It turns out that if you make people BET they’ll get it right… doesn’t have to be a very big bet either… then the majority really is quite good at getting to something like truth. Less so if you simply award them for being right and even further less if you just have them vote.
The majority may not always be right, but it’s just as likely that the minority is wrong. Worse, a minority with all the power tends to serve itself and ignore or abuse the majority. As they say, democracy is far from perfect, but it’s still better than anything else out there.
Caulfield is trying to win the argument with numbers instead of logic. Reading the labels is a rarely seen phenomenon, which some ascribe to indifference.
In my experience there are 2 reasons why labels aren’t read: most shoppers have a list and a short time to fill it, especially during sale days or running for dinner stuff.
For like me who are readers, the ingredient or material lists are in such small print as to frustrate most of us. Lots of space for hyping brand and taste but minuscule fonts for all else. Which, by the way, is why I carry a small magnifier. Anybody else can work around me, but I don’t move – or buy – until I can read that list. Has saved me lots of ‘oh I wish I hadn’t bought that’ moments.
Brother Thomas was a monk who saw things a little differently. Every day he debated with 3 other friars. At the end, they would always say, “Sorry, Brother Thomas, it’s three to one against you.”
They said it again after one day of heated debate, but then the clouds opened up, a blinding light shone down, and a booming voice proclaimed “BROTHER THOMAS IS RIGHT!”
The other brothers were amazed. They glanced at one another for reassurance, and finally one of them said “OK, it’s three to two against you.”
So for the science only crowd, I have a true story for you.
There were two males in need of a heart for transplant.
One was aged 18 the other was 59. As you know for an organ transplant the genome has be a pretty good match. Well these two were admitted to the same transplant hospital, the 18yo was admitted on Christmas Eve, the 59yo was admitted on 28 Dec at 0200hr. Forecast for the 18yo is unknown, the 59yo was given 72hrs to survive. On Friday the 30 of Dec at 2300 the 18yo was told that heart was available and that hew would be operated on in a few hours. At 0200hr 31 Dec (the 72 hr) the 59yo was notified that a heart had come for him and his surgery would start about 0930hr.
After full recovery from the surgery and anesthesia the nurse said “You guys are amazing!” the 59yo asked, why? His reply was the “18yo got his heart in 1 week, something that is only seen ONCE every 5-7 years, but you in 3 days! no one here, can remember the last time that happened!” The 59yo thought that those were nice words but what did it really mean? So he when he was able to move and get to a computer he found that his surgery team (same as the 18yo) had an average tenure of 10+ years, en Toto 120yr of experience.
So let’s add these anomalies up;1. One, a week for receipt first heart.2. One, three days for receiving second heart.3. Notification of receipt of both hearts with in 3hr.4. Receipt of second heart at the 72hr of stated probable life span.5. FIVE, high non-probability events occurring with 3 hours.
So, non-believers, what is your calculations for this?!
I see a number of you weren’t able to follow the heart reception. Each of the fellows in need got their heart from a separate donor, not each other and obviously not from the same donor. Receiving an organ from a donor is very sobering. While there are a few organs that maybe had only in part, can be taken and given to help another, most are received in whole because something killed (brain death) the donor.
So, bottom line is what do YOU CALL, so many statistical non-events happening at a single location?
Limpid Lizard about 2 months ago
The majority believe in an invisible sky fairy. Nuff said.
Rhetorical_Question about 2 months ago
?
Concretionist about 2 months ago
It turns out that if you make people BET they’ll get it right… doesn’t have to be a very big bet either… then the majority really is quite good at getting to something like truth. Less so if you simply award them for being right and even further less if you just have them vote.
Nachikethass about 2 months ago
Modern democracy.
cdward about 2 months ago
The majority may not always be right, but it’s just as likely that the minority is wrong. Worse, a minority with all the power tends to serve itself and ignore or abuse the majority. As they say, democracy is far from perfect, but it’s still better than anything else out there.
Jhony-Yermo about 2 months ago
Right over my head . . .
goboboyd about 2 months ago
Noone is as smart as all of use. Strangely, ‘All’ can be a personal perspective.
sandpiper about 2 months ago
Caulfield is trying to win the argument with numbers instead of logic. Reading the labels is a rarely seen phenomenon, which some ascribe to indifference.
In my experience there are 2 reasons why labels aren’t read: most shoppers have a list and a short time to fill it, especially during sale days or running for dinner stuff.
For like me who are readers, the ingredient or material lists are in such small print as to frustrate most of us. Lots of space for hyping brand and taste but minuscule fonts for all else. Which, by the way, is why I carry a small magnifier. Anybody else can work around me, but I don’t move – or buy – until I can read that list. Has saved me lots of ‘oh I wish I hadn’t bought that’ moments.
Kroykali about 2 months ago
Keep working, Frazz. Those plants aren’t going to water themselves.
allegro about 2 months ago
He DOES mean a “tiny minority.” Because he grooves on setting himself apart from the oafs who can’t be bothered.
I cannot imagine why.
Cactus-Pete about 2 months ago
The “serving size” on a package is an arbitrary number required by law.
Richard S Russell Premium Member about 2 months ago
Brother Thomas was a monk who saw things a little differently. Every day he debated with 3 other friars. At the end, they would always say, “Sorry, Brother Thomas, it’s three to one against you.”
They said it again after one day of heated debate, but then the clouds opened up, a blinding light shone down, and a booming voice proclaimed “BROTHER THOMAS IS RIGHT!”
The other brothers were amazed. They glanced at one another for reassurance, and finally one of them said “OK, it’s three to two against you.”
Ulrig about 2 months ago
So for the science only crowd, I have a true story for you.
There were two males in need of a heart for transplant.
One was aged 18 the other was 59. As you know for an organ transplant the genome has be a pretty good match. Well these two were admitted to the same transplant hospital, the 18yo was admitted on Christmas Eve, the 59yo was admitted on 28 Dec at 0200hr. Forecast for the 18yo is unknown, the 59yo was given 72hrs to survive. On Friday the 30 of Dec at 2300 the 18yo was told that heart was available and that hew would be operated on in a few hours. At 0200hr 31 Dec (the 72 hr) the 59yo was notified that a heart had come for him and his surgery would start about 0930hr.
After full recovery from the surgery and anesthesia the nurse said “You guys are amazing!” the 59yo asked, why? His reply was the “18yo got his heart in 1 week, something that is only seen ONCE every 5-7 years, but you in 3 days! no one here, can remember the last time that happened!” The 59yo thought that those were nice words but what did it really mean? So he when he was able to move and get to a computer he found that his surgery team (same as the 18yo) had an average tenure of 10+ years, en Toto 120yr of experience.
So let’s add these anomalies up;1. One, a week for receipt first heart.2. One, three days for receiving second heart.3. Notification of receipt of both hearts with in 3hr.4. Receipt of second heart at the 72hr of stated probable life span.5. FIVE, high non-probability events occurring with 3 hours.
So, non-believers, what is your calculations for this?!
dogday Premium Member about 2 months ago
Fell off the critical-thinking cliff here: “majority decision” has nothing to do with wisdom; it has to do with numbers.
tammyspeakslife Premium Member about 2 months ago
The majority believes they’re right because they’re the majority, so it’s “OK” to bully people for being different when everyone else says it is.
Ulrig about 2 months ago
I see a number of you weren’t able to follow the heart reception. Each of the fellows in need got their heart from a separate donor, not each other and obviously not from the same donor. Receiving an organ from a donor is very sobering. While there are a few organs that maybe had only in part, can be taken and given to help another, most are received in whole because something killed (brain death) the donor.
So, bottom line is what do YOU CALL, so many statistical non-events happening at a single location?