American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

There is no wisdom of crowds

04 07 11 - 20:20

The wisdom of crowds has been a popular topic after a book by the same name came out, suggesting that humanity is a bottom-up self-organizing system that magically produces the right answer.

Like a group of delusional dunces, the people who buy such books clap their little hands and exclaim, "Oh, so it will all work out right after all!" -- without anyone's intervention, of course. Keep grazing, buying, breeding and basically, doing whatever you wanted to do before someone told you that maybe you were dooming us all.

As he walked through the exhibition that day, Galton came across a weight-judging competition. A fat ox had been selected and placed on display, and members of a gathering crowd were lining up to place wagers on the weight of the ox. (Or rather, they were placing wagers on what the weight of the ox would be after it had been “slaughtered and dressed.”) For sixpence, you could buy a stamped and numbered ticket, where you filled in your name, your address, and your estimate. The best guesses would receive prizes.

Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were a diverse lot. Many of them were butchers and farmers, who were presumably expert at judging the weight of livestock, but there were also quite a few people who had, as it were, no insider knowledge of cattle. “Many non-experts competed,” Galton wrote later in the scientific journal Nature, “like those clerks and others who have no expert knowledge of horses, but who bet on races, guided by newspapers, friends, and their own fancies.” The analogy to a democracy, in which people of radically different abilities and interests each get one vote, had suggested itself to Galton immediately. “The average competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight of the ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which he votes,” he wrote.

Galton was interested in figuring out what the “average voter” was capable of because he wanted to prove that the average voter was capable of very little. So he turned the competition into an im-promptu experiment. When the contest was over and the prizes had been awarded, Galton borrowed the tickets from the organizers and ran a series of statistical tests on them. Galton arranged the guesses (which totaled 787 in all, after he had to discard thirteen because they were illegible) in order from highest to lowest and graphed them to see if they would form a bell curve. Then, among other things, he added all the contestants’ estimates, and calculated the mean of the group’s guesses. That number represented, you could say, the collective wisdom of the Plymouth crowd. If the crowd were a single person, that was how much it would have guessed the ox weighed.

Galton undoubtedly thought that the average guess of the group would be way off the mark. After all, mix a few very smart people with some mediocre people and a lot of dumb people, and it seems likely you’d end up with a dumb answer. But Galton was wrong. The crowd had guessed that the ox, after it had been slaughtered and dressed, would weigh 1,197 pounds. After it had been slaughtered and dressed, the ox weighed 1,198 pounds. In other words, the crowd’s judgment was essentially perfect. Perhaps breeding did not mean so much after all. - AWC

Even though this is only one example, the modern twist to the story is clear: elitist visits fair, realizes that most people are right after all! Democracy wins; we are all saved!

But now the experiment has its second part.

If you gather a group of people, you can use their knowledge to determine averages and statistical optimum outcomes.

That is what happens, of course, if you impose a leadership situation where all are forced to focus on the same thing and produce an answer.

Left alone?

As Surowiecki explained, certain conditions must be met for crowd wisdom to emerge. Members of the crowd ought to have a variety of opinions, and to arrive at those opinions independently.

Take those away, and crowd intelligence fails, as evidenced in some market bubbles. Computer modeling of crowd behavior also hints at dynamics underlying crowd breakdowns, with he balance between information flow and diverse opinions becoming skewed. - Wired

This is in dramatic contrast to the happy prole-o-vision idea, which is always a simplistic fantasy based on the individual being eternally important and right.

In movies, it's the misfits joining together to overthrow the popular kids.

In economics and politics, it's the idea that a sweaty unwashed mob of selfish people somehow arrive at the best answer through self-interest.

In reality, it's that a mob can answer a question correctly -- if you average their responses. Much like how they fit into a bell curve, they cover a spread that centers statistically on a reasonable answer.

We don't see it working out so well in reality, but it's nice to dream.

seven comments

I doubt this reformed Mr. Galton

"Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.[3] The effect is easily undermined. Social influence can cause the average of the crowd answers to be wildly inaccurate, while the geometric mean and the median are far more robust.[4]" - Wikipedo

So if a crowd was asked what is the integral of x^2 + 1 they'd give the right answer, but ask them how to run a society and we're in trouble.. Dumocracy - 05-07-’11 05:21

Boy, this reminds me of my earlier years. Yeah, brings me back to the hight of my limbo in the summer of my thirteenth year. I almost managed to live completely nocturnal, going to sleep at around six in the morning and waking up 12 hours later. My only activities were to play video games, watch television, and masturbate. I hid myself away trying to lock up my past and hating the present.

My genes are all sorts of mixed quality, but mostly good and strong, as I never thought, as a good philosopher might, what I hated, just that I hated, and I wanted none of what held my hate. Thankfully I found friends when eigth grade stole me away; I may not be social, but no one else besides misfits or the greatest people I knew would ever come to introduce themselves to me as friends. Well, after long years of scheduled sorrow and hatred, I slowly came to realize that fatalism sucks, because it reduced my potential. I could have just let myself become a muslim-hero-splatter on my school's wall, or I could have made everyone there into a muslim-hero-splatter. Oh, the possibilites are beautiful. Indeed! Levy_Spearmen - 05-07-’11 08:50
tiny midget
just for the record Levy, i'm not gay awright? i'm fukking straight man. tiny midget - 05-07-’11 09:16
I know that. You fucked my mom. Levy_Spearmen - 05-07-’11 10:54
I saw that this post had 4 comments, and I thought that maybe these 4 commentators had very intellectual things to say. Things about the right and wrong of a collective. The first comment I read was thought provoking. the last 3 however were not, the percentage thus being 75% non-thought provoking. Unless one is stimulated by the image of someone masturbating in the dark with F.F.7 on the television screen. Thanks dude! n/a - 05-07-’11 20:31
No problem, bro. I'm here for you. Levy_Spearmen - 05-07-’11 22:58

(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.