Rough Ranking

[Spence]

That is exactly what I am talking about. This is when it works;

"Under what circumstances is the crowd smarter?

There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks. "

This is when it doesn't;


"And what circumstances can lead the crowd to make less-than-stellar decisions?

Essentially, any time most of the people in a group are biased in the same direction, it's probably not going to make good decisions. So when diverse opinions are either frozen out or squelched when they're voiced, groups tend to be dumb. And when people start paying too much attention to what others in the group think, that usually spells disaster, too. For instance, that's how we get stock-market bubbles, which are a classic example of group stupidity: instead of worrying about how much a company is really worth, investors start worrying about how much other people will think the company is worth. The paradox of the wisdom of crowds is that the best group decisions come from lots of independent individual decisions. "

That is why I ask for an honest opinion. One that comes from the individual. If it is honest, the good picks will mirror each other and the bad ones drop off. It is only when something is trying to manipulate the poll does the bias come through. I think if you make an honest assessment of the teams and rank them according to what you really think, it will be a good poll in the end.

[donovan]

Crowds...if we are going to use the current buzz word...have kept despots from taking over. Efficiency is always with the single wise ruler...but what happens when the wise rulers...e.g. college presidents, turn their moral responsibility over to the despots....e.g. NCAA, BCS and ESPN. I prefer less efficiency than despotism.

[Spence]

Crowds...if we are going to use the current buzz word...have kept despots from taking over. Efficiency is always with the single wise ruler...but what happens when the wise rulers...e.g. college presidents, turn their moral responsibility over to the despots....e.g. NCAA, BCS and ESPN. I prefer less efficiency than despotism.

agreed.

[Derek]

Crowds...if we are going to use the current buzz word...have kept despots from taking over. Efficiency is always with the single wise ruler...but what happens when the wise rulers...e.g. college presidents, turn their moral responsibility over to the despots....e.g. NCAA, BCS and ESPN. I prefer less efficiency than despotism.

I don't know what you just said...but it had something about ESPN being bad...therefore I agree.

[donovan]

Crowds...if we are going to use the current buzz word...have kept despots from taking over. Efficiency is always with the single wise ruler...but what happens when the wise rulers...e.g. college presidents, turn their moral responsibility over to the despots....e.g. NCAA, BCS and ESPN. I prefer less efficiency than despotism.

I don't know what you just said...but it had something about ESPN being bad...therefore I agree.

at last.

[WoVeU]

Group think or crowds also suffer from one habit the to- typical individual often does. I really don't like the way things are going right now...equals we need change...which will lead to a change. Often never has to stand on any more merit than being different. Different, a change, can be worse than the original. But people often overcome this Murphian Corollary, "How much worse can it get!"

We have a whole lot of deep thinkers! (One layer onions.)

[Derek]

Group think or crowds also suffer from one habit the to- typical individual often does. I really don't like the way things are going right now...equals we need change...which will lead to a change. Often never has to stand on any more merit than being different. Different, a change, can be worse than the original. But people often overcome this Murphian Corollary, "How much worse can it get!"

We have a whole lot of deep thinkers! (One layer onions.)

Don't worry Sir...there is some change taking place today.

[Eric]

The thing with "crowds" is that generally on a proposition where there is relatively intense disagreement, usually the masses will split 50/50 on the topic. The informed who actually do know what they are doing are the ones who make the difference in a poll.

[WoVeU]

The thing with "crowds" is that generally on a proposition where there is relatively intense disagreement, usually the masses will split 50/50 on the topic. The informed who actually do know what they are doing are the ones who make the difference in a poll.

I haven't seen any credible study and determination on that and don't think one could be readily done...but with that being said, I have 0 trust in that hypothesis. Sounds far too much like, "ignore the idiots!"

[Eric]

The thing with "crowds" is that generally on a proposition where there is relatively intense disagreement, usually the masses will split 50/50 on the topic. The informed who actually do know what they are doing are the ones who make the difference in a poll.

I haven't seen any credible study and determination on that and don't think one could be readily done...but with that being said, I have 0 trust in that hypothesis. Sounds far too much like, "ignore the idiots!"

Well it depends on the issue. I'm sure most of society is informed that it takes 365 days for the Earth to go around the sun. But it's the same reason you'd probably rather have 4 answers on Who Wants to be a Millionarie's ask the audience versus two. The uninformed people go with their gut, and since that can certainly be random based on whatever subjectively makes sense, those people fly blind and pick one of the four answers. The people who do know the answers add their answers on top of the distribution, so that's how you could get a 40 / 15 / 15 / 15 distribution on a 4-question multiple choice question of some sort. Although even if you did "use your 50/50" so to speak, the correct answers would still get added on to a potential 50 / 50 split, but it could be less discernible.

Basically it would only work where the information is very specified and esoteric and the audience doesn't really have a good frame of reference. That's where a systematic bias could come into play. If it's really general like the sun question, I'm sure the population being quizzed mostly knows the correct answer.

[donovan]

I think this is a good example. Truth is, as I understand it, it does not take 365 days...but a varying degree more. We have leap year to make adjustments and recently when laser measurement of time was used leap seconds that will make this more accurate....not precisely..but more. Has to do with reasons beyond the scope of this thread....HOWEVER, I am quite OK with saying..there are 365 days in a year....has worked for me for a long time and I hope for several more years......and never say "leap" to an old guy.

[Spence]

"leap" or at least that last letter.