<p>While looking for solutions and answers, we find that an individual provides a different answer than a group of people. Wisdom of the crowd is often considered better, as an individual might be biased, manipulated or have some ulterior motive. <strong>Depending on the problem, the wisdom of the crowd may be inferior to the individual.</strong></p>

Collective Intelligence

<p>Multiple brains work well when the answer is a simple numerical figure or fact, and the question is not coming from the collective intelligence themselves. It helps when the input mechanism posing the problem to the collective intelligence has strict quality control.</p>
<p><em>Individuals, when given substantial powers, start to achieve ‘optimal stupidity’, especially when they are not held accountable for the results and consequences.</em></p>

One Brain Vs Many Brains

<p>Scientific communities make good use of the peer-review process (individuals checking each other) to achieve quality on the basis of a meritocracy. </p>
<p>No mechanism is fool-proof, with bad reporting, incompetency and self-delusion among many individual contributors diminishing the quality of the solutions.</p>

Peer Review

<p>It is now more accessible due to the internet and to get optimal results, there has to be certain checks and balances:</p>
<ul>
<li>Members of the crowd should not be the ones forming and framing a question.</li>
<li>Answers should be limited to a single number or a multiple-choice answer.</li>
<li>Complex problems with unknown outcomes are the ‘Fourth Quadrant’ and should not be solved by crowds.</li>
</ul>

The Hive Mind

<!DOCTYPE html><html>
<body>
  <div>
    <header>
      <div>
        <div>
          <a href="/"><svg>
<style>.st0{fill:#CC3232;}</style>
<path></path>
</svg>

</a>
        </div>
        <ul>
                                    <li><a href="/blog/">Articles</a></li>
                          <li><a href="/books/">Books</a></li>
                          <li><a href="/knowledge-project/">Podcast</a></li>
                                              <li><a href="/membership"> Community</a></li>
            
                              <li>
                    <a href="https://fs.blog/?memberful_endpoint=auth">Member Login</a>
                  </li>
                                <li><a href="/search"><i></i></a></li>  
              </ul>

              <div>
                <a href="#"><div></div></a>
                <nav>
                  <div>
                    <ul>
                                                                        <li><a href="/blog/">Articles</a></li>
                                                  <li><a href="/books/">Books</a></li>
                                                  <li><a href="/knowledge-project/">Podcast</a></li>
                                                                                                                      <li><a href="https://fs.blog/members/">Member Login</a></li>
                                                                    <li><a href="/search">Search</a></li>  
                    </ul>  
                  </div>
                </nav>
              </div>
            </div>
          </header> 
          <div><div>
	<main>
		<div>
			<div>
									<ul>
													<li><a href="/mental-models/">Mental Models</a></li>	
													<li><a href="/smart-decisions/">Decision Making</a></li>	
													<li><a href="/reading/">Reading Better</a></li>	
													<li><a href="/best-articles/">Best Articles</a></li>	
													<li><a href="/random-articles">Random Article</a></li>	
													<li><a href="/tags/">Tags</a></li>	
											</ul>
							</div>
		</div> 
		<div>
			<div>
			</div>
		</div> 
		<div>
			<div>
				<div>
											<div>
							<div><span><a href="https://fs.blog/blog/">Blog</a></span><span>  </span><span><a href="https://fs.blog/category/uncategorized/">Uncategorized</a></span><span>  </span><span><span>The Limits of Crowd Wisdom</span></span></div>						</div>
										<div>
													<article>

<div>

<h1>The Limits of Crowd Wisdom</h1>
<div>

<span>Reading Time:  3 minutes</span>
</div>
</div>

<div>
<p>Jaron Lanier in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">You Are Not A Gadget</a> commenting on the limits of crowd wisdom:</p>
<blockquote><p>There are certain types of answers that ought not be provided by an individual. When a government bureaucrat sets a price, for instance, the result is often inferior to the answer that would come from a reasonably informed collective that is reasonably free of manipulation or runaway internal resonances. But when a collective designs a product, you get design by committee, which is a derogatory expression for a reason.</p>
<p>Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and in important cases, stupider. The interesting question is whether it’s possible to map out where the one is smarter than the many.</p></blockquote>
<p>(continuing in an <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html">Edge Essay</a>: )</p>
<blockquote><p>There is a lot of history to this topic, and varied disciplines have lots to say. Here is a quick pass at where I think the boundary between effective collective thought and nonsense lies: The collective is more likely to be smart when it isn’t defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances, a collective can be smarter than a person. Break any one of those conditions and the collective becomes unreliable or worse.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions.</p>
<p>If the above criteria have any merit, then there is an unfortunate convergence. The setup for the most stupid collective is also the setup for the most stupid individuals.</p></blockquote>
<p>(back to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">book</a>: )</p>
<blockquote><p>Scientific communities likewise achieve quality through a cooperative process that includes checks and balances, and ultimately rests on a foundation of goodwill and “blind” elitism — blind in the sense that ideally anyone can gain entry, but only on the basis of a meritocracy. The tenure system and many other aspects of the academy are designed to support the idea that individual scholars matter, not just the process or the collective.</p>
<p>Yes, there have been plenty of scandals in government, the academy and in the press. No mechanism is perfect, but still here we are, having benefited from all of these institutions. There certainly have been plenty of bad reporters, self-deluded academic scientists, incompetent bureaucrats, and so on. Can the hive mind help keep them in check? The answer provided by experiments in the pre-Internet world is “yes,” but only provided some signal processing is placed in the loop.</p></blockquote>
<p>…</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>The “wisdom of crowds” effect should be thought of as a tool. The value of a tool is its usefulness in accomplishing a task.</strong> The point should never be the glorification of the tool. Unfortunately, simplistic free market ideologues and noospherians tend to reinforce one another’s unjustified sentimentalities about their chosen tools.</p>
<p>Since the internet makes crowds more accessible, it would be beneficial to have a wide-ranging, clear set of rules explaining when the wisdom of crowds is likely to produce meaningful results. Suroweicki proposes four principles in his book, (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0385721706&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">The Wisdom of Crowds</a>), framed from the perspective of the interior dynamics of the crowd. He suggests there should be limits on the ability of members of the crowd to see how others are about to decide on a question, in order to preserve independence and avoid mob behavior. Among other safeguards, I would add that a crowd should never be allowed to frame its own questions, and its answers should never be more complicated than a single number or multiple choice answer.</p>
<p>More recently, Nassim Taleb has argued that applications of statistics, such as crown wisdom schemes, should be divided into four quadrants. He defines the dangerous “Fourth Quadrant” as comprising problems that have both complex outcomes and unknown distributions of outcomes. He suggests making that quadrant taboo for crowds.</p></blockquote>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Still curious?</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">You Are Not a Gadget</a> discusses the technical and cultural problems that have unwittingly risen from technology.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<div>
<svg>
<style>.st0{fill:#CC3232;}</style>
<path></path>
</svg>

</div>

<div>
<div>
<span>Tagged: <a href="https://fs.blog/tag/books/">Books</a>, <a href="https://fs.blog/tag/jaron-lanier/">Jaron Lanier</a>, <a href="https://fs.blog/tag/philosophy/">Philosophy</a>, <a href="https://fs.blog/tag/wisdom-of-crowds/">Wisdom of crowds</a> </span>
</div>
</div>



	


<div>
<a></a>
</div>



</div>
</article>


							
	<nav>
		<h2>Post navigation</h2>
		<div><div><a href="https://fs.blog/2012/10/bad-things-good-decisions/">Why Bad Things Happen to Good Decisions</a></div><div><a href="https://fs.blog/2012/10/the-red-queen-effect/">The Red Queen Effect: Avoid Running Faster and Faster Only to Stay in the Same Place</a></div></div>
	</nav>											</div>
					<div>
						<div>
							<section><h3><span>The Great Mental Models</span></h3><a href="https://geni.us/jYA3vX"><img src="https://149366099.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FS_Vol2_Cover_Amazon_1000px.jpg"/></a></section>						</div>
					</div>
				</div> 
			</div>
		</div> 
	</main></div>
</div> 
<div>
	<div>
		<div>
			<h2>Suggested Reading</h2>
			<div>
				


<a href="https://fs.blog/2020/05/rethinking-fear/">
<div>
<h2>Rethinking Fear</h2>
<span>Reading Time <span>|</span> 4 minutes</span>
<p>Fear is a state no one wants to embrace, yet for many of us it’s the background music to our lives. But by making friends with fear and understanding why it exists, we can become less vulnerable to harm—and less afraid. Read on to learn a better approach to fear. *** In The Gift of […]</p>
<p>Continue Reading <i></i></p>
</div> 
</a>



<a href="https://fs.blog/2020/02/finite-and-infinite-games-two-ways-to-play-the-game-of-life/">
<div>
<h2>Finite and Infinite Games: Two Ways to Play the Game of Life</h2>
<span>Reading Time <span>|</span> 2 minutes</span>
<p>If life is a game, how do you play it? The answer will have a huge impact on your choices, your satisfaction, and how you achieve success. *** James Carse, the Director of Religious Studies at New York University, wrote a book, Finite and Infinite Games, that explores the difference between approaching life as a […]</p>
<p>Continue Reading <i></i></p>
</div> 
</a>



<a href="https://fs.blog/2019/12/nietzsche-jane-austen/">
<div>
<h2>Influence, Gender, and Defying Social Conventions with Friedrich Nietzsche and Jane Austen</h2>
<span>Reading Time <span>|</span> 5 minutes</span>
<p>In the third installment of our FS Bar series, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and writer Jane Austen sit down for a drink and discuss each other’s work, gender, philosophy, and try to find common ground. As always, they are attended by our intellectually curious bartender Kit. *** We are back at the FS bar. Kit is […]</p>
<p>Continue Reading <i></i></p>
</div> 
</a>

			</div>
		</div> 
	</div> 
</div>
</div> 



<footer>
	<div>
		<div>
			<div>
				<div>
					<svg>
<style>.st0{fill:#CC3232;}</style>
<path></path>
</svg>

				</div>
				
				<div>
					<h4>Farnam Street</h4>
											<ul>
																								<li><a href="/newsletter/">Newsletter</a></li>
																																<li><a href="/knowledge-project/">Podcast</a></li>
																																<li><a href="/membership">Learning Community</a></li>
																																<li><a href="https://fs.blog/books/">Books</a></li>
																																<li><a href="/speaking">Speaking</a></li>
																																<li><a href="/about">About</a></li>
																					</ul>
									</div>
				
				<div>
					<h4>Categories</h4>
											<ul>
																								<li><a href="/mental-models/">Mental Models</a></li>
																																<li><a href="https://fs.blog/learning">Learning</a></li>
																																<li><a href="https://fs.blog/reading/">Reading</a></li>
																																<li><a href="/smart-decisions/">Decision Making</a></li>
																																<li><a href="https://fs.blog/intellectual-giants/">Intellectual Giants</a></li>
																					</ul>
									</div>
				
				<div>
					<h4>Partner</h4>
											<ul>
																								<li><a href="/sponsorship">Sponsorship</a></li>
																																<li><a href="https://rethinkworkshops.com/">Workshops</a></li>
																					</ul>
									</div>
				<div>
					<h4>Connect</h4>
					<ul>
						<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FarnamStreet/"><i></i></a></li>
						<li><a href="https://twitter.com/shaneaparrish"><i></i></a></li>
						<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/c/TheKnowledgeProject"><i></i></a></li>
						<li><a href="https://www.instagram.com/farnamstreet/"><i></i></a></li>
						<li><a href="/feed/"><i></i></a></li>
					</ul>
					<div>
						<div>
							<script src="https://forms.convertkit.com/325767?v=6"></script>

						</div>
					</div> 
				</div>
			</div>
		</div>
	</div> 
	<div>
		<div>
			<div>
				<p><i></i> 2020 Farnam Street Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.</p>
				<p>
					Hosted by <a href="https://pressable.com/">Pressable</a>. See our <a href="https://www.fs.blog/privacy-policy/">Privacy Policy.</a><br/>Farnam Street participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising commissions by linking to Amazon.
				</p>
			</div> 
			<div>
				<p>We're <a href="https://syruspartners.com/">Syrus Partners</a>. We buy amazing businesses.</p>
			</div> 
		</div>
	</div> 
</footer>
<script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/onejs?MarketPlace=US&amp;adInstanceId=33713fe9-c73f-4b3d-ba8d-436c0a0f0fd4"></script>
<script src="https://snip.ly/site/5a1350b576ae562762b24001.js"></script>

<script>(function(s,u,m,o,j,v){j=u.createElement(m);v=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0];j.async=1;j.src=o;j.dataset.sumoSiteId='eab90499f89fe425f2d819895641b1a1772cbeb3d761fef0ceffe771f5ca585b';j.dataset.sumoPlatform='wordpress';v.parentNode.insertBefore(j,v)})(window,document,'script','//load.sumo.com/');</script>    <script>
      var ajaxurl = "https://fs.blog/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

      function sumo_add_woocommerce_coupon(code) {
        jQuery.post(ajaxurl, {
          action: 'sumo_add_woocommerce_coupon',
          code: code,
        });
      }

      function sumo_remove_woocommerce_coupon(code) {
        jQuery.post(ajaxurl, {
          action: 'sumo_remove_woocommerce_coupon',
          code: code,
        });
      }

      function sumo_get_woocommerce_cart_subtotal(callback) {
        jQuery.ajax({
          method: 'POST',
          url: ajaxurl,
          dataType: 'html',
          data: {
            action: 'sumo_get_woocommerce_cart_subtotal',
          },
          success: function(subtotal) {
            return callback(null, subtotal);
          },
          error: function(err) {
            return callback(err, 0);
          }
        });
      }
    </script>
    <script src="https://149366099.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/themes/farnamstreet/js/nav.js?ver=5.4.2"></script>
<script src="https://149366099.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/themes/farnamstreet/js/tabs.js?ver=20151215"></script>
<script src="https://c0.wp.com/c/5.4.2/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			(function() {
			var t   = document.createElement( 'script' );
			t.type  = 'text/javascript';
			t.async = true;
			t.id    = 'gauges-tracker';
			t.setAttribute( 'data-site-id', '5b2baf7fe5b7c935e5c6fedf' );
			t.src = '//secure.gaug.es/track.js';
			var s = document.getElementsByTagName( 'script' )[0];
			s.parentNode.insertBefore( t, s );
			})();
		</script>
		<script src="https://stats.wp.com/e-202027.js"></script>
<script>
	_stq = window._stq || [];
	_stq.push([ 'view', {v:'ext',j:'1:8.6.1',blog:'148761140',post:'8888',tz:'-4',srv:'fs.blog'} ]);
	_stq.push([ 'clickTrackerInit', '148761140', '8888' ]);
</script>



</body></html>

philosophy

Philosophy

Discover the world of business and economics.

economics

Economics

personaldevelopment

Personal Development

problemsolving

Problem Solving

<p>Jaron Lanier in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">You Are Not A Gadget </a>commenting on the limits of crowd wisdom: </p><p>There are certain types of answers that ought not be provided by an individual. When a government bureaucrat sets a price, for instance, the result is often inferior to the answer that would come from a reasonably informed collective that is reasonably free of manipulation or runaway internal resonances. But when a collective designs a product, you get design by committee, which is a derogatory expression for a reason. </p>

<p>Jaron Lanier in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">You Are Not A Gadget </a>commenting on the limits of crowd wisdom: </p><p>(continuing in an <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html">Edge Essay </a>: ) </p><p>There is a lot of history to this topic, and varied disciplines have lots to say. Here is a quick pass at where I think the boundary between effective collective thought and nonsense lies: The collective is more likely to be smart when it isn’t defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances, a collective can be smarter than a person. Break any one of those conditions and the collective becomes unreliable or worse. </p>

<p>Jaron Lanier in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">You Are Not A Gadget </a>commenting on the limits of crowd wisdom: </p><p>(continuing in an <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html">Edge Essay </a>: ) </p><p>(back to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">book </a>: ) </p><p>Scientific communities likewise achieve quality through a cooperative process that includes checks and balances, and ultimately rests on a foundation of goodwill and “blind” elitism — blind in the sense that ideally anyone can gain entry, but only on the basis of a meritocracy. The tenure system and many other aspects of the academy are designed to support the idea that individual scholars matter, not just the process or the collective. </p>

<p>Yes, there have been plenty of scandals in government, the academy and in the press. No mechanism is perfect, but still here we are, having benefited from all of these institutions. There certainly have been plenty of bad reporters, self-deluded academic scientists, incompetent bureaucrats, and so on. Can the hive mind help keep them in check? The answer provided by experiments in the pre-Internet world is “yes,” but only provided some signal processing is placed in the loop. </p>

<p>Jaron Lanier in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">You Are Not A Gadget </a>commenting on the limits of crowd wisdom: </p><p>(continuing in an <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html">Edge Essay </a>: ) </p><p>(back to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307389979/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0307389979&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">book </a>: ) </p><p>… </p><p><strong>The “wisdom of crowds” effect should be thought of as a tool. The value of a tool is its usefulness in accomplishing a task. </strong>The point should never be the glorification of the tool. Unfortunately, simplistic free market ideologues and noospherians tend to reinforce one another’s unjustified sentimentalities about their chosen tools. </p>

<p>Since the internet makes crowds more accessible, it would be beneficial to have a wide-ranging, clear set of rules explaining when the wisdom of crowds is likely to produce meaningful results. Suroweicki proposes four principles in his book, (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0385721706&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=farnamstreet-20">The Wisdom of Crowds </a>), framed from the perspective of the interior dynamics of the crowd. He suggests there should be limits on the ability of members of the crowd to see how others are about to decide on a question, in order to preserve independence and avoid mob behavior. Among other safeguards, I would add that a crowd should never be allowed to frame its own questions, and its answers should never be more complicated than a single number or multiple choice answer. </p>

<p>More recently, Nassim Taleb has argued that applications of statistics, such as crown wisdom schemes, should be divided into four quadrants. He defines the dangerous “Fourth Quadrant” as comprising problems that have both complex outcomes and unknown distributions of outcomes. He suggests making that quadrant taboo for crowds. </p>

<p>Fear is a state no one wants to embrace, yet for many of us it’s the background music to our lives. But by making friends with fear and understanding why it exists, we can become less vulnerable to harm—and less afraid. Read on to learn a better approach to fear. *** In The Gift of […] </p>

Finite and Infinite Games: Two Ways to Play the Game of Life

<p>If life is a game, how do you play it? The answer will have a huge impact on your choices, your satisfaction, and how you achieve success. *** James Carse, the Director of Religious Studies at New York University, wrote a book, Finite and Infinite Games, that explores the difference between approaching life as a […] </p>

Influence, Gender, and Defying Social Conventions with Friedrich Nietzsche and Jane Austen

<p>In the third installment of our FS Bar series, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and writer Jane Austen sit down for a drink and discuss each other’s work, gender, philosophy, and try to find common ground. As always, they are attended by our intellectually curious bartender Kit. *** We are back at the FS bar. Kit is […] </p>

The Limits of Crowd Wisdom

Collective Intelligence

One Brain Vs Many Brains

Peer Review

The Hive Mind

CURATED BY

Related collections

More like this