7:00 – 8:00 Research
- Hybrid Forecasting Challenge from IAPA looks like something that the Research Browser might be good for. Lots of good proposer material here as well
- Back to C&C
- risky shift
- they demonstrated this in a very simple way. On the one hand, they devised a questionnaire with choice dilemmas analogous to that used by the American social psychologists. Four dilemmas brought into play risk values; four others called for prudence values. But they changed the method of answering by using – as we did – a graduated seven-point scale. This read as follows: 1: strongly recommend x, the risky solution; up to 7: strongly recommend the prudent solution; with 4 as the neutral point at which both solutions appear of equal value.
- The scale provides a measure of the tendency of the group, indicating unambiguously whether the average of the attitudes of its members at the beginning was located on the side of prudence or of risk. In order to verify the hypothesis, consensuses must be polarized in the direction of the initial values prevailing before the discussion, that is, they should not go beyond the neutral point, crossing the invisible Rubicon of risk towards prudence, or vice versa. The answer can therefore easily be given, since this neutral point expresses indecision or psychological indifference. It is clear that in most cases the groups have polarized, if one makes the comparison between the consensuses or final decisions and the initial decisions. Very rarely did they go beyond this neutral point in the opposite direction to that which their members had tended at the outset. If these members were bold, the shift took place in the direction of risk, and if they were prudent at the beginning, they became even more so. [p 101 -102]
- Gouge and Fraser (1972) instead of choice dilemmas, proposed to the groups that they debate a great variety of problems ranging from drugs to sexuality, and including racism, suicide, etc. With one single exception, consensus accentuated the initial tendency of attitudes and judgements. Those propositions about which participants were already in agreement separately secured even greater agreement after discussion. Those that met with moderate agreement from individuals separately produced a more extreme agreement when they assembled in a group. [p 102]
- There is a selection of the dimension(s) that the discussion will take place over.
- There has to be a level of agreement along those dimensions
- Closely aligned dimensions are therefore more likely to be in agreement, while further ones are less likely, since the ‘motion’ has less (implicit?) correlation.
- Collapsing dimensions makes for easier discussion. If everything could be collapsed to one dimension, then it’s trivial (Arednt suggests that this is what totalitarianism is)
- In the absence of external influence, with a sufficiently small number of dimensions, direction stays fixed, though I’m not sure about velocity. But this is echo chamber/stampede space
- Diversity can be the presence of different headings, opposing velocity or additional dimensions (enlarging the information horizon)
- depending on whether individuals are nearer or further away from the dominant pole of the scale, things proceed differently. When nearer to it, the extremists maintain their position, shifting less than do the moderates. This arises because the extremists can move only in a direction running counter to the norms, which is an eventuality ruled out, whereas the moderates can shift closer to this pole. As regards the other pole, it is the extremists who change more than do the moderates (p <-.001). They are comparatively more numerous than the latter (70 per cent as against 59 per cent) in linking up with the predominant norm in the population. Moreover, their greater distance from the norm has the result that after the discussion not only do they change in greater proportion, but also this change occurs to a significant degree. [p 104]
- This implies that there is a physics model with respect to normative poles, though it may not fall off with distance.
10:30 – 5:00 BRI
- Flailing at reworking GeoMesaIngest. Starting at the web test that fires the GeoMesaController with mocked GeoMesaIngest. Except that’s throwing errors. Aaron is looking into it, says it seems familiar. Essentially, Spring needs to scan the framework to find the annotations, but the the test code is not being scanned properly, so code from the main is being injected into the test, which is breaking things.
- Helped Aaron out a bit looking for projects that would serve as good frameworks to hang our research and demo work on