... relevance is relevant? ...
    (sci.logic)