This would be a 2-tone bell tower that rings every 20 or 60 minutes with a high bell when the markets go up and a low bell when the markets go down. While the sequence of the bells could vary from place to place, I'd suggest going like this where I'm from:
US -> {DJIA, NASDAQ, S&P 500}
UK -> {FTSE 100, FTSE 250, TECHMARK}
EUROPE -> {CAC40, DAX, SSMI, IBEX}
ASIA -> {NIKKEI, H SENG}
The goal would be to get people to work harder when they hear those low bells so they can start hearing high bells again :)-- quantum_flux, Oct 10 2008 The Lutine Bell at Lloyd's http://en.wikipedia...79)#The_Lutine_BellRung once for the loss of a ship (i.e. bad news), and twice for her return (i.e. good news). [csea, Oct 12 2008] The Group Bandwagon Theory http://irrationalth...ndwagon-theory.html [quantum_flux, Oct 17 2008] We've been working our asses off for a decade now.-- normzone, Oct 11 2008 It's good to hear you're taking pride in your work Normzone. Good example!-- quantum_flux, Oct 11 2008 It might need more than two bells in order to ring out a funeral peal.-- wagster, Oct 11 2008 We're all anticipating the end.-- Ian Tindale, Oct 11 2008 Actually, some of us are anticipating the beginning.-- silverstormer, Oct 11 2008 The chances of the end happening today are 1.0 in 100 trillion trillion! You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning and then being sucked into a black hole and surviving than the end coming today (1.1 in 100 trillion trillion)!-- quantum_flux, Oct 11 2008 So you're saying we won't reach our own bell end?-- Ian Tindale, Oct 12 2008 "Ding dong, the witch is dead......"-- 8th of 7, Oct 12 2008 Historical precedent at [link].-- csea, Oct 12 2008 As long as intelligent life exists, so will an agreed upon value system.-- quantum_flux, Oct 12 2008 //As long as intelligent life exists...// Then the definition of intelligent life is pretty important in this instance. Are we close yet?-- silverstormer, Oct 14 2008 All life is a form of intelligence. In some cases the intelligence is the entire cooperative system (a school of fish or a colony of ants) while in other cases the intelligence is the individuals within the system. However, I define the boundary between intelligences as being wherever cooperation ends and competition begins.
That being said, a whole bunch of individual intelligences is better than a single giant centralized intelligence. This is because diversity is a commodity that has an intrinsic value to it, namely survival. Ergo, many smaller corporation intelligences competing against one another (capitalism) is better than one giant centralized corporation forcing individual intelligences to cooperate with each other (communism).-- quantum_flux, Oct 14 2008 Is that actually true? That a collection of individual intelligences are 'better' than a single big centralised intelligence? If diversity actually doesn't play a part, then is that true? The way you said it, it sounds plausible at first, but is that actually the case?-- Ian Tindale, Oct 15 2008 If it yelled out the current price instead of ringing, it would be a Stock Market Bellower.-- phundug, Oct 15 2008 [Ian T...] Google "The Wisdom of Crowds..." by James Surowiecki, referenced in Steven Levitt, et al, "Freakonomics".
As to the idea: Ask not...It tolls for thee.-- 4whom, Oct 15 2008 <Christopher Walken on SNL> We need more cowbell, I'm loving the cowbell. <\cwos>-- 4whom, Oct 15 2008 4whom, - but would that theory apply to hymenoptera? Why would some of possibly the most advanced insect groups have adopted a complex social structure and eschewed genetic diversity and individuality? (admittedly other advanced insect groups have a more individualistic lifestyle - eg, the beetles.)
4whom, - SNL?-- Ian Tindale, Oct 15 2008 Saturday Night Live, a long-running US comedy show.-- jutta, Oct 15 2008 Oh. What's the cowbell reference do?-- Ian Tindale, Oct 15 2008 The skit was about a breakout band recording a great song. One of the members was banging (with vigour) on a cowbell, to the dismay of the other band members, and to the deemed detriment of the track. The producer (Christopher Walken) interupts the recording, to the relief of the other band members. And says " More Cowbell", or words to that effect. Hilarity ensues...
I suppose the point being "Bears" like a downturn, "Bulls" like an upturn. Some people are bears, some are bulls.-- 4whom, Oct 15 2008 And from the "Dumb Agent Theory", also James Surowiecki,
from wiki //While first mentioned strictly by name in relation to PAM in 2003, the Dumb Agent Theory was originally conceived (as the Dumb Smart Market) by James Surowiecki in 1999[3]. Here, Surowiecki differentiated from the EMH stating that it "doesn't mean that markets are always right." Instead, he argues that markets are subject to manias and panics because "people are always shouting out" their stock picks. This, in turn, results in other investors worrying about these picks and become influenced by them, which ultimately drives the markets (irrationally) up or down. His argument states that if market decisions were made independently of each other, and with the sole goal of being correct (as opposed to being in line with what others are choosing), then the markets would produce the best choice possible//
The possibility of profiting by shorting markets, and losing going long, and visa versa, implies that individual judgements will be influenced, and affect the individuals decision.
//4whom, - but would that theory apply to hymenoptera? Why would some of possibly the most advanced insect groups have adopted a complex social structure and eschewed genetic diversity and individuality? (admittedly other advanced insect groups have a more individualistic lifestyle - eg, the beetles.)//
[Ian T...] Darwinian evolution places emphasis on the environment, and individual traits that are favoured within an environment. Little emphasis is placed on the environment being ever-changing, most often as a result of the success of the vector of change. Most models (dinosaur extinction) rely on cataclysmic events. It is more likely that dinosaurs shorted a long market. It is likely that today's successfuls have predicted the market accurately. Possibly the acceptance of group wisdom, and consequent eschewance of individuality, given the impact of the group on the local environ, is the predominant factor in the grasshopper/locust success model.
Put bluntly, in a fight between you (the group) and the environment, genetic diversity, and individuality, will adapt to the environment. When your adaptions affect the environment (i.e it is you (the group) against the environment, as changed by you (the group)), it is best to include you (the group) in your impact study.-- 4whom, Oct 15 2008 Sorry, I mixed up my Orthoptera with Hymenoptera. Got some double-winged definition roaming in my head.
Still, I would say that an evolutionary response that includes the group effect on an environment is not off the cards. And might well explain why some individuals decided not "to go it alone".-- 4whom, Oct 15 2008 Hymenoptera have an interesting quirk in their genetic makeup, called Haplodiploidy, that sisters share 3/4 of their genes. This means that females can pass on more of their genes by helping their mothers breed than by breeding themselves. Hence an army of sisters supplying their mother with food to help her breed them more sisters. Since they are all trying to do exactly the same thing, they have no reason not to cooperate with each other.-- Bad Jim, Oct 15 2008 //Since they are all trying to do exactly the same thing, they have no reason not to cooperate with each other.// Only if you supercede the needs of the individual for those of the group, and presume if the group wins the individuals win. Else it becomes highly competitive for the individuals.
Kin selection, although deemed by Darwin to be "fatal to my theory", is quite a good example of group wisdom, or certainly, the evolutionary realisation that the group knows better than the individual, in the long run.-- 4whom, Oct 16 2008 The human being is a group of all different bodily organs and cell tissues all working together in an orchastrated fashion to survive. A society is a group of humans working together to survive. There are no individuals in a society though, as much as there are no renagade organs in a human. However, there are sometimes individual rebels in society that break from the norm and estabolish a following (the famous "Who's with me?" quip). Those radicalists are often percieved as a threat until they have sufficiently large numbers, at which point they become competitors instead. If they are peaceful radicalists, then they can coexist, but if they are violent radicalists then one side or both sides are going down.
Examples: Cancer is a renegade species of cells that takes over the body if not first taken out by violent means. Viruses cause renegade cells but the body ultimately fends them off via the immune system, some viruses and micro-organisms are harmless or even present a genetic advantage and so can coexist in a group.-- quantum_flux, Oct 16 2008 //Since they are all trying to do exactly the same thing, they have no reason not to cooperate with each other.// Only if you supercede the needs of the individual for those of the group//
What you are forgetting is that the hive is basically one big family. An individual may benefit herself in the short run by ignoring the hive and breeding herself, but she would be punished in the long run because all her daughters would themselves desert her.-- Bad Jim, Oct 16 2008 //the evolutionary realisation that the group knows better than the individual, in the long run.// Depends on how you define "the long run" doesn't it? Your point presumes that the current reality is the desired or optimum end point. I'm no expert (so I am happy to be corrected on this) but a quick bit of interweb research tells me that, in terms of individual creatures, ants may account for up to 50% of all insects and possibly upto 20% of the total biomass (that seems a particularly dubious figure I must say). So, although I am happy to concede that these figures may have doubtful provenance, it doesn't suggest to me that the "one big intelligence" group are at an evolutionary dead end just yet. Also, applying evolutionary concepts to a "company", something which is just a western, legalistic concept, seems like a doubtful approach to me. In fact, when you think about it, aren't companies more an embodiment of the "hive mind" concept and the market an embodiment of competition between hive minds? With individuals relegated to either working for the benefit of a company or (the self-employed, consultants etc) living off of the scraps of the larger entities? Just a thought!-- DrBob, Oct 17 2008 My original concept was to described the ills of individuals knowing all the information. And that a better decision could be reached with less *global* information, not suggesting that the information was not available, just that others' reaction/exposure to it was not.
This is a normal distribution graph. Some wankers will be completely wrong, some will be spot on (or within MMSE/ square-free error), but the most will be inneringly accurate (within given margin of error), further given certain constraints, of which too much information is one.
I was lead into a debate as to whether this could be applied to other philosophies. Of course it could! Successfully, or not, let us persue it.
I am not saying, there is a choice between "Hive mind" (one intelligence) and " Group Intelligence" (many intelligences as one). I am saying they are the same thing garnered from different perspectives. No-one is denying that "hive-mind" is collectively good. I would just like to contest its roots.
The result being the same: we could have a group adopting similar principles, or the principles determined by a selection of successfull individuals,who become related by that adoption. Either way the princple becomes adopted and has a similar (indisguishable) end result.
Perhaps evolution concentates too much on the individuals' success, and not so much on the success of the system. Which changes the system. Which happens to be ever changing.-- 4whom, Oct 19 2008 // No-one is denying that "hive-mind" is collectively good. //
We are glad that you said that, because otherwise, we'd have to kill you.
On second thoughts, we're going to kill you anyway, just to be on the safe side.
Perhaps you should consider Scott Adam's voting paradox.
"Take a representative sample of the population. Screen them for intelligence. Present them all with a political question and ask them to vote."
1. The dumb people and the smart people vote differently. Conclusion: "Intelligence has a significant impact on voting preference"
2. The dumb people and the smart people vote the same. Conclusion: "Intelligence has no significant impact on voting preference."
Either way, it's scary .....-- 8th of 7, Oct 19 2008 You fucking 'borgs always forget the Third law...
And Baye's Theorem tells us that you're being a complete *a posteri*.-- 4whom, Oct 19 2008 Everybody who has a personal agenda is a borg and everybody who doesn't have a personal agenda is an egoless zombie who can be controlled by a borg or group of borgs. If you think otherwise then you are probably controlled by a borg already.-- quantum_flux, Oct 19 2008 halfbakery