Robert J. Bradbury writes,
> Then when seating people in the room we have the left side of
> the room for the stupid people and the right side of the room
> for the non-stupid people.
No, no, no... If you put all the stupid people together, they'll elect a
leader and plot the conquest of the non-stupid people, while the
non-stupid people argue about how to succeed in a computer simulation.
Segregating them gives stupid people an unfair advantage.
> Of course some of the stupid people
> will end up on the right side of the room but we can sort that
> out with a show of hands and a relocation of the stupid people
> before the start of the conference proper.
Yes, quite obviously so, but some smart people, not wanting to be
conquered by the stupid people, will feign stupidity so that they can sit
with the stupid people.
> Now we instruct the panelists to be aware that questions coming
> from the left side of the room are the stupid questions and the
> questions from the right side of the room are the non-stupid
That assumes that any of the panelists will allow questions from the room.
M*rv*n M*nsky will make short shrift of that assumption. (No matter who
asks a question, the answer will be, "Give the microphone to someone who
can ask an intelligent question.")
> Then we "plant" a couple of stupids in the non-stupid side
> and a couple of non-stupids in the stupid side and see if
> the panelists can tell the difference...
Can we do the same experiment with the panelists?
(A stupid person made me ask that.)
Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT