Can Two People Know Less Than One?...

[Madelaine McMasters]

Tom Magliozzi, of National Public Radio's "Car Talk" died today. Tom and Ray (Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers)  made me smile every Saturday morning for 27 years.

One of my favorite shows included their reading of a particular listener letter. I've copied it below, as I think the philosophical question posed by Andy is so very relevant to conversations we have here in the Forums. I think we have, on more than one occasion, proved that the answer to Andy's question extends to arbitrary numbers of people...

Dear Click and Clack,

I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc.

Posit the question: Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Pardon the un-PC masculine pronoun, but I have found this to be, most predominately, a male phenomenon.)

In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less!

One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary.

I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest.

I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved.

Sincerely,
Andy R.

;-).

 

[jenniferanne Bonham]

yes  if  they have an alt lol

[Snugs McMasters]

---

jenniferanne Bonham wrote:

yes  if  they have an alt lol

---

Ahem.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

---

jenniferanne Bonham wrote:

yes  if  they have an alt lol

---

Ahem.

---

See!

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Certainly the forum has seen more than its fair share of people that are "unencumbered by the thought process"...

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

;-).

 

---

 

I like how you advanced the theorem. It's not just two, it's any number greater than one.

I think the first clue that a discussion is going to go that way (other than the fact it's happening here) is when someone says something obviously speculative and the next person says, "Well if that was true then....". Three posts later and we're spinning so far off center we're practically leaving orbit.

[Kenbro Utu]

Well, I for one, to avoid looking even less intelligent than I am, will always disagree with the majority from now on. 

[Aethelwine]

I like how you advanced the theorem. It's not just two, it's any number greater than one.

I think the first clue that a discussion is going to go that way (other than the fact it's happening here) is when someone says something obviously speculative and the next person says, "Well if that was true then....". Three posts later and we're spinning so far off center we're practically leaving orbit.

---

I do like the idea of forum chat powered spaceflight.

With modern technology and satellite access to the forums powering a Hans Pfall type space ship with hot air should be a doddle.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Certainly the forum has seen more than its fair share of people that are "unencumbered by the thought process"...

---

And I would be one of them!

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Certainly the forum has seen more than its fair share of people that are "unencumbered by the thought process"...

---

And I would be one of them!

---

Two.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

Well, I for one, to avoid looking even less intelligent than I am, will always disagree with the majority from now on. 

---

Wait a minute, I already do that. So you'd be agreeing with me. That defeats your purpose, doesn't it?

There's no escape, Kenbro!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

I like how you advanced the theorem. It's not just two, it's any number greater than one.

I think the first clue that a discussion is going to go that way (other than the fact it's happening here) is when someone says something obviously speculative and the next person says, "Well if that was true then....". Three posts later and we're spinning so far off center we're practically leaving orbit.

---

I do like the idea of forum chat powered spaceflight.

With modern technology and satellite access to the forums powering a Hans Pfall type space ship with hot air should be a doddle.

---

That works. We use hot air to rise high into the atmosphere, then use more of it to jump from there into space. Now we only have to work out a way to avoid the seemingly inevitable explosions.

[irihapeti]

(n * 0)  - (1 * 0) = -0

(n * 0)  + (1 * 0) = +0

+

so if a person who knows nothing joins a convo with others who know nothing then the level of know nothing is added to

if the person leaves the convo then the level of know nothing is subtracted

if is accumulated then if was 6 people in the convo then the last person left be like: -----0

also

if a person who knows nothing is joined by other know nothing person then the 1st person be like: +0 and the second person be like just 0

if 4 more people who know nothing join then the 1st person end up being way more know nothing than everybody else. like +++++0

(:

+

eta: basically you end up 5 times less dumb if you leave the convo. And 5 times more dumber if you stay in it. (:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

(n * 0)  - (1 * 0) = -0

(n * 0)  + (1 * 0) = +0

+

so if a person who knows nothing joins a convo with others who know nothing then the level of know nothing is added to

if the person leaves the convo then the level of know nothing is subtracted

if is accumulated then if was 6 people in the convo then the last person left be like: -----0

also

if a person who knows nothing is joined by other know nothing person then the 1st person be like: +0 and the second person be like just 0

if 4 more people who know nothing join then the 1st person end up being way more know nothing than everybody else. like +++++0

(:

+

eta: basically you end up 5 times less dumb if you leave the convo. And 5 times more dumber if you stay in it. (:

---

I think your reasoning is sound, but wonder why you ignored it.

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

(n * 0)  - (1 * 0) = -0

(n * 0)  + (1 * 0) = +0

+

so if a person who knows nothing joins a convo with others who know nothing then the level of know nothing is added to

if the person leaves the convo then the level of know nothing is subtracted

if is accumulated then if was 6 people in the convo then the last person left be like: -----0

also

if a person who knows nothing is joined by other know nothing person then the 1st person be like: +0 and the second person be like just 0

if 4 more people who know nothing join then the 1st person end up being way more know nothing than everybody else. like +++++0

(:

+

eta: basically you end up 5 times less dumb if you leave the convo. And 5 times more dumber if you stay in it. (:

---

I think your reasoning is sound, but wonder why you ignored it.

---

bc

the last person left is the winner

is better to win the dumbest person ever award than to come 2nd. Like nobody remembers who came 2nd except that person what did come 2nd. And like they never got any gold medal even when some other people might think they should of. Which is not good

except their Mum. Who remembers. Mum is always proud when their baby finishes anything. like even 2nd is better than not finish. Annnd they can know that there is actual someone actual dumber in the world than their baby (:

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

(n * 0)  - (1 * 0) = -0

(n * 0)  + (1 * 0) = +0

+

so if a person who knows nothing joins a convo with others who know nothing then the level of know nothing is added to

if the person leaves the convo then the level of know nothing is subtracted

if is accumulated then if was 6 people in the convo then the last person left be like: -----0

also

if a person who knows nothing is joined by other know nothing person then the 1st person be like: +0 and the second person be like just 0

if 4 more people who know nothing join then the 1st person end up being way more know nothing than everybody else. like +++++0

(:

+

eta: basically you end up 5 times less dumb if you leave the convo. And 5 times more dumber if you stay in it. (:

---

I think your reasoning is sound, but wonder why you ignored it.

---

bc

the last person left is the winner

is better to win the dumbest person ever award than to come 2nd. Like nobody remembers who came 2nd except that person what did come 2nd. And like they never got any gold medal even when some other people might think they should of. Which is not good

except their Mum. Who remembers. Mum is always proud when their baby finishes anything. like even 2nd is better than not finish. Annnd they can know that there is actual someone actual dumber in the world than their baby (:

 

---

Pistols at dawn?

Call your Mother. Tell her you'll be late to breakfast.

[irihapeti]

if I am going to be late for breakfast then either I won. Or I came second and you missed (:

+

seriously tho just for the sake of argument

the counter argument to this is that when 2 or more people discuss a topic which they know little or nothing about is:

the level of noise in the convo goes up. Speculation, imagination, misinformation, dislocation, etc. Which leads to confusion. The participants end up confused which leads some to believe that they now know even less than when they started

when what has happened is that they are now more aware that they know nothing about the topic. So the feeling that they are dumber than when they first joined in. Something their prior veil of ignorance shielded them from knowing

+

like I am no dumber than when I joined the convo. I just now know better the depth level of my dumbness on this topic. Something I didnt know before

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

seriously tho

---

[irihapeti]

what this guy says is I think pretty correct

the sum of ignorance (that which we dont know) is greater than what we do know. That as we get older this becomes more apparent/known to us

+

toward the end he start talk about how the previous edu approach of knowledge equating to the memorisation/accumulation of fact is probably not the way to go forward. He explain about fact databanks. How much stuff they have stored in them these days. (Google etc). And how he thinks that the sciences would be better served going forward if science edu at the higher levels focus more on querying

his example of how this can be applied in high-level edu:

here is the answer (the facts)
what is the next question?

is a pretty good approach I think

[Perrie Juran]

---

irihapeti wrote:

what this guy says is I think pretty correct

the sum of ignorance (that which we dont know) is greater than what we do know. That as we get older this becomes more apparent/known to us

+

toward the end he start talk about how the previous edu approach of knowledge equating to the memorisation/accumulation of fact is probably not the way to go forward. He explain about fact databanks. How much stuff they have stored in them these days. (Google etc). And how he thinks that the sciences would be better served going forward if science edu at the higher levels focus more on querying

his example of how this can be applied in high-level edu:

here is the answer (the facts)

what is the next question?

is a pretty good approach I think

---

When I arrive at the hospital for surgery I'd rather the Dr already knew what he was doing than looking it up as he cut.

[irihapeti]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

what this guy says is I think pretty correct

the sum of ignorance (that which we dont know) is greater than what we do know. That as we get older this becomes more apparent/known to us

+

toward the end he start talk about how the previous edu approach of knowledge equating to the memorisation/accumulation of fact is probably not the way to go forward. He explain about fact databanks. How much stuff they have stored in them these days. (Google etc). And how he thinks that the sciences would be better served going forward if science edu at the higher levels focus more on querying

his example of how this can be applied in high-level edu:

here is the answer (the facts)

what is the next question?

is a pretty good approach I think

---

When I arrive at the hospital for surgery I'd rather the Dr already knew what he was doing than looking it up as he cut.

---

yes lol (:

the guy is a research professor so I should have mentioned the research part

[CheriColette]

Do you  have a list of the good TED talks Maddie, for quick reference  

 

 

[CheriColette]

'....especially if there is no cat'.   Maybe a reference to Schrodinger's Cat! 

[Perrie Juran]

 

 

(semi-related)

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

CheriColette wrote:

Do you  have a list of the good TED talks Maddie, for quick reference  

 

---

I'm afraid I don't Cheri. I try to watch one TED talk a day, though I've been falling behind lately. I'd like to say they're all good, but there are a few stinkers.

TED Radio Hour combs through talks on a particular topic, then interviews the presenters and/or comingles snippets of their talks with exposition by the radio show's host, Guy Raz. It's a great program and doesn't require your eyes (not that most TED talks do, I sometimes only listen to them). And I'll also recommend Radio Lab, another wonderful program that digs into various topics in a way thats highly entertaining. I've always liked Robert Krulwich, but I've now got a crush on him and his co-host Jad Abumrad.

Celestiall Nightfire (like me) is a fan of Ira Flato's Science Friday, and hosts a group listen every Friday afternoon. Watch for her announcements here in the forum. She also does BBC's The Naked Scientists.

And finally, if you love storytelling, I recommend This American Life (I've a crush on Ira Glass, too), The Moth and Snap Judgment. I've attended a dozen or so Moth "Story Slams" in Milwaukee over the years. They're terrific. One of these days I'll get up my courage, walk on stage and tell a story. The forum is sometimes my practice ground.

I recommend Krista Tippet's On Being for when you're waxing philosophical and I'll throw in On The Media for good measure. I've got a crush on Krista and on OTM's Brooke Gladstone. My first Radio voice crush was Susan Stamberg when I was a kid.

And finally, for a good laugh, I recomment Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me! and Car Talk (which has been in reruns for two years, one of the hosts died this week).

As you can see, I'm a National Public Radio junkie. We were both born in 1970 and have been inseparable ever since. Our home and car radios were always tuned to Milwaukee's WUWM (run by the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee) or WHA (run by UW-Madison). I've since added WMSE (run by Milwaukee School of Engineering) to my dial. Every memory button on my car radio points to a public station somewhere, as do all the buttons on every rental car I've ever returned, unless it's got Sirius. In that case, I program the even memory slots with public radio and the odd ones with "Music from the 1940s".

;-).