Comments on: The Wisdom of Crowds and the crowds within us http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:23:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Susan http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20485 Susan Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:37:36 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20485 I read the Surowiecki book some years ago and thought the title was quite misleading - crowds have very little wisdom - lots of independent opinions (preferably expert, eg, farmers guessing the weight of the cow) combined can do much better. It was hardly a new or surprising insight - "two heads are better than one" is a saying that has been around for a while. The Economist article is, however, interesting. I sometimes worry when asked for an opinion on something that I may have expressed a different view on it previously, since inconsistency is something to be avoided (flip-flops!), but maybe not. It need not be new evidence that causes us to come to a different view but just a new starting point and maybe we should welcome that diversity of outcomes - certainly sounds like a better approach than I have made up my mind on this so I don't need to think about it again. I read the Surowiecki book some years ago and thought the title was quite misleading - crowds have very little wisdom - lots of independent opinions (preferably expert, eg, farmers guessing the weight of the cow) combined can do much better. It was hardly a new or surprising insight - “two heads are better than one” is a saying that has been around for a while. The Economist article is, however, interesting. I sometimes worry when asked for an opinion on something that I may have expressed a different view on it previously, since inconsistency is something to be avoided (flip-flops!), but maybe not. It need not be new evidence that causes us to come to a different view but just a new starting point and maybe we should welcome that diversity of outcomes - certainly sounds like a better approach than I have made up my mind on this so I don’t need to think about it again.

]]> By: projektleiterin http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20468 projektleiterin Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:24:01 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20468 Niklaus's post was pretty interesting. Niklaus’s post was pretty interesting.

]]> By: projektleiterin http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20348 projektleiterin Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:13:53 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20348 We recently had this football tournament (www.uefa.de)and at work we placed bets (not for money, just for fun and some small prizes) on the outcomes of the games. Everybody played alone, except for this group of students, who placed their bets for most of the games right at the beginning as far as it was possible, unlike most of the rest of us who waited for outcomes of the different rounds and then placed their bets for the next round. The students were leading pretty quickly and eventually won. Coincidence? We recently had this football tournament (www.uefa.de)and at work we placed bets (not for money, just for fun and some small prizes) on the outcomes of the games. Everybody played alone, except for this group of students, who placed their bets for most of the games right at the beginning as far as it was possible, unlike most of the rest of us who waited for outcomes of the different rounds and then placed their bets for the next round. The students were leading pretty quickly and eventually won.

Coincidence?

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20346 Dan Klarmann Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:57:14 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20346 I see my misinterpretation: From the context I assumed that "of crowds" meant "by crowds" rather than "about crowds". I see my misinterpretation: From the context I assumed that “of crowds” meant “by crowds” rather than “about crowds”.

]]> By: Niklaus Pfirsig http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20342 Niklaus Pfirsig Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:50:33 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20342 This is also the basic method used in artificial intelligence for handwriting recognition by neural network simulation. In the handwriting recognition algorithim, each letter is isolated for an image of a signature. The image is then analyzed by 9 subprograms (called nodes) that look for specific similarities to letters, one node may look for descenders, another may assess roundness and so on. When the 9 have finished, they vote and the result of the voting is used to eliminate the results that have nothing incommon with the majority. The process then repeats with each node slightly biased in favor of a subset of the previous set of letters. until a certain percentage of the nodes are indicating the same letter. This percentage is called the confidence level and it is usually defaulted to 70 percent. For this to work in artificial intelligence and in groupthink, the initial choice must be made independently by each individual, based on unprejudiced and un biased information. The political process, is one that is determined to introduce an artificial bias and prejudice into mass decisions. This is regardless of what political group are backing the prejudice. Much in the realm of social psychology is counter-intuitive. Which is exactly what makes it so interesting This is also the basic method used in artificial intelligence for handwriting recognition by neural network simulation. In the handwriting recognition algorithim, each letter is isolated for an image of a signature. The image is then analyzed by 9 subprograms (called nodes) that look for specific similarities to letters, one node may look for descenders, another may assess roundness and so on.

When the 9 have finished, they vote and the result of the voting is used to eliminate the results that have nothing incommon with the majority. The process then repeats with each node slightly biased in favor of a subset of the previous set of letters. until a certain percentage of the nodes are indicating the same letter. This percentage is called the confidence level and it is usually defaulted to 70 percent.

For this to work in artificial intelligence and in groupthink, the initial choice must be made independently by each individual, based on unprejudiced and un biased information. The political process, is one that is determined to introduce an artificial bias and prejudice into mass decisions. This is regardless of what political group are backing the prejudice.

Much in the realm of social psychology is counter-intuitive. Which is exactly what makes it so interesting

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20339 Erich Vieth Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:08:53 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20339 Dan: There are limits to the wisdom of crowds, but within those limitations, the crowd is a lot smarter than you would ever anticipate. For more on Surowiecki's surprising findings, check out this Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds Dan: There are limits to the wisdom of crowds, but within those limitations, the crowd is a lot smarter than you would ever anticipate. For more on Surowiecki’s surprising findings, check out this Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/30/the-wisdom-of-crowds-and-the-crowds-within-us/#comment-20326 Dan Klarmann Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:32:04 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2802#comment-20326 On what topics is this analysis relevant? I wouldn't want to ride in a ship or plane whose course was plotted by popular opinion. I wouldn't want to have medical diagnoses based on popular opinion. In brief, I regularly bet my life that anything that has been worked out by disciplined observers probably fails the mass opinion test. It seems like a validation of the classic Emperor's Nose fallacy (one version):<blockquote>According to legend, there was a Chinese peasant who wanted to know how long the Emperor's nose was. However, law forbid him from going to court and gazing on the royal beak directly. So instead he asked everyone he knew how long the emperor's nose was, and averaged the answers. He was very proud of the result - being the average of so many answers, it must be highly accurate. It even had nice properties of numerical stability - it wasn't heavily influenced by any one person's response. As such, the peasant was very surprised and felt more than a little silly when the emperor traveled through the village and his nose bore no resemblance to the averaged result.</blockquote> On what topics is this analysis relevant? I wouldn’t want to ride in a ship or plane whose course was plotted by popular opinion. I wouldn’t want to have medical diagnoses based on popular opinion.

In brief, I regularly bet my life that anything that has been worked out by disciplined observers probably fails the mass opinion test.

It seems like a validation of the classic Emperor’s Nose fallacy (one version):

According to legend, there was a Chinese peasant who wanted to know how long the Emperor’s nose was. However, law forbid him from going to court and gazing on the royal beak directly. So instead he asked everyone he knew how long the emperor’s nose was, and averaged the answers. He was very proud of the result - being the average of so many answers, it must be highly accurate. It even had nice properties of numerical stability - it wasn’t heavily influenced by any one person’s response. As such, the peasant was very surprised and felt more than a little silly when the emperor traveled through the village and his nose bore no resemblance to the averaged result.

]]>