>
>
> The dumping could be counteracted if positive votes couldn't be
> cancelled out by negatives and vice versa, both would show up.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385721706/sr=8-1/qid=1145988564/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1423200-8312725?%5Fencoding=UTF8
The "Wisdom of Crowds" really changed my view on, well, the wisdom of
crowds. By getting a large set of independent and diverse views,
"errors" on each side cancel each other out and often the group
consensus is better than that of "experts". Really its basic
statistics -- sampling theory -- but "cloaked" in relatively
non-statistical terms and lots of modern examples.
Note the need for a large number of independent and diverse views.
When these conditions are not met, ignorance manifests. The book
implicity provides a huge agrument against the consolidation of media.
And ties to recent discussions of the media's weakness (lack of
diversification, IMO) resulting in the manifestation of ignorance, not
wisdom, in the past two presidnetial elections.
>From the link:
"While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom
of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that
"under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and
are often smarter than the smartest people in them." To support this
almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowiecki explores problems
involving cognition (we're all trying to identify a correct answer),
coordination (we need to synchronize our individual activities with
others) and cooperation (we have to act together despite our
self-interest). His rubric, then, covers a range of problems,
including driving in traffic, competing on TV game shows, maximizing
stock market performance, voting for political candidates, navigating
busy sidewalks, tracking SARS and designing Internet search engines
like Google. If four basic conditions are met, a crowd's "collective
intelligence" will produce better outcomes than a small group of
experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don't know all
the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. "Wise crowds"
need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one
another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating
opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence
keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's
errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees
that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in
charge. Surowiecki's style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise
for what might otherwise be rather dense material. He offers a great
introduction to applied behavioral economics and game theory.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved."
>From Bookmarks Magazine
Surowiecki first developed his ideas for Wisdom of Crowds in his
"Financial Page" column of The New Yorker. Many critics found his
premise to be an interesting twist on the long held notion that
Americans generally question the masses and eschew groupthink. "A
socialist might draw some optimistic conclusions from all of this,"
wrote The New York Times. "But Surowiecki's framework is decidedly
capitalist." Some reviewers felt that the academic language and
business speak decreased the impact of the argument. Still, it's a
thought-provoking, timely book: the TV studio audience of Who Wants to
Be a Millionaire guesses correctly 91 percent of the time, compared to
"experts" who guess only 65 percent correctly. Keep up the good work,
comrades.
Reviewer: Craig L. Howe "www.craighowe.com - Home of the Pointed
Pundit" (Darien, CT United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
In 1906, Francis Galton, known for his work on statistics and
heredity, came across a weight-judging contest at the West of England
Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. This encounter was to challenge the
foundations of his life's study.
An ox was on display and for six-pence fair-goers could buy a stamped
and numbered ticket, fill in their names and their guesses of the
animal's weight after it had been slaughtered and dressed. The best
guess received a prize.
Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were diverse. Many had no
knowledge of livestock; others were butchers and farmers. In Galton's
mind this was a perfect analogy for democracy. He wanted to prove the
average voter was capable of very little. Yet to his surprise, when he
averaged the guesses, the total came to 1197 pounds. After the ox had
been slaughtered, it weighted 1198.
James Surowiecki takes Galton's counterintuitive notion and explores
its ramification for business, government, science and the economy. It
is a book about the world as it is. At the same time, it is a book
about the world as it might be. Most of us believe that valuable
nuggets of knowledge are concentrated in few minds. We believe the
solution to our complex problems lies in finding the right person.
When all we have to do, Surowiecki demonstrates over and over, is ask
the gathered crowd.
----
"The most intriguing aspect of the book is the potential to use
internal 'crowds' to evaluate ideas and breakthrough concepts.
Currently companies rely on small groups of senior managers to make
serious and lasting judgments on concepts. Sadly, the track record of
this approach is really not that good. In spite of years of
`stage-gate' effort, the failure rate of new products still averages
out at over 60%. There must be a better way of doing this, and this
book gave me the inspiration to look at the problem in new ways. "
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
