Comments on: The Wisdom of Crowds http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:20:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Nick Walker http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-451306 Nick Walker Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:51:15 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-451306 Well you won't fall behind if you follow the crowd. "Runaways" substitute short term reputability for longer term status, erroneously assuming the crowd will appreciate the value of insight. Well you won’t fall behind if you follow the crowd. “Runaways” substitute short term reputability for longer term status, erroneously assuming the crowd will appreciate the value of insight.

]]> By: Spire Security Viewpoint http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423971 Spire Security Viewpoint Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:53:38 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423971 <strong>The Wisdom of Crowds Paradox</strong> Donn Parker is a security professional who wrote an article for ISSA Magazine a few months ago that asserted that risk management should be replaced by due diligence, compliance, and enablement (whatever that is). Of course, ignoring risk is simply one... The Wisdom of Crowds Paradox

Donn Parker is a security professional who wrote an article for ISSA Magazine a few months ago that asserted that risk management should be replaced by due diligence, compliance, and enablement (whatever that is). Of course, ignoring risk is simply one…

]]> By: TGGP http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423970 TGGP Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:50:44 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423970 Bruce, I think the reason the "beans in a jar" example is supposed to work is that people do not have a systematic bias in any direction. I don't know if that requires an explanation, but it would seem to me that biases are what demand them. People would often be in error, but their errors are random and centered around the true value. Averaging everything together causes these random errors to cancel each other out. I haven't read the book, so it's possible that you already knew that and were asking something different. Bruce, I think the reason the “beans in a jar” example is supposed to work is that people do not have a systematic bias in any direction. I don’t know if that requires an explanation, but it would seem to me that biases are what demand them. People would often be in error, but their errors are random and centered around the true value. Averaging everything together causes these random errors to cancel each other out.

I haven’t read the book, so it’s possible that you already knew that and were asking something different.

]]> By: Bruce G Charlton http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423969 Bruce G Charlton Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:22:25 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423969 I found the Wisdom of Crowds a very stimulating book which raised a very important question: how does the WoC effect actually work, ie. what are the mechanisms? However the book made no attempt to address this obvious question, which I thought was strange. On the other hand, I have since utterly failed come up with any plausible answer myself. Any ideas? How about the 'beans in a jar' example (assuming the evidence is correct): how is it that group average guesses are accurate? I found the Wisdom of Crowds a very stimulating book which raised a very important question: how does the WoC effect actually work, ie. what are the mechanisms? However the book made no attempt to address this obvious question, which I thought was strange.

On the other hand, I have since utterly failed come up with any plausible answer myself. Any ideas? How about the ‘beans in a jar’ example (assuming the evidence is correct): how is it that group average guesses are accurate?

]]> By: Earl Stevens http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423968 Earl Stevens Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:44:46 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423968 Considering the opposite side of the issue, I highly recommend Cass Sunstein's "Why Societies Need Dissent". This book isn't nearly as entertaining of a read as Surowiecki's - it's pretty much just a series of lectures strung together as chapters. Throughout, Sunstein presents and dissects the pros and cons of many group behaviors. Filled with lots of examples, and plenty of research citations. Check it out. Considering the opposite side of the issue, I highly recommend Cass Sunstein’s “Why Societies Need Dissent”. This book isn’t nearly as entertaining of a read as Surowiecki’s – it’s pretty much just a series of lectures strung together as chapters. Throughout, Sunstein presents and dissects the pros and cons of many group behaviors. Filled with lots of examples, and plenty of research citations. Check it out.

]]> By: Futurismic http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423972 Futurismic Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:59:27 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423972 <strong>Digg's Fatal Flaw - Its Users</strong> Digg this, Digg that - crowdsourcing is the ultimate way to unearth what's newsworthy. Or at least it would be - if its user-base actually did some real 'digging' and checked the facts behind a story (or at least the... Digg’s Fatal Flaw – Its Users

Digg this, Digg that – crowdsourcing is the ultimate way to unearth what’s newsworthy. Or at least it would be – if its user-base actually did some real ‘digging’ and checked the facts behind a story (or at least the…

]]> By: radish http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423967 radish Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:26:02 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423967 Interesting. So a useful question might be "does the accuracy of a crowd's 'crowdsense' correlate with the way that its individuals perceive and analyse collective opinion?" Does Surowiecki discuss that? If you're trying to predict the accuracy with which a particular crowd will answer certain questions, and you want to find (and eventually tweak) the simplest possible parameters that will enhance that accuracy, then measuring things like the weight that individuals give to the collective opinion seems like a good bet. An anecdotal look at the extreme cases would seem to support it... Accurate: people rave about the Deplhi Method, and that's an expert-oriented prediction market, structured in a way that very much suppresses runaway positive feedback. Inaccurate: bubble markets, where the only significant market force is the credibility of collective opinion, but the collective opinion still fails to predict when the market will collapse. Interesting. So a useful question might be “does the accuracy of a crowd’s ‘crowdsense’ correlate with the way that its individuals perceive and analyse collective opinion?” Does Surowiecki discuss that? If you’re trying to predict the accuracy with which a particular crowd will answer certain questions, and you want to find (and eventually tweak) the simplest possible parameters that will enhance that accuracy, then measuring things like the weight that individuals give to the collective opinion seems like a good bet.

An anecdotal look at the extreme cases would seem to support it… Accurate: people rave about the Deplhi Method, and that’s an expert-oriented prediction market, structured in a way that very much suppresses runaway positive feedback. Inaccurate: bubble markets, where the only significant market force is the credibility of collective opinion, but the collective opinion still fails to predict when the market will collapse.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_wisdom_of_c.html#comment-423966 Robin Hanson Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:18:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html#comment-423966 I'm glad Surowiecki wrote his book, in part because it called attention to these issues. My main complaint is that in many readers minds his book framed the choice of prediction markets as a choice of crowd wisdom over expert wisdom. In fact, prediction markets can and do work well in situations with lots of expert wisdom and little crowd wisdom. By choosing a prediction market you choose a mechanism which should do well regardless of who knows more; the people who know much should self-select to participate, and there is little harm (and often benefit) from allowing those who know little to participate. I’m glad Surowiecki wrote his book, in part because it called attention to these issues. My main complaint is that in many readers minds his book framed the choice of prediction markets as a choice of crowd wisdom over expert wisdom. In fact, prediction markets can and do work well in situations with lots of expert wisdom and little crowd wisdom. By choosing a prediction market you choose a mechanism which should do well regardless of who knows more; the people who know much should self-select to participate, and there is little harm (and often benefit) from allowing those who know little to participate.

]]>