Phil 7.12.17

7:00 – 8:00 Research

  • Continuing C&C
    • The authors of this study therefore varied the degree of cohesion in the groups formed in their laboratory, whose task was to reach an agreement on the risks to be recommended to the fictitious persons of the questionnaire with which we are now very familiar. The results obtained were in conformity with expectations. It turned out that groups having less cohesion recommended daring options, and groups having more cohesion prudent ones. According to the former groups, the fictitious persons would jump at the chance of changing their job and lifestyle; according to the latter groups, they would be content with their present lot. At the same time it was discovered that groups conscious of their cohesion were little subject to tensions and contradictions; this means that their members showed more esteem for their group and desired more strongly to be together than did members of groups possessing less cohesion. They also declared that agreement was reached with their fellows in greater personal intimacy and in a more favourable atmosphere. These are indications that they have done everything to maintain harmony and minimize the differences between them by avoiding factors leading to discord. In short, as the long-standing theory of Festinger (1950) had predicted, cohesion increases the pressure to conform and leads to the search for a compromise in the group[p 73]
      • In reading this, I think that there may be a pattern where large, diverse groups split into progressively smaller, more cohesive groups, each on their own trajectory. An example of this could be the pattern of schism (and to a lesser degree union) in Christianity
    • Clearly, by favouring divergence, and then debate, through the heterogeneous nature of individuals, through their belonging to different professions, through the distance between individual positions, through a lesser cohesiveness in groups or increased trust among their members, consensus is polarized. Moreover, is it not characteristic of such a consensus for common choices not to be decided in advance by a majority rule or compromise, but discovered during adequate discussion? With this as a basis they are rooted in the collectivity as much as in individuals. This is why those who meet together have an interest in not resembling one another. And yet it is true that birds of a feather flock together. All our collective relationships hinge on this paradox. [p 76]
      • Is this a manifestation of explore/exploit? I think so.
    • Thus it is knowledge gleaned from several sources that fuels discussion among them. They are the cornerstones of a well-informed society, a collective organism that is endowed with the power of thought. But the organism shares out among individuals the task of selecting and exploiting the various kinds of knowledge, as well as the job of imparting meaning to words (Putnam, 1979). [p 76]
      • Looks like the authors may think this too
    • In half the groups all their members listened to the proofs in the same order; in the other half, each member listened to them set out in a special order that differed for each member. The first set of information was homogeneous, the second heterogeneous. Moreover, twelve juries listened to proofs that inculpated the accused, and the twelve others to proofs that exculpated him. According to the usual procedure, after listening in court to the facts presented, the jurors assessed separately the degree of guilt of the accused. Then, meeting together as a jury, they discussed the case before evaluating once more separately the degree of guilt. Here we are very close to a real life situation; hence the great significance of the findings.The following is what emerged: consultation together, yet again, led to more decisive verdicts. The difference was even more marked in the groups where each juror heard the proofs in a different order than in those which listened to them in the same order. In other words, when the task of cognition is divided up, the groups polarize more than when the task is uniform. One consequence among others is the following. It is often recommended that jurors should be selected from people whose social origins and intellectual training are as diverse as possible, that is, based on reality, in order to ensure fairer verdicts. The suspicion is that in this way they may be either more clement or more severe. In any case, the analysis of the discussions themselves showed that those jurors who had listened to the proofs presented in a different order mentioned a wider variety of facts than did the others, particularly towards the end of their discussion. [p 77]
      • This is near the core of the Precision and Recall Considered Harmful argument.

9:00 – 4:00 BRI

  • Working on getting all of my pieces working.
  • Got CrawlService running in IntelliJ!
  • Payload is coming in just fine using:
    "query": "Illinois&exactTerms=William Malik&orTerms=police arrest officer charge report",
    "requestId": "IntegrationTestWilliamMalik"
  • However, nothing is going to the MDS or NLP. It looks like no crawl is happening?
  • Found out why. Here’s the exception:
    org.springframework.beans.factory.BeanCreationException: Error creating bean with name 'crawler4jCrawlController' defined in class path resource [com/vistronix/crawlservice/config/CrawlerConfig.class]: 
    Bean instantiation via factory method failed; 
    nested exception is org.springframework.beans.BeanInstantiationException: 
    Failed to instantiate [edu.uci.ics.crawler4j.crawler.CrawlController]: 
    Factory method 'crawler4jCrawlController' threw exception; 
    nested exception is java.lang.Exception: couldn't create the storage folder: /data/crawl/1499883629556 does it already exist ?
  • Created /data/crawl folder with rwx permissions
  • Working on getting MDS working. Hbase is not the default, so the following args have to be added to the VM: -DdataStore.type=hbase -DdataStore.port=2181