Reddit reviews The Wisdom of Crowds

Someone should write a book about this phenomenon.

Bigbuddhabelly presents the Heinlein/republican position.

Let me point out a couple of problems with this point of view.

1. A GROUP of people can be full of many people that are uninformed and stupid and STILL (as a group) get the right answer most of the time (the Who Wants to be a Millionaire effect). In fact, there is a wealth of research that indicates that a large group of clueless people will generally outperform experts. For an accessible introduction to this, you can check out James Surowiecki's [Wisdom of Crowds] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds). Another [link] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706)
   
   
2. The mechanic analogy is ultimately a failure. In the case of the customer and the mechanic, the customer is the sole individual being serviced and the mechanic is the sole individual doing the servicing.
   
   Using your analogy, the politician provides the service and the voter is the customer. Note that in the case of democracy, the politician services ALL citizens: intelligent or not, voting or not. That is exactly the reason your analogy breaks down, democracy is very much not like getting your car fixed.
   
   
3. Clueless Joe may not be the brightest, but there is a chance he knows what will benefit him and will vote for the politician that will be an advocate for the Clueless Joes of the world. If you exclude all the Clueless Joes from voting, you just about guarantee that no politician will be an advocate for Clueless Joe. So in a democracy there is a chance that the government will look out for C.J., while in a Heinleinian meritocracy, Clueless Joe is guaranteed to be screwed.
   
   
4. empirical evidence weighs in against the claim that a democracy doesn't work. Look at the countries with the highest per capita income, the most advanced science, the most advanced health care, the most advanced education, the most freedoms, the lowest infant mortality, etc. You will note that in any list of such countries, at least 15 of the top 20 will always be democracies (or republics such as the US).
   
   Disclaimer: I am not related to James Surowiecki, I have never met him, I do not work for the publisher of The Wisdom of Crowds, and I have no financial interest in his book.
   
   edit: added disclaimer
   
   

Nicky Case of Evolution of Trust has another explorable, this time on Crowds.

I found the sandbox element less fun and insight-inducing in Crowds, but it feels like there is a lot of potential here. I would be interested in adding a kind of RTS element, where the nodes output resources based on contagious traits. Even the ability to play with thresholds and tie strength would be nice.

> A quick response to James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds
First off, I'm not dissing this book. It's a good book, and Surowiecki was trying to tackle the same question I am: “why do some crowds turn to madness, or wisdom?”

> Surowiecki's answer: crowds make good decisions when everybody is as independent as possible. He gives the story of a county fair, where the townsfolk were invited to guess the weight of an ox. Surprisingly, the average of all their guesses was better than any one guess. But, here's the rub: the people have to guess independently of each other. Otherwise, they'd be influenced by earlier incorrect guesses, and the average answer would be highly skewed.

> But... I don't think "make everyone as independent as possible" is the full answer. Even geniuses, who we mischaracterize as the most independent thinkers, are deeply influenced by others. As Sir Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the sholders of Giants.”

> So, which idea is correct? Does wisdom come from thinking for yourself, or thinking with others? The answer is: "yes".

> So that's what I'll try to explain in this explorable explanation: how to get that sweet spot between independence and interdependence — that is, how to get a wise crowd.

Slide 3c paints Case as prosocial consequentialist: sever friendships to encourage self-sacrifice.

That quote sounds good but is blatantly wrong. "People" are actually much smarter than individuals. For example, no single person put a man on the moon. No single person wrote the Linux kernel. Etc.

I read a book about this phenomenon in college, one of the few books I actually read in its entirety because it was just that good.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

I completely disagree with Brexit but that's a fantastic writeup. Arguing that officials and politicians should make all decisions for us because "people are stupid duhhhhh" is arguing for rule by elites, whether u/Wootery likes it or not.

Wisdom of the crowds does exist (btw read this book if you want to be able to destroy all anti-democracy arguments). In fact, I would be willing to bet that a diverse group people could explain far better the Riemann Hypothesis than the best professors on Earth alone.

until someone comes up with a good algorithm (I'm skeptical it will ever be accomplished), we're going to have to rely on the wisdom of the crowd, which, by the way, is not a bad way to go about this sort of thing: https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

Everyone should read that book. I have some caveats though. For crowds to be wise, they must have four things:

1. Diversity of opinion: This is very hard in an age of mass mediated talking points. With cable news and the internet, you can get "facts" in any flavor you want.
   
   
2. Independence: People don't let their opinions be determined by those around them. HA!
   
   
3. Decentralization: People can draw on local (not top down/centralized) information.
   
   
4. Aggregation: Private sentiments can be converted into an organized collective judgment.
   
   I'm not saying that crowds can't be wise. They can under ideal conditions. For that to be the case though, the person has to be rational in how they construct their beliefs and all four qualities must be present. Good luck with that.
   
   I'm not trying to debunk a strawman. Surowiecki does say that all these qualities have to be present for the crowd to be wise. As is often the case with big ideas though, this one has taken on a life of its own, to the point where a lot of people think that crowds are always right, regardless of whether the qualities are there or not.

Representative democracies came about in a time when a horse was the fastest way to communicate across the country, tallying votes from millions of people was a massive undertaking, and two people needed to be standing in front of each other if they wanted to talk. We now have the Internet, and we need to think outside the box on what democracy could be.

A far more direct democracy could be a more intelligent democracy. It's all about [The Wisdom of Crowds] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706) where Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica is the classic example. We need to find the right model to capture our [Cognitive Surplus] (http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Surplus-Creativity-Generosity-Connected/dp/B004KAB2VW) for intelligent mass collective action. A model where all the experts who have ideas of merit or quality data can weigh in on issues to build a consensus and there is transparency and oversight by the general population. Something more like science than our current politics, but operating on much shorter time frames than the old slow system of scientific journals allowed.

I think open software, hardware, and information is pointing the way. The market will likely vet these online collaboration techniques, which are more social than technological problems, and government will adopt what works.

Bitcoin and other technologies are pointing the way to the more profound possibility of decentralization (checkout /r/Rad_decentralization). These grass-roots technologies are evolving at a blinding speed compared to government. We may very well dismantle a lot of government as these decentralized systems pop up quickly and prove better.

I get what you mean but there is potential though.

https://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706?tag=w050b-20

>Surowiecki argues that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them."

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

It's not always "right" but overall mostly not "wrong".

Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell

Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age - Duncan Watts

Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means - Albert-Laszlo Barabasi

Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of Networks - Mark Buchanan

The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles - Robin Baker

Motley Crue: The Dirt - Confessions of the World's Most Notorious Rock Band - Neil Strauss

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Nassim Nicholas Taleb

The World is Flat - Thomas Friedman

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference - Malcolm Gladwell

The Wisdom of Crowds - James Surowiecki

Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster - Jon Krakauer

The Climb - Anatoli Boukreev

Ultramarathon Man: Confessions of an All-Night Runner - Dean Karnazes

> Edit: Basically, what would get you to group invest?

1. A group of investors; not gamblers.
   
2. Either long term investors or DayTraders or Swing Traders or Algo Traders; but one group for each category, no mix & match
   
3. A venue where people would share their trades before they execute them, as well as their portfolio. No need to give proof, trust is key
   
4. People sharing what they do and everyone else is free to get inspired. No wishy-washy or people short on funds and long on overbloated egoes only looking to troll.
   
   This idea is not new, it is based on The Wisdom of Crowds (great book), the key is to have like minded people, serious, and with the same outcome (sharing of info, not trolling); and that's something that's missing on Reddit as we know it.
   

Check this book. A very interesting read... its basic message is that there exists something like the wisdom of the crowd, but that some conditions have to be met (Diversity of opinion, decentralization, independence and a good opinion aggregation method), which is not always the case. For example, opinion leaders may skew the debate in some direction because of their influence on others opinions.

Sometimes. We can also be much smarter in a group than individually. Check out this book. The Wisdom of Crowds https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385721706/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_tWXrDbBFE4PF0

And this is more than groups coming together to discuss and bounce ideas off of each other (which is of course a valid experience as well). It includes things like how when people guess how many gumballs are in a jar the average of every guess tends to be more accurate than any individual guess.

So yes, you're right but only partially. Together we can do both horrible and amazing things.

I enjoyed "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely, and am currently loving "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki. Behavioral Economics is fascinating.

Consensus based systems have already been proven to be superior to expert based systems. Since there is no reliable way to pick an expert, and even if picked, the expert will not have access to all available information or knowledge.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

That's because of The Wisdom of Crowds

I love this topic.

I highly suggest reading The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki. He goes deep into the special abilities of crowds, what factors are needed to make a "smart crowd", the different types of problems crowds can solve, and the limitations of crowds.

Also highly recommend The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon. It was published in 1896 and has a much more pessimistic view of the crowd, which I attribute to the lack of technology at the time.

The wisdom of Crowds.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373830676&sr=8-1&keywords=the+wisdom+of+crowds

Does anyone know if Average Draft Position outscored the Fantasy Pros 'expert' ratings for last year's draft?

I used to blindly believe that people in groups are essentially stupid, until I read the wisdom of crowds. I now think that there are times when they can indeed be stupid (moblike mentality), but there are many times when the crowd can be remarkably right.

> Also you have the problem of proving you're in debt at a cryptographic decentralised level. I'm pretty sure this is impossible?

The "magic of wisdom of crowds" is that it is not manipulated, because by nature people are manipulative http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

This concept is known and has been proven over and over again.

See;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOucwX7Z1HU

https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/189-5891326-0992054

My girlfriend recently got her masters degree in sociology, and her thesis was about different types of polls and how they affect outcomes. It turns out that the differences between internet, written (snailmail) and telephone polls is not just slight, it's enormous. Of course, it's because you're tapping into different demographics. Remember who everbody in the internets was full of disbelief when noone actually voted for Ron Paul?

A better predictor for elections is probably a prediction market ('the wisdom of crowds' is an interesting read). Take a look at intrade. Over 60% of the 'investors' there predicts a win for Obama. Not only that, it seems that the Democrats were set for a win from the start, regardless of Clinton or Obama, although the grap has widened.

So... http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706 ?

https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

Evaluating the merits of a work of art and/or gameplay experience, as well as its worth in the marketplace is not a 'basic' task, it's a monumental one in which peoples' biases and preferences will surely factor in. And larger numbers of people attempting to do so will almost always end up with a better result than smaller numbers of people.

Incorrect. Read The Wisdom of Crowds.

You're under the impression your individual opinion matters. It doesn't. These opinion scores feed statistical metrics for aggregate feelings that are more accurate than the usual "medium" reviews. If you're interested in learning some science, as opposed to whining about your inability to indulge in your own vanity, try reading The Wisdom of Crowds

i dunno, groups in this case work pretty well

Why don't we let the millions of other /r/AskElectronics readers weigh in with their opinions? Maybe they will disagree, en masse, with my analysis. Acting upon "The Wisdom Of Crowds" might turn out to be, beneficial! (LINK)

Maybe people are just downvoting the idea of selling the coin right now for another because it is a bad idea. It should be very strong until after Feb. 26. Sometimes crowds are just right.