Vacation (Strava links below)
- Day 1 – 37 Miles (To Forest Grove)
- Day 2 – 83 Miles, parts one and two (To Astoria)
- Day 3 – 69 Miles to Tillamook
- Day 4 – 81 Miles to Newport
- Day 5 – 58 Miles to Florence
- Day 6 – 79 Miles to Bandon
- Day 7 – 80 Miles to Roseburg, parts one and two
- Day 8 – 102 Miles to Eugene
- Day 10 – 83 Miles to Willamette pass. Now that was a big hill
- Day 11 – 79 Miles to Bend, parts one and two
- Day 12 – 80 Miles from Bend to Detroit Lake
- Day 13 – 93 Miles to Troutdale
- Day 14 – 23 Miles to Portland
A grand total of about 947 Miles, or an average of 72 miles a day. Fun!
Also other interesting things:
Thought from rest day one:
- It mak not be a map in the classical sense of a representation of fixed points. The representation may more resemble the detailed pictures that have been coming in from Cassinii recently. There is no ground, but there are large scale recognisable features (the Red Spot, bands, hexagonal poles, etc). The relationships between the features can change, but the patterns could be stochastic in the sense that there is a sustaining pattern, like a candle flame. From C&C:
- Every kind of intellectual and affective means come into play as soon as the slightest hint of difference arises, so that arguments are invented, opposing views interpreted, to find the grounds for disagreement, but, above all to find a way out of them. [p 173]
- For the simulation
- The agents contribution is the heading and speed
- The UI is the horizon
- The IR is the stage
- An additional part might be to add the ability to store data in the space. Then the behavior of the IR (e.g. empty areas) would b more apparent, as would the effects of UI (only certain data is visible, or maybe only nearby data is visible) Data could be a vector field in Hilbert space, and visualized as color.
Rest Day 2
- By causing the majority to converge towards a social representation, the multiplicity of decisions that lead to a consensus do more than draw viewpoints closer: they initiate or reinforce social ties. Beyond the specific dilemmas that each decision resolves, they correspond to this general aim. They produce a mass effect in the network of groups that choose and discuss, creating and re-creating the bonds in our society by a common action, just as at one time public opinion originated in the market-places and cafes, and from drawing-room conversations. It is the surplus value that we extract from this task of collective decision-making, the diversity and multiplicity of which have reached so high a level that it has become a profession -we speak of decision-makers – and a significant factor in our social and moral world. [p 174]
- Is community building inherently an act of dimension reduction? We find commonalities and focus on those, while excluding other areas. It’s not necessarily about agree/disagree, but more like areas that we can create norms of behavior in. It’s easier to create norms in homogeneous, closed cultures, and harder in heterogeneous cultures. But though homogeneous cultures may be faster to respond, they are also less resilient. I’m thinking in particular of the Aspen, or any plant that reproduces asexually. The there is an initial advantage, but if conditions change, the plant goes extinct quickly.
- The socio-cognitive conflict inherent in any decision taken in common combines together two permanent tendencies. The one aims at maintaining existing uniformity and agreement, the other at changing them by imparting an original form to things and ideas. The choices that are made usually express a balance of forces between the two because, without any element of novelty, they are mere stereotypes or ritual, and, without a dose of conformity, they become fancies and fluctuations that lead to disorder. It is of real theoretical interest to recognize at work in the socio-cognitive conflict a dual process of social thought. It can only be dual, in.view of the opposing functions that it fulfils and of the simultaneous use it makes of divergent and convergent thinking, the one the badge of innovation and the other of uniformity [p 174]
- This is a very good example of the explore/exploit condition as it relates to social cognition. The same for sea turtles and people
- To resolve the conflict by eliminating convergent thinking would be to abandon discussion and any choice made in common. To resolve the conflict by censoring divergent thinking would condemn participants to routine, to stereotyping, to what is termed ‘groupthink’. On the other hand, to negotiate this conflict, which is both social and cognitive, is an arduous task. [p 175]
- The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance
- A space ship having crashed on the moon, a team of astronauts has to cover a distance of some 300 kilometres in order to reach the spot where they have a rendezvous with another team. Before embarking on this perilous undertaking, the members of the team have to decide which of the fifteen objects necessary for survival – oxygen reserves, concentrated food, signalling equipment, heating requisites, etc. – they will take with them. Those participating in the study were asked to draw up a list of priorities for these objects, first separately as individuals, and then in groups, by arriving at a consensus. Half of the groups received no special instructions for this common task of decision-taking. The other half were instructed to confront other members of the group and resolve the differences between them. They were informed that they had to set out their arguments lucidly and were not to change their opinion with the sole aim of avoiding conflict, nor to seek agreement using procedures such as a majority vote, the establishment of a mean position, bargaining, tossing a coin, or in other ways. Moreover, the instructions emphasized the need to look upon differences of opinion as both natural and useful, so that any precipitous agreement would be suspect, so long as the reasons for it had not been gone into thoroughly. The main thing was to resist group pressures that tempted one to yield to others without sound reasons, just in order to attain a consensus, which would lack any guarantee of success. [p 176]
- Good game for study design?
- Hall and Watson were persuaded that by weakening such pressures they would encourage divergent thinking to be displayed. This would lead groups first to produce solutions of a superior quality, and then to make better use of the resources of each member, so that overall performance would exceed even that of the group’s cleverest members, and finally to discover novel solutions. Most of these hypotheses were verified.
- The other means of encouraging divergent thinking is by the presence of a minority participating actively in the group’s discussions. This is a comparatively natural means for use in decisions leading to a consensus, since it arises solely from the obligation to respect one of the essential conditions. These assume in fact a state of equality between the members of the group. This means the majority recognizes the right of the minority to express itself, and will set very great store by its opinions; otherwise the agreement arrived at would be worthless. [p 177]
- (Moscovici and Zavalloni, 1969) looked for indications of this cognitive transformation of individuals in a group. It is no exaggeration to state that the decisions, in the broadest sense, prepare the way for it and make it their prime target. The students who participated, it will be recalled, had to adopt a common attitude towards de Gaulle and the Americans. In order to arrive at this, particularly if the attitude were unfavourable, they had to acknowledge a common set of values and a common code. This most possibly assumed , among the categories available to each individual, the use solely of those that corresponded to that code. These were the ones that were retained, that were used frequently, and towards which individuals would converge. In order to verify this we calculated an entropy index (H) of the distribution of categories, borrowed from information theory. [p180]
- This looks like dimension reduction to me. It also implies a way of testing for it. The description for how they calculated entropy isn’t that clear from the book, but I’m guessing that it has something to do in the variability of the terms used. Combined with an awareness of sentiment, this might be a reasonable way to determine relevant axis of discussion