The most serious problem in the human community is disputes and conflicts . It is known how many people, so many opinions. Nothing can be done about it, because each person is an independent person. The trouble is that the inevitable differences of opinion are constantly lead to mutual hostility , quarrels, and in extreme cases even to wars.

What to do with it? To resolve disputes by peaceful means, mankind has created the whole system of courts - at all levels, from the district magistrate's court to international arbitration and the UN court. But practice shows that going to court is often also only partially solves the problem: the losing side often leaves the court irritated and angry, and relations between the parties become even more tense than before (we talked about this). And we see all this in the most different areas life: from sports to business, from conflicts between housemates to conflicts between states. The question arises more and more sharply: how to make a judgment more perfect? How to ensure that judicial decisions bring the parties to the conflict not only justice, but also peace?

Here is what the Mishnah says:

“Do not judge alone, for none but the One can judge alone. And don't say, "Take my point of view," for that is their choice, not yours."

The main idea is to make the judgment as collective as possible based on a wide range of opinions. This is logical: when the parties go to court, they thereby recognize that they need someone else's opinion on the problem in order to reconcile them. So let there be more than one opinion in court, but a few! It is not for nothing that it is said that “mind is good, but two is better”: in our Beit Din, for example, there must be at least three dayans.

However, the question arises: if everything is decided on a rational level, why does the Mishna mention the One - that is, G‑d? Why Gd can judge alone is understandable: He is the highest authority, He knows everything and does not need partners to judge objectively and fairly. In addition, the Mishna specifically uses here the word “One” to refer to Gd: by this it reminds us that Gd is everywhere, including within us, and His purpose is unite, bring harmony to the world .

From this follow two more conclusions. First, when making a decision, judges should always remember the “rightness of God” - that He is our father, He loves us and wants us to be well. So, having undertaken to judge other people, we must look for the good in everyone - after all, in every person there is a particle of God. This requires the judge, first of all, personal modesty. He should not put himself above those people who came to him for judgment. And at the same time, he should not impose on his colleagues own opinion: the task of the judge is to try bring together all the positive elements of different points of view.

On this account there is a story about the court of Besht. On Yom Kippur, he has a Jew in his synagogue dropped the snuffbox , scattered tobacco and began to collect it during prayer. His neighbor was indignant: how can one mess with tobacco on such a holy day, and even in the synagogue! .. The neighbor’s prayer reached the throne of the Most High, and Heaven pronounced a verdict: the sinner will not live to see next year! Of course, Besht found out about the verdict. He also learned that the verdict would be overturned if the one who convicted changed his mind. Besht immediately went to that Jew and started asking him about how tobacco ended up in the synagogue. Gradually, his interlocutor realized that everything was not so simple: on Yom Kippur, people fasted, the neighbor needed tobacco, just to drown out hunger, so that he had enough strength to pray. The Jew realized that he was wrong in judging his neighbor, and thus saved his life .

As we understand it, the first lesson of the Mishnah is that judging “according to the righteousness of God” means judging positively. And the second lesson, in some ways even more important, is that our Mishnah speaks not only about judicial system about settling disputes between people. God is not only in court - He is everywhere, and most importantly - He is in each of us. And the principles of "God's truth" we must profess everywhere, in all deeds, words and thoughts .

No wonder the word "judge" has several meanings, in addition to the narrow legal one. A person "judges" - forms and expresses his opinion - about everything in the world . Now, in the age of computers and the Internet, there are ample opportunities for obtaining information on any topic. Unfortunately, sometimes a person confuses the verbs “judge” and “condemn”, and talks about problems rather in a negative way. And the Mishnah warns against such an approach, requires find in different points view positive grain . A person “judges” his own actions: he plans his steps and argues them before himself. And here it is all the more important to hear what others think about you, because only the One knows everything, and only He alone can judge. 

Mind is good, but two is better.

Proverbs of the Russian people. - M.: Fiction. V. I. Dal. 1989

See what "Mind is good, but two is better." in other dictionaries:

Wed I, Mr. Doctor, decided to send provincial city. I don't doubt your art, but you know for yourself: intelligence is good, but two is better. Turgenev. Yakov Pasynkov. 2. Wed. It’s good for you, Ivanushka, you do what you go to the elders for advice. Mind is good, but two ... ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary

Mind good and two better than that. See PLEASE SERVICE...

Umm well, two is better than that (but three at least drop it). Wed I, Mr. Doctor, decided to send it to the provincial town. I have no doubts about your skill, but you yourself know: intelligence is good, but two is better. Turgenev. Yakov Pasynkov. 2. Wed. You are good, Ivanushka, ... ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Mind well, and two pair of boots- (from the last. Mind is good, but two is better when solving which issue it is better to turn to someone for advice; and two pair of boots about two people similar in their shortcomings) in the meaning. first post… live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions

UM GOOD AND TWO BOOTS A PAIR- last before .: Mind is good, but two is better + Two pair of boots. The meaning of the first proverb is preserved ... Dictionary modern colloquial phraseological units and sayings

Husband. and cf. two wives. second counting number, one with one, couple, couple, friend. One beginning does not have two ends. Mind is good, but two is better (better than that). The wagon scattered, and he grabbed two, stole. From one you will make two, you will shorten both (you will quit both). If there are two, then not ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

I. compare. Art. to Good and Good. Need l. work. Heat l. cold. Draw a portrait as best you can. Mind is good, but two is better (Pogov.). * There is nothing better than Nevsky Prospekt, at least in St. Petersburg (Gogol). Lawn as impossible l. fit... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

better- 1. compare. Art. to good and good. We need to work harder. Heat is better than cold. Draw a portrait as best you can. Mind is good, but two is better (pogov.) ... Dictionary of many expressions

Depart from evil and do good. Where the Lord sows wheat, there are devils of tares. And we praise God and sin. Live in such a way that neither from the God of sin, nor from the people of shame. Between the bad and the bad. Hell stands on the merciless. Good will not die, but evil will perish. Kind… … IN AND. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people

Story American writer Jerome Salinger (1948). This short story is a mystery both in terms of its construction and in terms of content and meaning. Salinger's short story does not fit well into the framework of modernism; it does not contain neo-mythological (see ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

Mind well... Boris Sergeev.

Mind is good......is two better?

“Mind is good,” says an old Russian proverb, “but two is better.” The evidence of folk wisdom, it would seem, is beyond doubt. However, do not rush to a hasty conclusion. Two horses harnessed to one wagon is a completely normal phenomenon. And two coachmen on the same goats? Even with two horses, the duplication of crew management is a harmful excess. And with one?

Since ancient times, in the works of psychologists and psychiatrists, in the statements of philosophers, poets, writers, the question of the duality and inconsistency of human nature has been raised. There is probably no need to convince of the validity of such a judgment. Surely, each of us will be able to illustrate this situation with examples from our own observations.

A weighty argument in favor of the duality of the human psyche is the symmetry of the structure of our brain and the asymmetry of some of its functions discovered at the beginning of the last century. Essentially, it is the detection of differences in activity hemispheres was the first success in the study of higher mental functions human brain and gave impetus to its systematic study. It was a serious blow to idealism and religion and helped many scientists to believe in the knowability of the brain, in the possibility of studying the mechanism of mental activity.

The entire subsequent course of the study of the brain made it possible to reveal some of the mechanisms of its work and confirmed the strict specialization of the cerebral hemispheres. He put an end to the notion of the soul as a special independent substance, which is the bearer of mental experiences and the cause of any vital manifestations our body, but completely independent of it. The study of the human brain made it possible, with facts in hand, to answer the basic questions of philosophy about the cognizability of the world, about the relationship of thinking to being, consciousness to matter.

Serious advances in understanding the functions of the human brain have been made possible thanks to the joint efforts of a number of scientific disciplines, primarily anatomy, physiology, neurobiology, biochemistry, psychology, neurology, psychiatry, linguistics. As in other branches of knowledge that emerged precisely at the intersection of scientific disciplines, the development of neuropsychology is particularly intensive.

This book is a story about the formation and success of neuropsychology, one of the newly formed areas of science that studies the human being. A new scientific discipline was born at the intersection of psychology, neurophysiology and medicine. It studies the brain organization of various mental processes. It was neuropsychology that helped to understand the relationship between two coachmen, sitting invisibly on the goats of our brain.

A significant contribution to the study of the brain was made by a glorious galaxy of representatives of Russian science - I. Sechenov, I. Pavlov, N. Vvedensky - who proclaimed a materialistic approach to the study of its functions and substantiated the reflex theory of its work. The scientific concepts of Sechenov and Pavlov had a decisive influence on the formation of materialistic psychology, which was greatly facilitated by the works of such outstanding scientists as L. Vygodsky, A. Leontiev and A. Luria.

Luria's research, begun half a century ago, continues to be successfully developed in the physiological laboratories of Tbilisi and Old Peterhof, the Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry named after I.M. Sechenov in Leningrad, in the laboratories of many scientific institutions of our state. busy with this huge army Moscow psychologists, clinicians, physiologists and morphologists, as well as researchers from other cities of our country. All of them are associates, students or followers of Luria.

Thanks to their combined efforts, the science of the brain has achieved such impressive successes today. The results of many years of research by Soviet scientists will be discussed on the pages of this book. The author devotes his work to them

"And know the truth, and the truth will make you free" - from illusions.
*
"Freedom is a conscious necessity"... of non-freedom.
*
"The old horse does not spoil the furrow" ... only nerves.
*
"Woe from Wit" - only consequences from censorship.
*
"The first poet was the one who compared a woman with a flower," and the first satirist was the one who said that this flower is a cactus.
*
"What fell is gone" - as well as what did not fall.
*
"Scars adorn a man" but a real man wears no jewelry.
*
"We wanted the best ...", but management companies came up with?!
*
"The economy must be economical" - do not squander money in a dream!
*
"One step from love to hate" - and two suitcases of claims.
*
"Heavy is you Monomakh's hat" - he gaped ... looking and next to the chopping block ...
*
"May the hand of the giver not be impoverished" - means in financial pyramids!
*
"Our path is in darkness" - growing tariffs.
*
"After the first one they don't eat"... only lovers and lovers.
*
"If the mountain does not go to Mohammed," then Mohammed paid taxes.
*
"The Jews are God's chosen people," which is why other nations love him... ad nauseam.
*
"Having learned all the secrets of life", I suddenly realized ... after all, I am "in heaven" !!!
*
"Fight and seek, find and not give up!" - then, with heart attacks, fight off hints for half a life ...
*
"And whoever didn't hide, I'm not to blame" - used to say a real colonel.
*
"All ages are submissive to love" - ​​health is much worse.
*
"The law is the same for all" - the measure of application is different.
*
"How much is opium for the people?" - today this phrase is already understood literally.
*
"What is good?" - a matter of conscience, not the opinion of the majority.
*
"Happiness is not in money", but in Fortune's smile.
*
"Alien soul of darkness" - it is not surprising that only God forgives us sins.
*
"Manuscripts do not burn" if they get "where they need to be."
*
"Time heals everything" ... would be enough for this treatment of life.
*
Married "prince on a white horse" - disposable.
*
"The rats are leaving the ship"... but not empty-handed.
*
"And the experience of the son of difficult mistakes" ... from a young fool patiently nurtures the old one.
*
"The voice of truth is repugnant to the ear"... especially to tyrants and their henchmen.
*
"Man is a wolf to man", but is the truth true?
*
"Since money is paid for this, it means that this is work" ... for investigators.
*
"Winners are not judged" ... they are shot.
*
"Everything should be fine in a person" - especially a passport and registration.
*
"Sadly, I look at our generation" - it will be flattened by the authorities with bureaucratic paper vanity.
*
"A poet in Russia is more than a poet" - so far he "burns with the verb", but there are no titles.

Reviews

Joseph, I liked all the comments. With a smile.
It is written with a special intonation, with a twist of its own, with witticisms, but fair.
The level of knowledge may be lame among Poets, but not all professional writers are instructive. Although many are talented from God! You need to have a complete academic reference book. Spelling and punctuation rules. An irreplaceable friend. It's better to have good friends. WITH best wishes, with respect, i.

Surprising but true. I don't know how true this is. But there is information.
In official documents, he sometimes categorically stated that he had a higher education. When arrested in 1920, S. Yesenin indicated in the protocol of interrogation on October 24, 1920 that he “graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Shanyavsky University” [T. 7(2). S. 503]. Filling out a questionnaire for those arrested and detained, on November 21, 1923, in the column "education" he indicated: "higher". However, when writing a protocol bodies of the Cheka on the same day he reported on his education more precisely: “he graduated from the 2nd year of Shanyavsky University” [T. 7(2). S. 590].

In the autobiographies of S. Yesenin about his studies in high school provided conflicting information. Most of the time, he talked about it with caution. In his “Autobiography” of 1916 he wrote: “I received my education at a teacher’s school and attended lectures at the Shanyavsky University for two years” [T. 7(1). S. 7]. In his “Autobiography” of 1923, he said that “he left for Moscow for 17 years and entered Shanyavsky University as a volunteer” [T. 7(1). P. 12], bypassing the issue of the terms of training and obtaining the corresponding document on higher education. S. Yesenin indicated the term of study at the university in his “Autobiography”, which he wrote on June 20, 1924: “In 1913, I entered Shanyavsky University as a volunteer. After staying there for 1-2 years, I had to go back, due to material circumstances, to the village” [T. 7(1). S. 15]. S. Yesenin indicated the same information in the note “About Me” in October 1925, but only in the draft noted that he did not graduate from Shanyavsky University, as he left due to difficult financial situation to the village. [T. 7(1). S. 355].

Thus, full course S. Yesenin did not pass university education, respectively, he did not have a document on higher education. He belonged to those who had to report about education that he had “unfinished higher education”

POET WITH A CAPITAL LET!!! MASTER! GENIUS SIMPLY! When you read it, you never cease to be amazed at his gift! In our country, in a Jesuit way, they treated a genius.
Sincerely.

In addition to education, there is also self-education, and a diploma is a piece of paper, especially today, given how they are usually "earned!

Every joke has its share of jokes.

The tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it,
good fellows lesson.

A.S. Pushkin

Task

In a lesson on probability theory, I analyze with students a standard problem about the probabilities of two independent events. As an example, the operation of two devices. Created a table:

Everything is as usual: q=1–p, products of probabilities, general reliability, … In general, routine. All sorts of other examples are spinning in my head along the way. And then I remember the proverb - the mind is good, but two is better! I'm starting to build an audience.

How to measure the mind?

If “the device is working”, then we can say that one of its two states is selected - working. It can be assumed that the working device has chosen the "correct option". Let us denote the probability of success as p. This number can be chosen as the measure of the mind. That is, in our model

intelligence is measured by the probability of choosing the correct option from the two proposed

It is quite reasonable to believe that for p>½ we are dealing with a "smart" (comparatively) person - after all, he often gives the correct answer. Accordingly, at r<½ приходится говорить о «глупом». Можно много времени потратить на уточнение границ, ввести диапазон для «среднего» ума и т.п. Ограничимся пока такой дихотомией.

A natural question - what if we take two minds? After all, they say: the mind is good, but two is better. What is meant by this? After some manipulations, I push the audience to the conclusion I need - the proverb says that the probability of choosing the right option with two minds is higher. Let's check.

Are two better?

We immediately see (situation No. 1 in the table) that for any p 1 and p 2 their product is less than any of the factors. The audience is shocked, I'm high. Finally, someone speaks uncertainly - and one must also take into account situations B and C, where one still chooses the correct option.

I praise the student, but then a reasonable question is how to find out which of the answers is correct? Well, that's why we arrange a "council for two" in order to increase the chances of a correct answer. Expected stupor in the audience.

We come to the conclusion that the only available criterion of correctness in this case is only the consent of both "minds" - after all, we do not know the correct answer. We are looking for the probability that both give the same answer:

R acc \u003d P A + P D \u003d p 1 × p 2 + q 1 × q 2 \u003d 1 + 2 × p 1 × p 2 -p 1 -p 2

My gleeful remark that this is a simple hyperbolic paraboloid was met with disapproving silence by the audience. Here, fortunately for me, the lesson ended.

Rice. 1. The surface of "agreement" for two minds

On the way home, I quickly turned this surface around in my head and thought that (because of its symmetry) such a bi-system should have a 50/50 chance of agreeing and disagreeing. ) became apparent. The yellow cross at the level P acc. =½ just divides the surface into symmetrical parts - the red area of ​​disagreement and the green area of ​​agreement. I imagined the "silence of the lambs" in the classroom - and realized that it was cruel to show such a picture to students.

I note that in this model, the problem of agreement for one mind is not worth it - no matter what answer is chosen, it is always in agreement with itself.

The case of “equal-sized” minds

To simplify the problem, let's assume that our minds are "equal" - the probabilities of giving the correct answer are the same and equal to p. Then

R acc \u003d f (p) \u003d p 2 + (1–p) 2 \u003d 2 × p 2 -2 × p + 1

This line is a section of the agreement surface by the plane p 1 = p 2 (the edges of this plane and the line itself are marked in blue).

Rice. 2. Curve of agreement for two minds.

Here is a graph of this agreement function of two "equal minds". The red diagonal line is the probability of a correct answer for one mind. And with some surprise we find that for an intelligent person (after all, we assume p> ½ for him), the probability of making the right decision alone is higher than when we expect the opinions of two equally smart people to coincide! Moreover, this difference reaches 1/8 at p = 3/4 (red arrow). That is, for a person with an “above average” mind (for whom p = ½) to consult with another, even as smart, is simply ... harmful?

Why is “the mind is good, but two is better”?

But where, then, did such a “wrong” proverb come from? Let us recall the student's timid suggestion - to consider those two events in which only one of the minds gives the correct answer. That is, we consider our pair of minds successful if at least one of them gives the correct answer! Or both are wrong. The function is simple: f(p)=2×p–p 2 . And her schedule is very pretty:

Rice. 3. The probability of the correct answer of at least one of the two minds.

It pleases our souls, because da mind is good, but two is better. Especially when p = ½, i.e., with stupid fortune-telling. Then our chances increase one and a half times - from ½ for one to ¾ for a couple (blue arrow).

Yes, but that's only good if someone knows the "truth" and can do this kind of analysis of the answers. For example, with a “team response” of a pair of students to a ticket question and a very benevolent attitude of the teacher.

But what about in reality, when it is not known which answer is “correct”? After all, the chances that the answers will be opposite or will coincide are the same. And then what option to choose? What is the criterion for choosing a solution for a pair of minds? Again we return to the only criterion possible here - the consistency of the answers. Is it possible to understand the origin of our saying in the light of such a criterion?

The blue graph in fig. 2 gives an answer to this question - the probability consent never less than ½! Curiously, either very smart partners (with p close to 1) or very stupid ones (with p close to 0) agree more often. At the same time, the assumption of their “equanimity” is not even necessary - on the surface (see Fig. 1) we have the same thing.

If we assume that the mind (as the probability of a correct answer) is distributed uniformly for people on the interval from 0 to 1, then it is easy to show that, on average, agreement will occur in 2 cases out of 3. I note that this is the upper bound, since very smart and very stupid yet they are much rarer than average minds.

Well, it's been known for a long time consulting, we are not looking for truth, but justification. And the theory of probability confirms this to us: no matter how smart or stupid we are (as long as we have “the same” minds, in our model), we will more often agree with each other than disagree. Whatever decision is made, right or wrong. It doesn't matter to us, because there are agreement! So people from the same social group, who have approximately the same "minds", more often agree with each other. And that brings the group together. Got a rationale for conformism? Such a complex socio-psychological phenomenon - and just a theory of probability!? Hmm...

And if, nevertheless, the minds are different, for example, from different social groups? The answer is "on the surface" (see first figure) - they have equal chances of agreeing or disagreeing (assuming an even and independent distribution of minds in each group). And if so, there is no point in talking to them! Justification of the isolation of social groups? ...

And what about "think together"?

This step is completely natural - the group still wants to increase the likelihood of a correct decision. Consent is consent, but you have to eat something. Let's simplify the situation and compile a similar table, immediately assuming the "equal size" of all three minds:

The principle of the majority in the top three does not give anything - there will always be no more than one dissent! It turns out that it is generally impossible to assess the correctness of a decision made by voting on the basis of a majority? Indeed, in any scenario of votes, the correct decision is simply “appointed” here!

Rice. 4. Probability of agreement of three minds.

Well, it's not all that bad. The probability of making the right decision based on the majority rule is easily calculated: f(p)=p 2 ×(3–2×p), graph in fig. 4. As we can see, there is some hope: for p>½, the trio still more often makes the right decision. True, at r<½ столь же часто принимает и неверные. Так что решению тройки можно доверять только тогда, когда мы уверены в квалификации её членов в данной области. Иначе почти наверняка будет хуже.

What if the correct answer is unknown? The majority of the trio simply appoints him by their own arbitrariness, but under the guise of choice. What are the chances of complete agreement, in which all three must choose the same solution. Then P acc = p 3 + q 3 = 3 × p 2 -3 × p + 1 (see graph).

Alas, we get disappointing conclusions for the trio:

• the smallest agreement is again reached at p=½, but its probability is already equal to ¼;
• the average value of the probability of agreement (with a uniform distribution of the mind) also decreases and is equal to ½;
• starting from p = 1/3, one person gets the correct answer more often than three people agree;
• the largest difference between them (red arrow) is already equal to 1/3 and is achieved at a smaller value of p = 2/3.

It seems that those who claim are right - one is always smarter than a group of their own kind. In vain they think that this is purely humorous ...

And you, friends, no matter how you sit down ...

It is easy to generalize these findings to a larger number of "council members". So, we have a council of k equal members, each of which gives the correct answer with probability p. The decision criterion is unanimous. Right or wrong is the tenth thing, no one knows the truth anyway. Here is the chart for the "Magnificent Seven".

Rice. 5. Concordance curve for seven minds.

oil painting:

• The minimum (blue circle) is 1 / (2(k–1)) .
• The average agreement is 2 / (k + 1) .
• One is smarter than seven overall, starting at (red box) p≈0.2034 (numerical solution).

Tellingly, complete agreement is most likely either for the very stupid (small p) or the very smart (large p). Accordingly, the left and right parts of the graph. It is clear that the stupid will agree on the wrong decision, and the smart on the right one. But there is a very narrow tolerance for such consent. In a large part of the range of like-minded minds (one thought for all?) there will be those who disagree with all the ensuing consequences. And as always, the "average" will argue the most (p - in the range from ¼ to ¾).

The conclusion suggests itself: if a group of people argue all the time, then their average level of intelligence is very average?

And what does the picture look like for the probability of a correct answer under the majority criterion? Yes, nothing new (see Fig. 6), only a further “aggravation” of the noted dependence is planned - the advice of the stupid (p<½) почти гарантировано примет неверное решение. А где ж их набрать столько, умных-то? Получаем известный закон the transition of quantity into the absence of quality.