{"id":444,"date":"2008-11-17T10:39:36","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:39:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/11\/17\/order-from-chaos\/"},"modified":"2008-11-17T10:39:36","modified_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:39:36","slug":"order-from-chaos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/11\/17\/order-from-chaos\/","title":{"rendered":"Order from chaos"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"chaos\" by <\/em><\/span>· YeahjaleaH ·<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>
\nGifted few make order out of chaos – 06 March 2002 – New Scientist<\/a>:
\n[Via New Scientist<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Some people have a special gift for predicting the twists and turns of chaotic systems like the weather and perhaps even financial markets, according to an Australian psychologist.<\/p>\n

Richard Heath, who has now moved to the UK’s University of Sunderland tried to identify people who can do this by showing volunteers a list of eight numbers and asking them to predict the next four. The volunteers were told that the numbers were maximum temperatures for the previous eight days. In fact the numbers were computer-generated: some sets were part of a chaotic series while the rest were random.<\/p>\n

Random sequences are by their nature unpredictable, whereas chaotic sequences follow specific rules. Despite this, chaotic sequences are very hard to predict in practice because of the “butterfly effect” – even an unmeasurably small change in initial conditions can have a dramatic impact on their future state.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, Heath found that a quarter of the people he tested could predict the temperature for at least the next two days if the sequence was chaotic, rather than random, even though there is no obvious pattern to the figures.
\n[More<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The above link is a 6 year old article from New Scientist. It is about one of my favorite papers: <\/em>Can People Predict Chaotic Sequences?<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

My <\/em>post on Friday<\/a><\/em> about entrepreneurs and their ability to make decisions under stress reminded me of it. Heath’s paper was a small study but I was intrigued by the possibility that a fraction of the population, about 25%, might be capable of seeing a pattern in information that the rest of the population sees only as random noise.<\/p>\n

In situations where conditions change rapidly, where there is no stasis but the need to make useful decisions is paramount, being able to see underlying patterns, even very complex ones, would seem to be a real boon.<\/p>\n

I wonder how a group of entrepreneurs would do with his tests? <\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Technorati Tags: Science<\/a>, Social media<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by · YeahjaleaH · Gifted few make order out of chaos – 06 March 2002 – New Scientist: [Via New Scientist] Some people have a special gift for predicting the twists and turns of chaotic systems like the weather and perhaps even financial markets, according to an Australian psychologist. Richard Heath, who has now moved … Continue reading Order from chaos<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[10,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-knowledge-creation","category-science"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pe2yp-7a","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":555,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2009\/06\/16\/communicating-science\/","url_meta":{"origin":444,"position":0},"title":"Communicating science","date":"June 16, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"by hiddedevries A Climate (Communication) Crisis?: [Via Dot Earth] If experts change how they describe global warming, will people wake up? [More] Interesting points but trying to be more emotional and dramatic is not very effective when facts are trying to be exchanged. There has been a lot of research\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Knowledge Creation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/06\/microphone.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":89,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/05\/discussing-science-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":444,"position":1},"title":"Discussing Science 2.0","date":"April 5, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by geishaboy500 Web 2.0 for Biologists-Are any of the current tools worth using?: [Via Bench Marks] David Crotty has been leading a discussion regarding the acceptance of Science 2.0 by scientists. Or rather the non-acceptance. It is ironic to use Web 2.0 approaches to examine why scientists do not use\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/04\/tools.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":481,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2009\/01\/22\/small-is-better\/","url_meta":{"origin":444,"position":2},"title":"Small is better","date":"January 22, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"The right (or wrong) size for a committee: less than 20 but not equal to 8: [Via Effect Measure] New Scientist reporter Mark Buchanan has a fascinating article this week on \"the curse of work.\" The title might be the least satisfactory thing about this examination of a new mathematical\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Web 2.0"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":379,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/09\/23\/as-always\/","url_meta":{"origin":444,"position":3},"title":"As always","date":"September 23, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by tanakawho Digital intimacy: [Via Bench Marks] Recently, the NY Times had an article discussing the concept of \u201cambient awareness\u201d, or as the article puts it, \u201cincessant online contact\u201d. Now, first off, I have to admit that I\u2019m one of the over-30-year-olds the article mentions, who finds the concept of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":57,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/03\/15\/open-presenting\/","url_meta":{"origin":444,"position":4},"title":"Open Presenting","date":"March 15, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by belgianchocolate Publishing On OpenWetWare - Lessons Learned 4 - Presenting:Python [Via Programmable Cells] This is the fifth report of the \u2018Publishing on OpenWetWare\u2019 series. In brief, I am writing an article on OWW from start to finish: initial writing -> collecting comments -> publishing on arXiv.org -> presenting at\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open Access"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/03\/python.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":188,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/05\/20\/social-media-sites-for-scientists\/","url_meta":{"origin":444,"position":5},"title":"Social media sites for scientists","date":"May 20, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"myScience: \u201csocial software\u201d for scientists: [Via O'Really? at Duncan.Hull.name] With apologies to Jonathan Swift: \u201cGreat sites have little sites upon their back to bite \u2018em And little sites have lesser sites, and so ad infinitum\u2026\u201d So what happened was, Carole Goble asked on the myExperiment mailing list, \u201cis there a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Knowledge Creation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/farm1.static.flickr.com\/192\/512341455_0493eeb389_m.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}