Name: INFO2040X mod5座談会情報カスケードv1 (INFO2040X mod5 roundtable discussion information cascades v1)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T05:59:49.000Z
Duration: 8 min 10 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

OK, so we've been talking about information cascades,

現在進行形

and analyzing a model of cascades, where people are imitating

to 不定詞

each other because they're trying to take

into account what these other people know.

And we've seen a bunch of things about cascades,

They can actually be based on very little genuine information--

just a few people who do something-- and as a result,

A whole bunch of people doing things, and they're all wrong.

They could be overturned by the infusion of a little bit of extra information,

So a nice place to think about all of this

The argument roughly is that crowds are smarter than you would expect.

And that argument essentially goes that, as long

If you have a bunch of people making independent guesses about something,

But what happens with cascades is that that can easily get overturned.

Because if people are actually observing others' choices sequentially,

then as we've seen, the information gets covered up very fast.

And you only get information for a few choices.

So sometimes crowds can actually be surprisingly

Right, it's sort of like one of these things where, yeah.

In one interesting example to think about

You go around the table and you hear what

And everyone goes around, says what they think.

One aspect we didn't think about in a very simple model

Like should you put the most informed person

It's clear to see that the most informed person first, it's sort of tempting.

He knows the most, but he's the easiest to start

a cascade, because the next guy, being less informed, you're like,

So the order-- the cascade story tells us-- what order might be interesting.

It might be Interesting to put the people who are not so mal-informed

and get them to express their opinions first.

It's one of these funny things where it's really only once-- in fact,

actually once we started teaching cascades-- I

And I mean, anyone who's sat in the room,

and you've had a discussion going around the table,

and you're like, wow that was more unanimous than I thought, right?

And you start to appreciate that, maybe not, maybe people are like,

oh, well, I guess I had the other opinion,

but I guess everyone else must be right, and then they just agree.

One of the things you learn from this is that sometimes it's better to have some

mechanism [INAUDIBLE] that people have to express their opinion independently

--And then have a way to aggregate and have a discussion.

But that initial expression of what they believe

can be really useful, in ways that actually-- I

have to admit-- I'd never thought about either.

Even on simple things like these questions like,

we're all sitting here trying to figure out how high is Mount Everest, right.

There actually is a right answer-- it's about 29,000 feet high,

but the first two people go, I think it's about 18,000 feet.

And then suddenly, there were people in the room who

would have been much better, but they give in to the--

Whereas if everyone could have like-- it's a heavyweight mechanism--

that everyone could write down their guess.

You fold it up, and if you average, you could actually do really well.

Well that was the original Wisdom of Crowds argument.

If you had a bunch of independent guesses,

it actually surprisingly did turn out pretty well often.

It's just that sometimes it gets used in settings

where it actually at this point doesn't apply because of this cascade story.

So you see this in lots of settings, so this

is kind of a micro setting of people sitting around a table or people all

But then you see it like national politics, right?

So if we take the US presidential election system anyway,

so the party's nominating people and they have state

by state primaries that happen over time.

So it's sort of perfect for cascades, because the states move in order

and so this Iowan, this New Hampshiran, and some candidate

gets off to a good start, it's actually this kind of sequential cascade.

It's actually a great example because I'm like, go on around the table,

where we can choose to ask the most informed or least informed person.

The primary [INAUDIBLE] historical order in which they went, New Hampshire

is not particularly a big state, but yet it's going first.

So in a way, maybe it shouldn't be so influential.

It doesn't have so many votes at the final outcome.

But yet it's very influential because it's the first state to go.

Right, so it becomes this thing where if somebody is successful the first

And of course, the whole system conforms around it, so as a result,

candidates lavish a ton of attention on New Hampshire

字幕リスト動画再生

INFO2040X mod5座談会情報カスケードv1 (INFO2040X mod5 roundtable discussion information cascades v1)

sort

make

bunch

people