ZOMBIE FORUMS

I give to you the product of the American education system. I thought this up when I supposed to be doing an Economics test and wrote a draft of it when I was supposed to be doing Economics homework.

Critiques, refutations, comments, advice, whatever are welcome.

----------

Law of Diminishing Intelligence

Many thanks to ollie for hosting the page.

take my advice, copyright that, there's at least a master's thesis in it, I'm a sociologist, I could steal that and add a shitload of filler material and make a fine master's/doctoral thesis. get that under a lid

If you came up with that yourself, bravo. Keep it up.

<3 Thanks guys. I actually did a search for the term on google and it only came up once. I was surprised it seemed like something that would have been thought of many times before.

Clay can you give me some advice on filler material. I am very concise in my writing to the point where it makes what I actually say seem less important. I am bad at coming up with random stuff to add in to make it look mroe official.

One thing I may add to it is the Figurehead factor. I will do a quick amendment later once I figure out how I want to word it.

Great work. Long have I known that a committee could turn a space probe into a billion dollar rocking chair if it got big enough.

Don't forget that even a small group will have low output if their component members are either brilliant minds or if they think they are. The few times I have seen geniuses at work, I noticed that absolutely nothing gets done (except a lot of arguing and possibly some violence) if there are more than two in the room at any given time. With just two, productivity either VASTLY increases or drops into negative numbers. Perhaps the intelligence, talent, and ego of the component individuals alters the way the Law of Diminishing Intelligence plays out.

If you could get ahold of enough people (plus a few geniuses among them) this would make a great study. Companies, thinktanks, and governmental whatevers would pay a small fortune to have the statistics and hard numbers on this sort of thing.

Yeah I should note that quite often the decline point is often 1. Most of the scenarios assume that the people are aware they are going to work as a group and that they are willing to do so.

I am going to read some into studies done on mob mentality and see how this law can be applied. I want to see how often mobs break into factions and fight amongst themselves versus working against a common enemy or target.

I agree, either get a copyright on that QUICKLY, or delete it from here.

I'd pull it Revvy, for now. Anything on the net is public domain, and you're on to something hot.

ok, time to drop THE WORD BOMB

structure is the key which your brief outline ignores, either through it's brevity, or ignorance

in the army, for instance, it's not the 'training' or 'discipline' that gives an 'uncanny ability to work effectivly' but structure, the training and disciplne are just there to get the soilders to submit to the system of control, the command structure

the human mindset is also altered in a structured system, in order to invent a structure for peoplet o follow a mindset that works with it also has to be invented (and implimented) in order for them to coordinate and work together, in the millitary example, if the command structure and it's orders are to be followed then all involved have to be used to doing so

the improvments in this area have not been 'a gradual movement towards smaller and smaller scale tactics' but have rather been the exact opposite, larger and more mixed armies are acting with far more control and speed than ever before due to the refinment and expanding of the structure of the system of control. 100 years ago each soldier had to know how to look after himself on the parade ground and in the field, larger tactics and objective issues were looked after entirely by higher officers and commanders, even junior officers knew little more than the men they were commanding, as such if an officer was somehow removed from the system the chain of command broke down and the men were left to fend for themselves untill brought back into the system of another officer, they were rarely expected to take any action or make any decision without specific orders from above, ie they were all but removed from the structure.

today's modern armed forces have expanded the structure of command and control down to almost ever soldier in the field, all know far more than ever before about the actions they are taking and the job they are involved in, as such the level of independance has risen to the point where less direct control is needed to keep the system running, it is less that smaller units of men are more effective, it's more than by extending the structure of control down to the smaller unit levels they suddenly become far more effective

if today's training and communication was used 100 years ago then you would get very simlar results, equally the other way around, if you cut a ww1 platoon in half it would be very doubtful that they would suddenly become better fighters, tactitions, trench diggers etc unless you also added extra training at both officer command and other rank levels to go with it

the reason that demonstrations crack up is in part answered by the above, structure is needed at any level of human interaction, the bigger the interaction becomes the more needed that structure is, also the mindset of the people is the other factor, in the armed forces this mindset is invented and implanted (traditions, training etc) in a demonstration it is far more fluid and unfocused and more open to suggestion and influence than a more solid one, crowd dynamics is a huge area of research because of the near total lack of 'created' structure they have other than the 'raw' humanity that makes up the crowd, a vague agenda of protest (for instance) can suddely become one of violence, or of defeat, just as quicky with the right activation words or events. however in a well structured system only pre-ordained events or commands will trigger an event

for instance a millitary unit will only attack another under specific orders or circumstances, a demonstration can turn into a riot on both predictable and seemingly random events. while by building a structure that you understand, because it is designed and tested to work in a specific way, is the easiest way of controling group behaviour, you can study 'natural' events and begin to work out the uinderlying structure of them, as such you can then influence them at a rational, rather than instinctive, level

this is how political consensus is built, by unitign and directing a group of people, if control of smaller groups is more effective than control of larger ones, how have countries grown so large and power moved to democratic and republican (small d and r) governments in most leading world nations? if control of smaller groups is more effective then we'd be at the ww1 platoon level of one man at the top of the platoon being at the bottom of the structure of control, the 30 men below him being nothing but pawns. today the structure extends down past the previous controllers to new, lower level ones

the group is not made smaller, the system of control is made larger and better. a group without an effective or active system of control is a group on the edge of chaos. the larger the group the bigger and better this structure needs to be. not that you are ignoring this but i thought i should point it out.

thats' what i'm trying to say anyway, yeah, too many words to get this far.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" from 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds' By Charles MacKay (one of the early real works on this, documenting the sudden uptake of new language, ideas or fashions in social or national groups)

[edit] i may need to clean this up at some point, but this thread suddeny went from 1 to 7 replies while i typed, so thought i'd better putit up before you all go off to do something more fun that read this crap, as is there was somethign more fun... [/edit]

ollie is hardcore.

and yeah, the original post seemed very inherently obvious.

I plead temporary ignorance.

Structure was a concept I was thinking of but I couldn't seem to place the right word to it. I make several references to the idea without using the actual term. Thanks for the input I will probably go back and modify the original to use the word when I meant to.

I touch on this in the two paragraphs I just added. I will send you the amended copy later just to see if this addresses it properly. Basically I just talk about how willingness to actually work as a group is something of an assumed condition for the law.

I was thinking of this in two ways.
On the one hand once a group is given its objective they are intended to use their net intellect to solve it however possible. In this sense the tactics have gotten smaller since each group is more adept at solving the problems and completing its objective.
However the presence of figureheads has also allowed for several levels of groups. In this sense there is increased coordination between separate groups thus allowing many more to work together towards a common goal.

I understand what you are saying though, I will change the wording to better reflect what I meant and know see.

That was my exact point though. Platoons are arranged at exactly the decline point, or rather at the average decline point for the army. Any smaller or larger and they would become less effective (in most cases).

I see what you are touching on. My law more applies to completely unprepared groups; all they have is a problem or objective. There is no prearranged structure. The law also relates to their ability to create structure or atleast keep themselves on task.

Haha, I think we sort of came to the same concept. I address some of this (albeit much less completely and properly) in what I wrote about the figurehead factor.

This is why I mentioned that the decline point varies greatly. People have been applying this theory and as a result working to increase the decline point for years. They just haven't put words to it. Or maybe they have and I just have never heard of it.

Okay I will adjust my write up sometime soon. Thank you greatly for you input ollie you helped me to clarify my thoughts alot.

That is the reason I figured it had been thought up before. This idea was originally a complete joke until I realized it was actually kind of useful. Though there are alot of laws that are pretty much common sense hence I mention straight off that the ones that are not put in some standardized form tend to be neglected more often.

If any of you do find an official representation of this law please let me know.

I did not see the essay but I would like to add this (From Nukees):


Monday, July 3, 2000

however the 'problem or objective' is actually part of the 'under specific orders or circumstances' that i mentioned earlier, the actions that happen in order to proceed should be predictable depending on what the prob. or obj. is and the current structure of the group, ie a group trained to deal with that type of situation will do it more or less by th book, if they have no structured experiance or training of that situation, then they fall back to their 'natural' basic structure, which with study and testing will be able to be worked out (this is where advertisers and marketers make money)

what i'm saying is there is no group without any structure as we are social animals, in my opinion structure is not made quickly enough to be studied in the short term and as such you can only test the current level of a group with a problem or test, crowed dynamics tend to emphise the way that people quickly 'devolve' to a passive/aggressive state when part of a larger group, to expect them to at the same time 'evolve' a control structure seems a little hopeful to me, unless th group has been primed before or has leaders with an agenda within it then it will act very slowly and with poor judgment to any unfamilliar situation it is placed in

for instance you can say a 'normal' or control group starts out with a structure rating of 0 and a perfectly operating 'well oiled machine' Army unit is a 10. but remember that 0 is still a number, a base level of primal social structure. this is only expanded when a problem is met that needs extra structure to deal with, and then it has to be proven first before it is created and implimented within the group

i feel that the 'decline point' is only a matter of an effective control structure in the social system, as such the decline point is 1 if the person has no structured way of controling their actions (ie is insane) but can be infinate is all within the system are in a perfectly working structure of communication and control

as such the 'decline point' depends entirely on the group's structure, that structure however is hard to pin down being basicly the level of social conditioning and problemsolving ability/training that the group has, be that anywhere from 0 to 10 as an average

think of communist '5 year plans' These need a certain level of structure to start up, they are designed to increase the national structure to another level, if they fail they can actually bring it down a level. the higher the current structural complexity it could be claimed that it is easier to level it up, see the time between the stone age to the iron age, then the steam age to the space age for instance. if your'e starting out with a sample of structure level 0 then it'll take them quite a time to get up to level 1, but if you have a level 9 group it's only 1/9 of their current structure to get to level 10

but defining a 'decline point' is easier than defining 'structure', just as to study failure is easier than creating sucess

Yeah you need to read my amendments about the figurehead.

Anyway I dont expect them to evolve a control structure, you seem to be under the impression that things can only operate with some sort of structure and standardized organization. Groups exist all the time without such a thing. Plus you are thinking in reference to military structure, I use a much more liberal definition of structure. Basically every group that forms will have structure, it is impossible not to if interactions are occuring within the group.

As for acting slowly that is the point I make, the net intellect (I will define this later since I use it so often) is lower in general when a figurehead is not present.

See you are getting caught up on the word structure. This is what I mean by additional view points being needed. :)

The 'level of social conditioning and problemsolving ability/training' is part of what I define as the net intellect. Since intelligence is not just knowledge but also the ability to reference and utilize said knowledge.

I agree with you. It is easier to define movement than it is to define an object (don't get me started into the concept of 'self').

However my law is not intended to imply or suggest how one can increase the decline point. Rather it points out that it exists and shows people that there is a curve that they should try and stay on top of. The method is up to them since every single situation involves different variables hence I only use specific situations as examples.

Okay here is what I jotted down about the figurehead factor.
<p>The figuredhead factor works as such: if members of the group willingly submit to a minority (usually a single person) to control and direct the application of their intelligence there will be a great increase in the decline point. The competency of the figurehead can have as much effect on the net intellect of the group as the mental powers of the individuals in it. The proper coordination of the knowledge available flows much more smoothly when one entity is regulating the input of ideas and information. Also the figurehead's most important role is as a mediator. The varying view points present in a group will have a much less negative effect as the numbers increase since disputes amongst factions can be decided with finality. Under few circumstances will the assignment of a figurehead have a negative effect on the group.</p><p>Figureheads also open up the possibility of divided groups which are arranged into heirarchies. The 'macro' group can have smaller subgroups which will each work towards a small portion of the macro group's objective. These subgroups each have their own decline point and figurehead. The strongest figureheads are needed to control the macro group; the weaker the figureheads get, the smaller a group they are placed in control of. A level of danger is also associated with figureheads; should the figurehead be removed in some way the group's decline point will immediately drop causing a drastic breakdown in the group's structure and thus net intellect.</p>

I don't get it: will a bunch of people milling about automatically have structure?

Its like, a bunch of people caught in traffic = structure? That seems to be implied by this:



So groups exists where nobody tells anybody what to do and things get done anyway...? Is that actually a group or is it a bunch of individuals that happen to be in the same area doing things? Thats a structure, as soon as one person submits to the authority of another there's a control structure. They arn't ridgid in short-term cases (ie someone can do what I tell them one moment and then in 5 minutes later obey someone else) but its there.

Ollie never said standardized organization, just organization, I mean you need some structure in any group, be it fluid or not, for anything to get done, otherwise its just again a group of people doing things independant of each other, which is referred to as a congregate (I think,) not a group.

A group by definition must be doing things together; as such, there is SOME structure within it, whether it be whoever has the best idea is in charge at the moment to the old-fashioned military where the general orders about his officers who order about their's and so on.

I think you're misinterpreting the word structure and its meaning.

Erm so to summarize: every group has structure, its efficiency in completing a certain task (with difficulty being measured in training/manpower needed to accomplish it and time needed to accomplish it, x and t) is dependant on how efficient that structure is. Larger groups need a more coherent, ridgid structure; you cannot run the USA on the same priniples you run a 5 person group. All self-evident.

But, the thing I think you're getting at is merely not that smaller groups are smarter, but smaller groups are easier to make efficient with simple, easily constructed/fluid comannd structures, I mean if you've got 20 geniuses and 5 day laborers working at a construction job, and the geniuses have some willy-nilly structure that ends up with all these delays in a long-term project, the 5 day laborers with thier simple foreman telling them what to do and when to do it win, not because the laborers were smarter but because the structure which they were operating at was more suited to the task's difficulty.

So you can have a general rule: as a task becomes more and more difficult (represented by (x)(t)=d), the structure within which people must work has to become more and more ridgid, with individual egos subsumed in some sort of organization which will allow them to work to the completion of that goal.

So I think 'net intellect' is more appropriate termed 'efficiency,' I mean you don't get literally dumber when your leader gets shot, you merely lack the structure nessesary to get your job done; in its place, usually, a more fluid structure pops up (committees, pure democracy, tenuous holds on absolute power, etc) which is much simplier and easier to use, but also doesn't have the "staying power" for hard and/or time consuming jobs. For this you need more solid structures, if you will.

Oh and PM me a copy of it, obviously.

-MiB

While Ollie's points on structure are brilliant, I would like to point out that while applying increasingly well designed stucture helps keep increasingly larger groups efficient to a point, the more people you have, the more often you have to gear the structure to the lowest common denominator. Or, in other words, you have to keep idiot proofing things until individuals are basically incapable of doing their jobs, and are forced to break the rules and defy the structure just to get the results expected of them. This has happened in every company I have worked for, in a long list of ignored rules, regulations and safety precautions. Almost every place I've worked for had a strict no-tolerance policy toward doing your job but would sure as fuck fire you for not doing it. You end up with the situation in southeast asia in places where American soldiers were ordered not to defend themselves even if UNDER FIRE! This sort of insanity is the result of authority being to far removed from the bottom (also an attitude of treating the foundation of your organization as disposable). In any case there are limiits to which you can organize large amounts of people without drastically reducing the individual effectiveness of members of the group.

But they're still more effective as a group.

Also, that would be called a dysfunction of buerocracy, wouldn't it? Something that can be minimized by the people at the top, another example of the structure is only as efficient as the person who makes it, its not a symptom of being "too far removed" from the bottom, its a symptom of simply not thinking through your structure.

IE, a huge crappy building can hold a lot more people (and thus make more profit for the owner) than a really good small building, but its still a crappy building and won't be as effective at its job (housing people) as the smaller one. So a dysfunctional large structure still works better than a smaller functional one, but it isn't a function of size; rather its a function of people with authority who are not suited to that position.

So another rule would probably be as structure grows, the responsibility/intelligence of the person making the structure must also go up.

-MiB

The definitions of intelligences I am using.

Intelligence is not only the summation of all knowledge but also the efficiency and speed with which it can be accessed, applied, augmented, and added to.

Net intellect is the same thing as intelligence only it is applied to a group of individuals


I have thought some more about the structure points, and decided that that really falls under a solution to the problem of a low decline point. The purpose of this law was to never advise on methods of raising the decline point (apart from the figurehead factor) only to point out that it exists.
I noticed that certain people *cough* seem more likely to refer their points back to the concept of structure and subsequently the military. Ah well.

Of course this whole thing is something of a joke anyway to poke fun at rallies and humans in general.