Has Thailand ever enjoyed democracy? Is there an accepted definition or benchmark for a political system to be crowned ‘democracy’? It’s made a big show of electoral politics at various times since 1932 in its transition from absolute monarchy to some other system. Recent events indicate that the masses have picked up a taste for electoral politics, installing governments that at least make a good show of doing something for them. The victory of People’s Power confirms this trend which began with Thai Rak Thai’s first victory. The new reality is electoral politics, parties that want to win need to come up with simple policies touching voters hearts, minds and wallets, in place of the usual empty slogans and meaningless waffle. Notably during the last election every party parroted Thai Rak Thai policies, yet despite personalities and patron-client ties, People’s Power still swept the board because of its association with the track record of Thai Rak Thai. Perhaps in future elections parties will invest in developing manifestos to set them apart from the pack, grab voters’ imaginations and make-up for any shortcomings in their track record. But is this evolution at a point where it has become democracy? In the absence of justice, fairness, probity, law and order, can there be democracy in Thailand, or any country practising electoral politics?
[…] Srithanonchai wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by SrithanonchaiHere’s a quick excerptThey indirectly elect a group (the Thai cabinet has, I think, 36 members, just short of the ideal number of 40) of experts (politicians, well, political experts anyway) to make the decisions for them. Selecting a single doctor and … […]
Here is an interesting column from Matichon newspaper (February 2). It claims that the Thai way of thought is characterized by ba triangle consisting of Buddhism, agriculture, and sufficiency economy.
“40 is a pretty big number of people to consult when you think about it.” Maybe, this is the reason why modern society doesn’t work according to this theory? We do have to make decisions under uncertainty all the time, but we also act under time constraints. Anyway, we do have consultative meetings in organizations to diversify the decision-making process (in Thailand: to make responsibility disappear), though Thai Airways would not invite 40 people picked up from the street to decide about its business plan (not that this would make the airline’s work that much worse). Who would be held accountable if something went wrong?
I am not so sure whether a chef will buy into the motor skill thing; rather he will insist that his work is all about judgement (about the selection of ingredients, their composition in a dish, the appropriate cooking approach, etc.).
Burst appendix: When she was a young girl, my mom (now 79) was saved at the last minute because a doctor diagnosed her problem correctly (and probably her lay parents had an idea what pain in that area of the body meant), and immediately operated on her, even without the usual preparation of the patient. On the other hand, parents and relatives (not numbering 40, though) of a girl in Ayuttyaha province misdiagnosed this sort of pain. They thought that a spirit had possesed that girl and brought it to a spirit healer. It was my farang colleague who saved her life by pushing the parents to send the girl to the hospital and have the doctor remove her appendix.
Finally, even voters do not normally decide about decisions, but about decision makers. They indirectly elect a group (the Thai cabinet has, I think, 36 members, just short of the ideal number of 40) of experts (politicians, well, political experts anyway) to make the decisions for them. Selecting a single doctor and electing a single politician might not be that different. If they don’t perform, one can select another doctor and elect another politician (at least in theory).
BTW, Habermas and others thought that modern society should and could be governed by a domination-free discourse. They thought that if such a discourse could be established, the decisions coming out of it would invariably be better than those emanating from structures dominated by power relationships. However, this suggestion has not been selected by society either, probably because it is unrealistic and impractical.
I disagree with this affirmation of’ “back to square one”.
Thanong Khanthong just refers to the fact superficially in his conclusion.
Actually things have changed in a subtle way. I would say that despite the coup Thailand is strengthening its democracy: would-be coup makers have to abide by some democratic rules from now on or if they would not they would suffer from a sure backlash.
Besides like often said on this blog we are watching the rise of the “low-so” people: Bangkok welathy and wel-thinking gentry won’t have the lead for ever. There is a shift of power.
All in all it’s not back to square one. Maybe square one plus one fifth of a square (not much more, because those damned makers have given a hard time to the Thai Economy and freedom of speech in Thailand).
Who made vorapat the spokesperson for all Thais? How arrogant. Do read something, anything on this long, long debate before making your silly comments. Did you notice the 268 posts before your comment. Did you think about them before beating on the keyboard? And, did you read the book, which is available at many websites in Thai?
Grasshopper: “What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else?” — I think its part & parcel of the package (i.e. normal) that some may be able to hog the airwaves more than others (sort of like what I’m doing right now on NM 🙂 ), but I think the crowd is able to discern it. Otherwise we’d all use the same brand of shampoo!
I don’t think that whatever is popular is necessarily good, but I make that judgement from an individual perspective, based on my own moral compass which may or may not be the same as others’. I have the right to tell others that I believe whatever is popular is grotesque (Paris Hilton, Britney Spiers etc) but that does not necessarily mean I’m the right one and everyone else is wrong. There are universal truths (1+1 =2, perhaps even E=MC2) and there are opinions (Paris is grotesque).
Ladyboy the ‘Strong Form’ of EMH requires that information is instantaneously known by market participants (no ‘insider’ info). Everybody is equally informed of ‘known’ information and at the same time they are equally ‘ignorant’ of ‘unknown’ information. You probably know that most research confirms that no one consistently beats the market (its the old passive versus active investor debate, with the evidence overwhelmingly supporting passive investment…but, its like golf: we all know we can’t hit the perfect round (18 hole-in-ones) but that does not stop many of us from going out there trying.
Srithanonchai: It can be quite counterintuitive, but I trust in the law of large numbers. I believe that if you convene the group of 40 (the group just has to be diverse and genuinely interested in solving your problem, not necessarily composed of any particular combination of experts or non experts) and do it enough times, then on average you WILL get a better result (less instance of misdiagnosis) than if you consulted single experts the same number of times. I was once misdiagnosed by a doctor and it nearly cost me my life (doctor thought I had something else when I actually had a burst appendix, and sent me back to school. I probably would have been better off consulting 40 people – because I probably would have been made aware after consulting with the 40 concerned people that what I had was most likely a burst appendix, and went to hospital!). 40 is a pretty big number of people to consult when you think about it. You get the benefit of a large pool of tacit knowledge embedded in these people. Anyway, I think many of the experiments I cited earlier (cow weight guessing, jelly beans) speak for themselves. They weren’t flukes. They are very consistent. If you conducted the same experiment you will likely get the same results as well. Its just one of those freaky things.
As to your suggestions re chefs and da Vinci, I think we have to distinguish between ‘judgement’ and ‘skill’. The theory deals with ‘judgement’ rather than ‘skill’. Judgement, or as the title of Surowiecki’s book suggests, ‘wisdom’ is very different from the ability to cook a dish, paint a painting, kick a freekick, sing a song or play the guitar. Judgement or wisdom is about making the right decision under uncertainty. Skill is more a motor function, a physical talent. When we talk about elections, we are talking about judgement – not motor skill – of individuals?
I do not disagree with your 3rd paragraph, nor do I disagree with your 4th, although having other tenets and conditions does not dilute the importance of the one I described.
[…] Grasshopper wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by GrasshopperHere’s a quick excerptTaxi Driver, as you implied, your example is hinged on everyone in the crowd thinking for themselves and not listening to the good doctor that Srithanonchai prefers. What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone … […]
Jon: Indeed, Thailand’s provincial politics are in urgent need of both public spheres and local mass media. As things stand now, you have these politics dominated by informal and secretive groups, with no media reporting on the visible part of their actions, e.g. as office holders in local government authorities.
You might have a municipal mayor who signed a huge public works project and received a luxurious western-style house of several dozens of millions of baht in return. No local print media, community radio station, or local cable TV will dare touching this issue. After all, staff there is not suicidal.
Even if this piece of information is available to a number of people via informal talks, this does not mean that the conclusions are the same, and neither are the consequences regarding electoral decisions. A person close to the political group the mayor belongs to might accept that this house was not acquired from the mayor’s own honestly earned money (because he has only his income as mayor, no other businesses). However, he might see this as “commission” and say that paying such commissions is normal in every quarter. Of course, he would continue voting in elections for members of this group.
Another person, on the other hand, might have long been against that same group, based on his principles and observed behavior. To him, the mayor’s house is yet another example of blatant corruption committed by members of this group. Therefore, his position will be reinforced, and he will never vote for any member of this group in any election.
Thus, it is not only information that is important. Rather, we have to pay attention to the processing of such information, as based on individual and group-related perceptional frames of reference.
[P.S.: As far as I am concerned, posting comments is still a 4-5 step procedure.]
Taxi Driver, as you implied, your example is hinged on everyone in the crowd thinking for themselves and not listening to the good doctor that Srithanonchai prefers. What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else? It begins to rely on a group having an antagonistic actor to counterbalance arguments. Antagonists are only favoured by other antagonists. When there are too many antagonists and protagonists you get a war, not necessarily a friendly summation on New Mandala or after drinks at ye olde pubbe.
It is always the same, there is order and chaos – democracy is better able to keep hold of order through populism because democracy can adapt to whatever is popular. Do you think that whatever is popular is good? At the moment, where I am, rampant hedonism is most popular. Sometimes (actually all of the time) it reflects poorly on my morals. I’d be interested to know how Taxi Driver can morally justify populism to this level. Would you hope that Thailand gets to experience the same hedonistic orientated development we have here in Australia? If not, seeing as you have righteously argued for the wisdom of crowds, what would the argument be to reconcile democracy without populism?
The Efficient Market Principle is based on the market BEING INFORMED of all financial information and hence correct share pricing decisions being made.
Anyway we don’t need the wisdom of crowds or experts these days to make decisions. We have so much data to go on that can be used as the basis for decision making. I don’t go to a quack anymore when a computer diagnosis is available. Forget the next election – no more votebuying and thaksin problems. A bit of number crunching and the best candidate selected by computer.
To Taxi Driver: Well, since modern society is characterized by a very high degree of division of labor and professionalization, there does not seem to be any much room left for crowd decisions. And, yes, I sometimes look for second opinions, but only from other specialists in that field (after all, experts have different levels of expertise, experience, etc.). If my bronchitis is not cured by one doctor, I would not convene a group of 40 people without any medical knowledge to give me a second opinion. (From your description, I understood that the decision-making crowd is supposed to be composed of non-experts in the problems to be decided upon. Is this correct?)
As for the social sciences, I doubt that one should leave the decision about whether a research result is correct or not, or whether a theory is useful or not, to non-social scientists to decide. I won’t even dare being part of crowd that would suggest to a well-known chef how to prepare his dishes. I’d rather trust his judgement and enjoy the meal. I also doubt that Leonardo would have painted a better Mona Lisa with the help of a group of dilettants.
As for the role of the individual vs. groups, I would rather dissolve the crowd aspect into (1) decentralization (having more than just one research group, university, company, etc., i.e. similar to Hayek and the “invisible hand” of the market), (2) temporalization (the development of good solutions is a learning process that takes time, since decisions are always imperfect and open to new discoveries), and (3) communication (decisions are openly discussed, again, over time, amongst the experts in their respective fields, enabling them to learn from mistakes). This latter aspect also includes teamwork approaches.
As for democracy, there are probably some more tenets and conditions.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej
Has Thailand ever enjoyed democracy? Is there an accepted definition or benchmark for a political system to be crowned ‘democracy’? It’s made a big show of electoral politics at various times since 1932 in its transition from absolute monarchy to some other system. Recent events indicate that the masses have picked up a taste for electoral politics, installing governments that at least make a good show of doing something for them. The victory of People’s Power confirms this trend which began with Thai Rak Thai’s first victory. The new reality is electoral politics, parties that want to win need to come up with simple policies touching voters hearts, minds and wallets, in place of the usual empty slogans and meaningless waffle. Notably during the last election every party parroted Thai Rak Thai policies, yet despite personalities and patron-client ties, People’s Power still swept the board because of its association with the track record of Thai Rak Thai. Perhaps in future elections parties will invest in developing manifestos to set them apart from the pack, grab voters’ imaginations and make-up for any shortcomings in their track record. But is this evolution at a point where it has become democracy? In the absence of justice, fairness, probity, law and order, can there be democracy in Thailand, or any country practising electoral politics?
Power, violence, politics and truth
[…] Srithanonchai wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by SrithanonchaiHere’s a quick excerptThey indirectly elect a group (the Thai cabinet has, I think, 36 members, just short of the ideal number of 40) of experts (politicians, well, political experts anyway) to make the decisions for them. Selecting a single doctor and … […]
Power, violence, politics and truth
[…] compassioninpolitics wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
Power, violence, politics and truth
[…] compassioninpolitics wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
Guns and other weapons at a Manau festival
[…] Long-time readers may recall that I have previously written about a Manau festival here (and here and […]
Royal misrepresentation of rural livelihoods
Here is an interesting column from Matichon newspaper (February 2). It claims that the Thai way of thought is characterized by ba triangle consisting of Buddhism, agriculture, and sufficiency economy.
р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Й р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в
р╕Др╕нр╕ер╕▒р╕бр╕Щр╣М р╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕зр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╣М
р╣Вр╕Фр╕в р╕Ир╕╕р╕бр╕Юр╕е р╕Юр╕╣р╕ер╕ар╕▒р╕Чр╕гр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Щ р╣Бр╕Ьр╕Щр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╕р╕Вр╕ар╕▓р╕Ю р╕бр╕╣р╕ер╕Щр╕┤р╕Шр╕┤р╕кр╕Фр╕ир╕гр╕╡-р╕кр╕др╕йр╕Фр╕┤р╣Мр╕зр╕Зр╕ир╣М р╕кр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕Щр╕╕р╕Щр╣Вр╕Фр╕в р╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╕р╕Щр╕кр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕Щр╕╕р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕кр╕гр╕┤р╕бр╕кр╕╕р╕Вр╕ар╕▓р╕Ю (р╕кр╕кр╕к.)
р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╣Вр╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕кр╕Чр╕│р╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕З “р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в” р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕бр╕╡ р╕Ьр╕и.р╕Фр╕г.р╕кр╕╕р╕гр╕ар╕╡ р╕гр╕╕р╣Вр╕Ир╕Ыр╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕в р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕бр╕╡р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Кр╣Ир╕зр╕вр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕ер╕╣р╕Бр╕ир╕┤р╕йр╕вр╣Мр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕Щр╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕Фр╕г.р╕зр╕┤р╕ир╕Щр╕╡ р╕ир╕┤р╕ер╕Хр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕╣р╕е р╕Фр╕г.р╕Ыр╕▓р╕Щ р╕Бр╕┤р╕бр╕Ыр╕╡ р╣Бр╕ер╕░ р╕Фр╕г.р╕зр╕┤р╕бр╕ер╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕Ур╣М р╕Кр╕╣р╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ьр╕ер╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Др╣Ир╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Ьр╕вр╣Бр╕Юр╕гр╣Ир╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕▒р╣Ир╕зр╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕Зр╕Бр╕зр╣Йр╕▓р╕З р╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╕Щр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕нр╣Гр╕Щр╕Др╕нр╕ер╕▒р╕бр╕Щр╣Мр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕зр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╣Мр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й
р╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕бр╕╡р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕Цр╕╕р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕кр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕гр╕зр╕Ър╕гр╕зр╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕лр╣Мр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕ир╕╢р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕Бр╕кр╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕ир╕╢р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╕Ир╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щ 5 р╕гр╕▓р╕в р╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕╣р╕бр╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╕кр╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╕Юр╕┤р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╣М р╕Др╕гр╕╣р╕Ър╕▓р╕кр╕╕р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╕Щр╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╣М р╕Ыр╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Нр╕Юр╕др╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣М р╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕вр╕Зр╕вр╕╕р╕Чр╕Ш р╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕Щр╕╕р╕Кр╕Бр╕г р╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Эр╕▓р╕Б р╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕Цр╕зр╕▒р╕ер╕вр╣М р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Щр╕▓р╕Зр╕кр╕бр╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕в р╕лр╕Щр╕╣р╣Бр╕Фр╕З р╕кр╕│р╕лр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕ир╕╢р╕Бр╕йр╕▓ р╕Щр╕▓р╕Зр╕кр╕бр╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕в р╕лр╕Щр╕╣р╣Бр╕Фр╕З р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕ар╕▓р╕Др╕кр╕Щр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Юр╕┤р╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕Хр╕┤р╕бр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕в
р╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Кр╕┤р╕Зр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕ар╕▓р╕Ю р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕нр╕Ър╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ир╕╢р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕Бр╕кр╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕▒р╕бр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕Ур╣Мр╣Ар╕Ир╕▓р╕░р╕ер╕╢р╕Б р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╣Ар╕Бр╕Хр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕б р╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Чр╕│р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕лр╣Мр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕╣р╕ер╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ир╕│р╣Бр╕Щр╕Бр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕╣р╕ер╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ж р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕кр╕гр╕╕р╕Ыр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в
р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Бр╕гр╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕кр╕▓р╕бр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕Юр╕╕р╕Чр╕Шр╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╕▓ р╣Ар╕Бр╕йр╕Хр╕гр╕Бр╕гр╕гр╕б р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Нр╕▓р╣Ар╕ир╕гр╕йр╕Рр╕Бр╕┤р╕Ир╕Юр╕нр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕З
р╕Ьр╕ер╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Нр╕кр╕гр╕╕р╕Ыр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Фр╕▒р╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й
1.р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓ р╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕гр╕Цр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Ф р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕│р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕ер╕╢р╕Б р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Й р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕кр╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣М р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕И р╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Нр╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕╢р╕Б р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕лр╕вр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕ар╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣И р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Бр╕Бр╣Йр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Чр╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕ер╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Хр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕кр╕бр╕Фр╕╕р╕е р╣Бр╕Ър╣Ир╕Зр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щ 3 р╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╣Бр╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕│р╣Ар╕Щр╕┤р╕Ф р╕Др╕╖р╕н
(1) р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕ер╕╢р╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕╣р╕ер╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Бр╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕ар╕▓р╕вр╕Щр╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓
(2) р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕ер╕╢р╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕│р╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕ар╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓
(3) р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕ер╕╢р╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ер╕Зр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕Ър╕▒р╕Хр╕┤
2.р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕нр╕Ър╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕в 4 р╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Хр╕нр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Б р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Бр╕Бр╣И (1) р╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Хр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓ р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╣Ар╕гр╕┤р╣Ир╕бр╕Хр╣Йр╕Щр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕И (2) р╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Др╣Йр╕Щр╕лр╕▓р╕кр╕▓р╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓ р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕бр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕▓р╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕бр╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕гр╕зр╕б (3) р╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Бр╕кр╕зр╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓ р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Ыр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Бр╣Йр╣Др╕В (4) р╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Др╣Йр╕Щр╕Юр╕Ър╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓ р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╣Ар╕Щр╣Йр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Ър╕Зр╣Ир╕▓р╕в р╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕╖р╕Щр╕кр╕╣р╣Ир╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕нр╕Фр╕Др╕ер╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕зр╕┤р╕Цр╕╡р╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Х
3.р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ър╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕бр╕╡ 3 р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ъ р╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣И 1 р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕ар╕▓р╕вр╕Щр╕нр╕Б
р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╣Ар╕гр╕┤р╣Ир╕бр╕Хр╣Йр╕Щр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕б р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕ар╕╣р╕бр╕┤р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕гр╕гр╕Юр╕Ър╕╕р╕гр╕╕р╕й р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕вр╕нр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕╖р╕Ър╕Чр╕нр╕Фр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓ р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ир╕╢р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Хр╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕▓ р╕Ир╕▓р╕Б р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕╣р╣Й р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Нр╣Мр╕Кр╕▓р╕зр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ р╕ар╕╣р╕бр╕┤р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Чр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Цр╕┤р╣Ир╕Щ р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕Ър╣Вр╕гр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щ р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕╣ р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕кр╕нр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕Щ
р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣И 2 р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕ар╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щ
р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╣Ар╕гр╕┤р╣Ир╕бр╕Хр╣Йр╕Щр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╣Гр╕Ф р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ъ р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Бр╕Бр╣И р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕Кр╕┤р╕Зр╕зр╕┤р╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕лр╣М р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕Кр╕┤р╕Зр╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣М р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕бр╣Вр╕вр╕З р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕Зр╕кр╕гр╕гр╕Др╣М р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕нр╕╕р╕Ыр╕бр╕▓-р╕нр╕╕р╕Ыр╕бр╕▒р╕в р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕Щ р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Ир╕░р╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕лр╕бр╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Хр╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕▓
р╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣И 3 р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕Ър╕▒р╕Хр╕┤
р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Щр╕│р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣И 1 р╣Бр╕ер╕░ 2 р╕бр╕▓р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕нр╕Ър╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕╣р╕Зр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Ар╕Щр╣Йр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ер╕Зр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Чр╕│р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕Ър╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Чр╕│р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕Фр╕ер╕нр╕З р╕Чр╕Фр╕кр╕нр╕Ър╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ж р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Бр╣Йр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Хр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Фр╕╡р╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕бр╕▒р╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╕бр╣И р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕вр╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ
р╕Ьр╕ер╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▒р╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Нр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕бр╕Др╕зр╕гр╕Щр╕│р╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕Ьр╕вр╣Бр╕Юр╕гр╣Ир╣Бр╕ер╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Й р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕ар╕╣р╕бр╕┤р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕кр╕╣р╣Ир╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕ар╕╣р╕бр╕┤р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╕кр╕▓р╕Бр╕ер╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ы
р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓ 9
Power, violence, politics and truth
Taxi Driver – Just a few snippets:
“40 is a pretty big number of people to consult when you think about it.” Maybe, this is the reason why modern society doesn’t work according to this theory? We do have to make decisions under uncertainty all the time, but we also act under time constraints. Anyway, we do have consultative meetings in organizations to diversify the decision-making process (in Thailand: to make responsibility disappear), though Thai Airways would not invite 40 people picked up from the street to decide about its business plan (not that this would make the airline’s work that much worse). Who would be held accountable if something went wrong?
I am not so sure whether a chef will buy into the motor skill thing; rather he will insist that his work is all about judgement (about the selection of ingredients, their composition in a dish, the appropriate cooking approach, etc.).
Burst appendix: When she was a young girl, my mom (now 79) was saved at the last minute because a doctor diagnosed her problem correctly (and probably her lay parents had an idea what pain in that area of the body meant), and immediately operated on her, even without the usual preparation of the patient. On the other hand, parents and relatives (not numbering 40, though) of a girl in Ayuttyaha province misdiagnosed this sort of pain. They thought that a spirit had possesed that girl and brought it to a spirit healer. It was my farang colleague who saved her life by pushing the parents to send the girl to the hospital and have the doctor remove her appendix.
Finally, even voters do not normally decide about decisions, but about decision makers. They indirectly elect a group (the Thai cabinet has, I think, 36 members, just short of the ideal number of 40) of experts (politicians, well, political experts anyway) to make the decisions for them. Selecting a single doctor and electing a single politician might not be that different. If they don’t perform, one can select another doctor and elect another politician (at least in theory).
BTW, Habermas and others thought that modern society should and could be governed by a domination-free discourse. They thought that if such a discourse could be established, the decisions coming out of it would invariably be better than those emanating from structures dominated by power relationships. However, this suggestion has not been selected by society either, probably because it is unrealistic and impractical.
“…merely a sabbatical”?
I disagree with this affirmation of’ “back to square one”.
Thanong Khanthong just refers to the fact superficially in his conclusion.
Actually things have changed in a subtle way. I would say that despite the coup Thailand is strengthening its democracy: would-be coup makers have to abide by some democratic rules from now on or if they would not they would suffer from a sure backlash.
Besides like often said on this blog we are watching the rise of the “low-so” people: Bangkok welathy and wel-thinking gentry won’t have the lead for ever. There is a shift of power.
All in all it’s not back to square one. Maybe square one plus one fifth of a square (not much more, because those damned makers have given a hard time to the Thai Economy and freedom of speech in Thailand).
Power, violence, politics and truth
Everybody is equally informed of ‘known’ information and at the same time they are equally ‘ignorant’ of ‘unknown’ information
What about those ‘ignorant’ of ‘known’ information – could the result be skewed if they were in large numbers?
Royal misrepresentation of rural livelihoods
Thank you so much for a quick and very detailed response!
The King Never Smiles?
Who made vorapat the spokesperson for all Thais? How arrogant. Do read something, anything on this long, long debate before making your silly comments. Did you notice the 268 posts before your comment. Did you think about them before beating on the keyboard? And, did you read the book, which is available at many websites in Thai?
Power, violence, politics and truth
Grasshopper: “What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else?” — I think its part & parcel of the package (i.e. normal) that some may be able to hog the airwaves more than others (sort of like what I’m doing right now on NM 🙂 ), but I think the crowd is able to discern it. Otherwise we’d all use the same brand of shampoo!
I don’t think that whatever is popular is necessarily good, but I make that judgement from an individual perspective, based on my own moral compass which may or may not be the same as others’. I have the right to tell others that I believe whatever is popular is grotesque (Paris Hilton, Britney Spiers etc) but that does not necessarily mean I’m the right one and everyone else is wrong. There are universal truths (1+1 =2, perhaps even E=MC2) and there are opinions (Paris is grotesque).
Power, violence, politics and truth
Ladyboy the ‘Strong Form’ of EMH requires that information is instantaneously known by market participants (no ‘insider’ info). Everybody is equally informed of ‘known’ information and at the same time they are equally ‘ignorant’ of ‘unknown’ information. You probably know that most research confirms that no one consistently beats the market (its the old passive versus active investor debate, with the evidence overwhelmingly supporting passive investment…but, its like golf: we all know we can’t hit the perfect round (18 hole-in-ones) but that does not stop many of us from going out there trying.
Power, violence, politics and truth
Srithanonchai: It can be quite counterintuitive, but I trust in the law of large numbers. I believe that if you convene the group of 40 (the group just has to be diverse and genuinely interested in solving your problem, not necessarily composed of any particular combination of experts or non experts) and do it enough times, then on average you WILL get a better result (less instance of misdiagnosis) than if you consulted single experts the same number of times. I was once misdiagnosed by a doctor and it nearly cost me my life (doctor thought I had something else when I actually had a burst appendix, and sent me back to school. I probably would have been better off consulting 40 people – because I probably would have been made aware after consulting with the 40 concerned people that what I had was most likely a burst appendix, and went to hospital!). 40 is a pretty big number of people to consult when you think about it. You get the benefit of a large pool of tacit knowledge embedded in these people. Anyway, I think many of the experiments I cited earlier (cow weight guessing, jelly beans) speak for themselves. They weren’t flukes. They are very consistent. If you conducted the same experiment you will likely get the same results as well. Its just one of those freaky things.
As to your suggestions re chefs and da Vinci, I think we have to distinguish between ‘judgement’ and ‘skill’. The theory deals with ‘judgement’ rather than ‘skill’. Judgement, or as the title of Surowiecki’s book suggests, ‘wisdom’ is very different from the ability to cook a dish, paint a painting, kick a freekick, sing a song or play the guitar. Judgement or wisdom is about making the right decision under uncertainty. Skill is more a motor function, a physical talent. When we talk about elections, we are talking about judgement – not motor skill – of individuals?
I do not disagree with your 3rd paragraph, nor do I disagree with your 4th, although having other tenets and conditions does not dilute the importance of the one I described.
Power, violence, politics and truth
[…] Grasshopper wrote an interesting post today on Comment on Power, violence, politics and truth by GrasshopperHere’s a quick excerptTaxi Driver, as you implied, your example is hinged on everyone in the crowd thinking for themselves and not listening to the good doctor that Srithanonchai prefers. What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone … […]
Power, violence, politics and truth
Jon: Indeed, Thailand’s provincial politics are in urgent need of both public spheres and local mass media. As things stand now, you have these politics dominated by informal and secretive groups, with no media reporting on the visible part of their actions, e.g. as office holders in local government authorities.
You might have a municipal mayor who signed a huge public works project and received a luxurious western-style house of several dozens of millions of baht in return. No local print media, community radio station, or local cable TV will dare touching this issue. After all, staff there is not suicidal.
Even if this piece of information is available to a number of people via informal talks, this does not mean that the conclusions are the same, and neither are the consequences regarding electoral decisions. A person close to the political group the mayor belongs to might accept that this house was not acquired from the mayor’s own honestly earned money (because he has only his income as mayor, no other businesses). However, he might see this as “commission” and say that paying such commissions is normal in every quarter. Of course, he would continue voting in elections for members of this group.
Another person, on the other hand, might have long been against that same group, based on his principles and observed behavior. To him, the mayor’s house is yet another example of blatant corruption committed by members of this group. Therefore, his position will be reinforced, and he will never vote for any member of this group in any election.
Thus, it is not only information that is important. Rather, we have to pay attention to the processing of such information, as based on individual and group-related perceptional frames of reference.
[P.S.: As far as I am concerned, posting comments is still a 4-5 step procedure.]
Power, violence, politics and truth
Taxi Driver, as you implied, your example is hinged on everyone in the crowd thinking for themselves and not listening to the good doctor that Srithanonchai prefers. What if the doctors truth is able to be more expressed than anyone else? It begins to rely on a group having an antagonistic actor to counterbalance arguments. Antagonists are only favoured by other antagonists. When there are too many antagonists and protagonists you get a war, not necessarily a friendly summation on New Mandala or after drinks at ye olde pubbe.
It is always the same, there is order and chaos – democracy is better able to keep hold of order through populism because democracy can adapt to whatever is popular. Do you think that whatever is popular is good? At the moment, where I am, rampant hedonism is most popular. Sometimes (actually all of the time) it reflects poorly on my morals. I’d be interested to know how Taxi Driver can morally justify populism to this level. Would you hope that Thailand gets to experience the same hedonistic orientated development we have here in Australia? If not, seeing as you have righteously argued for the wisdom of crowds, what would the argument be to reconcile democracy without populism?
Power, violence, politics and truth
The Efficient Market Principle is based on the market BEING INFORMED of all financial information and hence correct share pricing decisions being made.
Anyway we don’t need the wisdom of crowds or experts these days to make decisions. We have so much data to go on that can be used as the basis for decision making. I don’t go to a quack anymore when a computer diagnosis is available. Forget the next election – no more votebuying and thaksin problems. A bit of number crunching and the best candidate selected by computer.
Power, violence, politics and truth
To Taxi Driver: Well, since modern society is characterized by a very high degree of division of labor and professionalization, there does not seem to be any much room left for crowd decisions. And, yes, I sometimes look for second opinions, but only from other specialists in that field (after all, experts have different levels of expertise, experience, etc.). If my bronchitis is not cured by one doctor, I would not convene a group of 40 people without any medical knowledge to give me a second opinion. (From your description, I understood that the decision-making crowd is supposed to be composed of non-experts in the problems to be decided upon. Is this correct?)
As for the social sciences, I doubt that one should leave the decision about whether a research result is correct or not, or whether a theory is useful or not, to non-social scientists to decide. I won’t even dare being part of crowd that would suggest to a well-known chef how to prepare his dishes. I’d rather trust his judgement and enjoy the meal. I also doubt that Leonardo would have painted a better Mona Lisa with the help of a group of dilettants.
As for the role of the individual vs. groups, I would rather dissolve the crowd aspect into (1) decentralization (having more than just one research group, university, company, etc., i.e. similar to Hayek and the “invisible hand” of the market), (2) temporalization (the development of good solutions is a learning process that takes time, since decisions are always imperfect and open to new discoveries), and (3) communication (decisions are openly discussed, again, over time, amongst the experts in their respective fields, enabling them to learn from mistakes). This latter aspect also includes teamwork approaches.
As for democracy, there are probably some more tenets and conditions.
“…merely a sabbatical”?
I think Thanong is too pessimistic. Things can change for the better. People can cooperate. We’ll have to wait and see. [Longer post rejected]