Mind is good and 2 is better. A mind is good but two are better meaning of the proverb

In the section on the question: what is the meaning of the proverb: one head is good, but two are better? given by the author compound the best answer is this The point is that two people (with two heads) can solve a problem better and faster, sometimes you yourself don’t see a way out, and the other person can easily come up with and tell you a solution.

Answer from Neurosis[guru]
How more people working on solving a problem (task) the better.

Answer from Shoot yourself[guru]
One head thinks, and the other thinks.

Answer from KLN[guru]
One mind is good, but two are better - that’s the meaning. Is it really not clear?

Answer from Anastasia[guru]
1 person will come up with good idea, and if the two of you start thinking with someone, it’s simply brilliant.

Answer from @nechk@[guru]
The fact is that the serpent gorynych is a super computer!

Answer from Yovetlana Nikolaevna[guru]
just than more topics better.. . maybe the second one is for beauty, I don’t know.... I only have one.... it’s probably bad....

Answer from Lenusenka[active]
A person is not capable of knowing everything in the world; one cannot find anyone who really knows everything. Everyone knows as much information as he needs (as much as he gets into his head in the end). And when 2 people work on one thing, it turns out better, since 2 brains merge, the amount of knowledge increases and there is a greater chance of making the right decision))

Answer from Yovetlana Labunskaya[active]
if the decision made jointly is not correct, there will be someone to blame

Answer from Kerry PIT[guru]
The point is that by expanding your social circle, you can quickly find a solution to the problem. To put it simply, intelligence is good, but two are better. For example, there is a certain task. A solution has been found. With outside support, there will be another solution, and perhaps a more rational one. Associated with various life experience and a different look at the problem.

Answer from Alex[guru]
MEANS: a horny man is better than a good woman!)))

Answer from Yovetlana Shurkina[expert]
SIMPLY IMPORTANT ISSUES NEED TO BE SOLVED TOGETHER AND EVENTUALLY COME IN AN ANSWER!

Answer from Ibanez[newbie]
I wouldn’t have ended the proverb that way!!!. Well, if you think about it...one head is good, but two is ugly!! !

A mind is good, but two is better(meaning) - Russian proverb meaning: 1. The best decision can be developed through joint discussion of the pros and cons. 2. Learning is a good thing. The more intelligence a person has, the better.

In the proverb, the phrase “two minds” means two people discussing a decision together.

- "One mind is half a mind; three minds are one and a half minds; two minds are a mind" (section " ").

The proverb is listed in the Big Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (1904):

The mind is good, and two better than that(and three - at least give it up)

Examples

(1921 - 1997)

“Almost Seriously” (1976): “The insidious Pavel Borovikov had his own way of putting a drunk in his place. He approached him and said heartfeltly to the whole audience:
- Dear comrade! Thank you very much for helping me with my work. As the saying goes: " The mind is good, but... one and a half is better». "

(1883 - 1923)

"Adventures good soldier Shveyka" (1923, translation by P.G. Bogatyrev (1893 - 1971)): " Good mind - two is better. One will advise one thing, another another, “and the path is open to success,” as it is sung in our anthem.”

(1860 - 1904)

" " (1888), chapter IV - an old man says to a boy heading to study: - " A mind is good, but two is better. God gives one person one mind, and another two minds, and another three... Another three, that's true... One mind with which the mother gave birth, another from teaching, and the third from a good life. So, brother, it’s good if a person has three minds.”

(1821 - 1881)

"The Brothers Karamazov"

(1823 - 1886)

“Don’t sit in your own sleigh,” 1 Jan. 3: “It’s good that you do it, Ivanushka, that you go to your elders for advice. A mind is good, but two is better... Even though you’re a smart guy, listen to the old man.”

“What you go for is what you will find” (1861), map. 3, yavl. 1: “Can’t we sort it out together with Matryona. A good mind, they say, but two is better."

Mind is good... Boris Sergeev.

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

“A mind is good,” says an old Russian proverb, “but two are better.” The obviousness of folk wisdom, it would seem, is beyond doubt. However, do not rush to make a hasty conclusion. Two horses harnessed to one cart is quite normal. And two coachmen on the same box? Even with two horses, duplicating crew leadership is a harmful excess. And with one?

The question of the duality and contradictoriness of human nature has long been raised in the works of psychologists and psychiatrists, in the statements of philosophers, poets, and writers. There is probably no need to convince anyone of the validity of such a judgment. Surely each of us can illustrate this situation with examples from our own observations.

A strong 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 cerebral hemispheres was the first success in studying the higher mental functions of the human brain and gave impetus to its systematic study. It was a serious blow to idealism and religion and helped many scientists believe in the knowability of the work of the brain, in the possibility of studying the mechanism of mental activity.

The entire subsequent course of studying 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 idea of the soul as a special independent substance, which is the bearer of mental experiences and the cause of any vital manifestations of 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 knowability of the world, about the relationship of thinking to being, consciousness to matter.

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

This book is a story about the formation and successes of neuropsychology, one of the recently formed areas of science that studies humans. A new scientific discipline was born at the intersection of psychology, neurophysiology and medicine. She studies the brain organization of various mental processes. It was neuropsychology that helped to understand the relationship between the two coachmen, invisibly sitting 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, now 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. I'm 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, brain science has made such impressive strides today. About the results many years of research Soviet scientists and the story will be told on the pages of this book. The author dedicates his work to them

Prudence, as the combined action of the mind and heart, enlightened by God's grace, is, undoubtedly, the highest of all gifts.

The acquisition of this virtue is given only to those who first seek obedience and humility, qualities that are very rarely found in people today.

But even without what has been said yet, let us remember that on our shoulders is not a head of cabbage, but a head...

Use your thoughts to anticipate your actions, trust your feeling to your reason before allowing the first to reach your heart; In general, thinking, analyzing, drawing conclusions, drawing conclusions is a sign of a truly bright head!

But even if we are brilliant, none of us is immune from mistakes.

Why?

Due to our inherent inherent limitations, multiplied by sinfulness.

This is the common lot for all the sons of fallen Adam.

The grace of Christ, of course, makes us wise and imparts knowledge of the Truth, but sin, alas, also darkens us.

Why are “TWO MINDS BETTER” than one?

The Savior Himself answers this question: “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am among you.”

This is immutable spiritual law, according to which like-minded disciples of Christ enjoy, having gathered together, communication with the Teacher, who is invisibly co-present with them...

And what?

The fact that Christ is the “Father’s Power and Wisdom”, that He is the “Fullness, filling everything with Himself”; that in Him “the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily”...

What does this do to our mind?

Minds and Hearts loving friend Christian friends are anointed by the manifest action of the Holy Spirit.

Together, seeking the right solution, “keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” - as the Apostle Paul put it - they are granted special help from above.

And if Christ’s disciples take their time, giving room for reflection, conversation and reasoning, then they will certainly find what they are looking for, by virtue of the Lord’s promise: “The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth...”

This sacrament is called “conciliar reason” and in the true sense is realized in the grace-filled life of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church throughout all two millennia of her earthly existence...

1. So, friend, don’t rush to trust your own mind, and only your own.
2. Truth is found “in much counsel.”
3. Learn to listen to others.
4. Humble your mind before those wiser than you.
5. Rejoice at the very opportunity to learn and do not consider your opinion to be sinless.
6. Know how to admit and correct your mistakes.
7. Be grateful to those who point them out to you.
8. Check and double-check your own decisions.
9. Treat yourself with distrust.
10. Once you are convinced of the truth, do not deviate from it under any conditions or temptations.
11. Believe that for the humility manifested in the willingness to ask, God will certainly open the path of salvation to you and guide you along it with ease.
12. Don’t forget to thank the Creator for the truth you have found...

Turgenev. Yakov Pasynkov. 2.

Wed. It’s good that you do it, Ivanushka, that you go to your elders for advice. A mind is good, but two are better... Even though you are a smart guy, listen to the old man.

Ostrovsky. Don't sit in your own sleigh. 13.

Wed. A mind is good, but two are better! The only bad thing is a meeting where there is a lot of cleverness - this is a sign that the deliberators are thinking more about themselves than about the common good.

I.I. Lazhechnikov. Ice house. 3, 6.

Wed. Vier Augen sehen mehr als zwei.

Wed. Two heads are better than one.

Wed. On pense mieux à deux que tout seul.

Wed. Sa piu il Papa e un contadino che il Papa solo.

Wed. Nemo solus satis sapit.

One - no one understands enough.

Plaut. Milit. 3, 3, 12.

Wed. Two are better than one.

Eccles. 4.9.

See how many heads, so many minds.

See, ask not the old, but the experienced.

Just look at it.

Every joke has some humor in it.

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

A.S. Pushkin

Task

In a class on probability theory, I work with students on a standard problem about the probabilities of two independent events. As an example – the operation of two devices. We made a table:

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

How to measure the mind?

If “the device is working,” then we can say that of its two states, one has been selected – working. We can assume that the working device has chosen the “correct option”. We denote the probability of success as p. This number can be chosen by the measure of intelligence. That is, in our model

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

It is quite reasonable to believe that when p>½ we are dealing with a (comparatively) “smart” person - after all, he gives the correct answer more often. Accordingly, with p½) the probability of making the right decision alone is higher than when we wait for 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 “above average” intelligence (for whom p = ½) to consult with another, even equally intelligent, is simply... harmful?

Why is “a mind is good, but two are better”?

But where then did such an “incorrect” saying come from? Let us recall the student’s timid proposal 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 will be right. The function is simple: f(p)=2×р–р2. And her graph is quite nice:

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

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

Yes, but this is only good if someone knows the “truth” and can conduct such an analysis of the answers. For example, with a “team response” from a couple of students to a ticket question and a very favorable attitude from the teacher.

But what happens in reality when you don’t know what the “correct” answer is? After all, the chances that the answers will be opposite or the same are the same. So what then, which 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 - consistency of answers. Is it possible to understand the origin of our saying in the light of such a criterion?

Blue graph in Fig. 2 gives the answer to this question - probability consent never less than ½! It is curious that either very smart partners (with p close to 1) or very stupid ones (with p close to 0) agree more often. In this case, there is no need to even assume that they are “equal” – on the surface (see Fig. 1) we have the same thing.

If we assume that intelligence (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 limit, since very smart and very stupid yet they are found much less often than average minds.

Well, it has long been known that when consulting, we are not looking for the 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 “identical” minds, in our model), we will more often agree with each other than disagree. Whatever decision is made - right or wrong. For us it doesn’t matter anymore - after all, there is agreement! So people from the same social group, who have approximately the same “minds,” are more likely to agree with each other. And this leads to group unity. Have you received a rationale for conformity? Such a complex socio-psychological phenomenon - and just a theory of probability!? Hmm...

But if the minds are still different, for example, from different social groups? The answer “lies on the surface” (see the first picture) – they have equal chances to agree or disagree (assuming an even and independent distribution of minds in each group). If so, there is no point in talking to them! Justification for the separation of social groups?...

What about “think three of us”?

This step is completely natural - the group still wants to increase the likelihood of a correct decision. Agreement is agreement, but you have to eat. Let’s simplify the situation and draw up a similar table, immediately assuming the “equal size” of all three minds:

The principle of the majority in the troika gives nothing - there will always be no more than one dissenter! 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 distribution of votes, the correct decision is simply “assigned” here!

Rice. 4. The probability of agreement of three minds.

Well, it's not all bad. The probability of making the right decision based on the majority rule is easily calculated: f(р)=р2×(3–2×р), graph in Fig. 4. As we see, there is some hope: when p>½, the troika still makes the right decision more often. True, at р Р(B)=n×pn–1×q

We need the so-called conditional probability - the probability of some event, provided that some other event has already occurred. Such an event (condition) in our case is the fact that from all possible voting situations we have selected those two in which there is only one “dissenter”. That is, our situations A and B. Then the probability that the “loner” is right and everyone else is wrong is calculated by the formula:

Rice. 7. Probability of a single person being right for various numbers members of the "pack council".

And here are the graphs for different numbers of council members (see Fig. 7). It’s simply amazing - in a “stupid council” consisting of minds with a probability of making the right decision p less than ½, the dissenter is almost certainly right! I remember one fantastic story, read in my youth. In it, a person who was always wrong was selected as an expert to do the opposite. I suspect that, since in a significant part of the regions human activity decision-makers are often incompetent, then you need to listen to their opinion - and do the opposite.

So, what is next?

Whatever. And various criteria for agreement in the council (for example, a simple majority with an odd number of members), and the introduction of “distribution by mind,” and the mutual influence of minds, etc., etc. There are many options - create, invent, try. Flag in hand.

P.S.

Why do they duplicate (place in parallel) two devices? Or even three?

A friends frown is better than a foes smile

((English)

The chicken should be sold and the canary should be placed in a cage by the window.

((Creole)

As is the tree, so is its fruit - As the tree,so the fruit

((English)

A good deed deserves an equally good deed in return - One good turn deserves another

((English)

To take it is like a relative, but to give it back is like a complete stranger

((Bengal)

One dog barks - all the dogs follow (Hebrew)

((Jewish)

From unnecessary words no profit, no loss from one word

((Buryat)

If your master is an ass, then don’t say “chosh” to him!

((Armenian)

He's a master at shooting a mouse, but he can't shoot a lion.

((Lakskie)

Prosperity discovers vice, adversity virtue

((English)

A great ship asks deep waters

((English)

Longer than a day of separation; ...than the month of fasting; ...than a year of drought

((Arab)

A pig will not give birth to beavers and sables, and you will not hear smart words from a fool.

((Buryat)

A bee and a fly don't work well in the same deck

((Avar)

One who is in an excessive hurry is just as late as one who is too slow - Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow

((English)

What is the meaning of the proverb: one head is good, but two are better?

The more people are involved in solving a problem (task), the better.

One head thinks, and the other thinks.

One mind is good, but two are better - that’s the meaning. Is it really not clear?

One person will come up with a good idea, but if two people start thinking with someone else, it will be simply brilliant.

The fact is that the serpent gorynych is a super computer!

just the more the better... maybe the second one is for beauty, I don’t know…. I only have one... this is probably bad...

A person is not capable of knowing everything in the world; one cannot find anyone who really knows everything. Everyone knows as much information as he needs (as much as he gets into his head in the end). And when 2 people work on one thing, it turns out better, since 2 brains merge, the amount of knowledge increases and there is a greater chance of making the right decision))

if the decision made jointly is not correct, there will be someone to blame

The point is that by expanding your social circle, you can quickly find a solution to the problem. To put it simply, intelligence is good, but two are better. For example, there is a certain task. A solution has been found. With outside support, there will be another solution, and perhaps a more rational one. Associated with different life experiences and a different perspective on the problem.

MEANS: a horny man is better than a good woman!)))

SIMPLY IMPORTANT ISSUES NEED TO BE SOLVED TOGETHER AND EVENTUALLY COME IN AN ANSWER!

I wouldn’t have ended the proverb that way!!!. Well, if you think about it... one head is good, but two is ugly!! !

One person cannot cope with the problem, but in two people the problem is solved quickly