= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Open thread, Aug. 03 - Aug. 09, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
Such model ignores e.g. minorities which don't share the interests of the majority, or the internal fighting between people who have the same interests but compete with each other for scarce resources (such as status within the group).
As a result, the group of humans modelled this way will seem like a conspiracy, and -- depending on whether you choose to model all failures of coordination as "this is what the entity really wants" or "this is what the entity doesn't want, but does it anyway" -- either evil or crazy.
Well, let's step back a little bit.
How good a model is cannot be determined without specifying purpose of this model. In particular, there is no universally-correct granularity -- some models track a lot of little details and effects, while others do not and aggregate all of them into a few measures or indicators. Both types can be useful depending on the purpose. In particular, a more granular model is not necessarily a better model.
This general principle applies here as well. Sometimes you do want to model a group of humans as a group of distinct humans, and sometimes you want to model a group of humans as a single entity.