Hijacked Decision Making

Tobacco and alcohol are substances that cause human beings to be excluded from the decision making process and cause unimaginable problems. It is because all inhibition encourages animal tendencies. Every action is the result of a conscious thought and represents a person as his basic form. A conscious mind can be defined as collective intelligence, which chooses a behavioral policy based on the benefits of the whole body. His choice is no longer his own choice when a person decides to take part in some change in the judgment of the control team, primarily drugs and alcohol.

Understanding the origin of this tension is easy. Decentralization of the decision making process means having a large number of influential decision makers or voters. Flexibility requires that a few people can not hijack the decision; this obviously requires most aggressive voters to focus on each decision to avoid this. Again, scalability means that you can make many decisions at each time interval. However, when most voters need to consider their decisions, the whole organization has a single agent's bandwidth, and worse than this, it has about the slowest bandwidth. This, of course, does not broaden or create many good decisions in a short period of time. This problem only reflects the natural limitation of collective attention bandwidth, resulting in inevitable tension between elasticity and scalability.

However, I believe that one of the causes ignored is due to most responsibilities. The market has restrained the decision of US companies (1). As emphasis is placed on the market (stock price) expectations rather than the actual market (relationship with products / services, customers and communities), companies are expected to focus on short-term, long-term sacrifice at the expense of reputation, ethics and long- You can make a decision to pursue profits. Approving the cost to reduce Bhopal 's security damage is only one of many such cases. However, the juxtaposition of this ethics and economic expectations has a fatal flaw - there are many examples of how ethical decisions can produce long-term economic success (eg Tylenol And Maple Leaf Foods reminds me). Queen's ethical approach is related to Ladler's donation and class poll shows that only a handful of people have heard about this case.

Suppose that A1 makes an incorrect decision on a small fraction of the possible inputs. This makes B1 false for larger inputs, but still larger. This makes A2 make a false determination for a few possible inputs. As a result, B2 makes an incorrect judgment on a small number of inputs. To work around this problem, let the active learning process pay attention to the A1 chaos input, even if the input is very sparse. In order to derive such inputs we determine the inputs of the A2 chaos due to the prediction error of A1 and perform B 1 on these inputs and then for the problematic inputs that occurred during the calculation It is necessary to query A 1. Improve hierarchy, such as