The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations is a book written by James Surowiecki that was first published in 2005. In it, Surowiecki argues that, thanks to the aggregation of information present in groups, the results of a group lead to better decisions than could have been made by any one of the group members, individually. Surowiecki uses multiple examples across many fields and domains to prove his theory. Ranging from psychology to economics, Surowiecki gives evidence to the highly functional aspect of groups and how, given the right combination of factors, a group will always be more successful in its results than individuals. To understand what it takes for a crowd to be wise, we must first understand what defines a crowd – Surowiecki says that a crowd is “really any group of people who can act collectively to make decisions and solve problems”. One of the very first anecdotes given in the book relates Francis Galton’s bewilderment at a crowd’s ability, once their scores were averaged, to more accurately guess the weight of a butchered ox than a common individual. This anecdote proves the thesis that “the idea of the wisdom of crowds is not that a group will always give you the right answer, but that it will consistently come up with a better answer than any individual can provide.”
Given this idea, Surowiecki argues that the bigger the crowd, the better, he also argues the importance of diversity because crowds can’t be wise if everyone picks the same answer, and, finally, that in order to optimize the wisdom of the crowd, four conditions need to be present in a healthy crowd for its results to be wiser than an individual’s. The ...
... middle of paper ...
...dual opinions of all the people in groups, but I will also be very wary of how easily crowds can turn on you. It is clear that crowds, when wise, are of crucial importance in any business dealings, but, should they be corrupted in any way, they can be extremely dangerous and even lead to the downfall of companies. I now have a clearer image of what it takes to have a successful crowd and what makes a crowd unwise. Surowiecki’s book The Wisdom of Crowds is a very intuitive look into crowds and groupthink. Through his identification of core problems that crowds face, and the four characteristics that it takes for a crowd to be wise, as well as the elements that lead to the corruption of crowds, he allows the reader to have a very in-depth knowledge into an area we’re all familiar with, as we’ve all been part of a group, and yet that we know surprisingly little about.
Why do people follow the crowd? This is something that happens everyday and few notice it . Sometimes people follow the crowd because it is easier or we don’t want to be made fun of for being different . The article “The Third Wave,” by the commonLit Staff is the very definition of following the crowd.
As smoke poured into the room the three strangers waiting in the lobby just sat there until it was unbearable to breathe. Believe it or not people do this, just so that they don’t get embarrassed. Carol Tavris’s essay she is successful in getting the point across that people act different in groups than they do alone. She has many appeals to emotion, logic, and being the renown psychologist she is, she has credibility. She wasn’t trying to change the way people act in this essay. just to try and make people realize what happens in groups and the horrible things that could conspire.
Turman, P. (October 13, 2000b). Group Decision Making & Problem Solving: Group Communication [Lecture] Cedar Falls, IA. University of Northern Iowa, Communication Studies Department.
“When we consider scientific research as group problem- solving, instead of the unveiling of individual brilliance, diversity becomes key to excellence.” Pg.58 When it comes to scientific research, solving problems and working together is a more beneficial way to success, rather than working alone. This proves that a group of diverse people working together leads to success and can be more beneficial than one person working by his or herself. This quote supports what the author is stating because it explains what diversity is and how it can be beneficial in the real world. This shows how he uses good argument to explain and prove his point “He shows that, when trying to solve complex problems, progress often results from diverse perspectives. That is, the ability to see the problem differently, not simply ‘being smart,’ often is the key to a breakthrough. The author is quoting Professor Scott and how he stated that seeing ideas through a different perspective from a group of people is why diversity is beneficial. This supports the author’s claim that diversity is important because taking other people’s perspectives into consideration will help in the real world. This does a good job of supporting his claim and proves his argument and also establishing credibility by using the research he found in his article. This article is mainly directed towards the STEM field, however, he does state that diversity is important to all areas of life so he does a good job at proves how diversity is
Everyone knows about the geeks, the freaks, the jocks, the preps, and every other Hollywood idolized clique. Each person in the group donates their own similar attributes, which in turn come together to make the group what it is. In “Divergent”, different classes of people are split into ‘factions’, or, in other words, extreme cliques. These like-minded people have their opinions on how the world was corrupted. The group names and their faction missions are as follows: the Erudite (intelligence), the Dauntless (bravery), the Abnegation (selflessness), Amity (peacekeepers), and the Candor (the honest), all of which uphold their beliefs by exerting the upmost radicality of their manifestos. Each faction then contributes their own ideological products to help all of society. These groupings work “toward a better society and a better world” (pg.44), however, in the end, they are brutally, and massively abraised with the strong will of one lunatic faction member. Others may say that splitting us into groups of peers that we agree with is a good idea, yet it will not take long until the enemy lies and infiltrates our systems, becoming too powerful for our faction to overcome. This is why we all have to mingle, using our talents together for the betterment of society.
Grouping can lead to unoriginal societies where creativity is not spread because the sharing of ideas cannot happen, since through the communities within it are not intersectional. After the riot that John caused,
Categorization and social projection are important ways that people can more successfully navigate their social environment. People need to know that there are others in their in-group that share the same attitudes and behaviors as they do. If people are unable to determine how many people in their environment share their attitudes and behaviors, it would be more difficult to engage in social situations without offending or contradicting others. For this reason, false consensus is an interesting offshoot of this important idea. The false consensus effect refers to the fact that people have a tendency to over-estimate the proportion of the population that shares an attitude or behavior with him or her.
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
On the other hand, the authors propose that the other way of assessing information is similar to the bandwagon approach we learn in high school. Any time I think of the bandwagon concept I hear my mother asking “if your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?” I thi...
Every human being has an inbuilt desire of being liked or accepted. Many times we tend to be with the majority rather than being singled out. Howsoever we may be convinced within ourselves against the idea/proposal, we fail in mustering the courage to go against the tide. Why does it happen? Do we seek support from the group/crowd to back our point of view? Who are those who dare to put forward their point of view knowing well it may not find favour with those proposing it? Answer to these questions and psychology behind it lead to this article.
Surowiecki, James. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Kindle edition
According to the article “In Groups we shrink” by Carol Tavris, she contrasts the nature of groups and the nature of individuals. If one person is in a dangerous situation, he or she will seek safety on their own or go to someone for help. However when a group of people are in a bad situation, they will most likely panic and hold back on solving the problem. This is called “diffusion of responsibility” or “social loafing,” according to psychologists (Tavris 151). Carol Tavris concludes that when people are in groups, they respond differently than when they are on their own.
In making compelling groups an aide for individuals and pioneers, Wheelan endeavors to give the reader a manual that helps with building successful groups. Wheelan, a world-known creator, speaker, and expert, utilizes her insight and experience to offer exhortation on the viable arrangement of groups. The creator underlines the adequacy a gathering can achieve when cooperating as a group. She talks about the change of a work gathering to a group. Wheelan states that this book of methodologies will help the reader "discover his/her work bunches changed into elite groups". The creator inventively puts fascinating, suitable tales all through the sections to represent vital focuses to be made. She likewise utilizes agendas after every
When contemplating what a crowd is, what usually comes to mind is a collection of likeminded individuals coming together for a cause, Le Bon reframes this outlook with the introduction of a psychological crowd. Although Le Bon’s writing was first accepted when published in 1895, the tonality of The Crowd— Study of the Popular Mind has shifted into being reviewed as pessimistic, racist, sexist but also provides a warning of what a crowd can become. By discrediting Le Bon’s his theories would be lost, and imperative information on crowd theory would be discredited as well. Rather than discrediting Le Bon, a reader must acknowledge the time period that The Crowd— Study of the Popular Mind was written in, and in doing so look past the tonality to grasp key elements on crowd theory.
Numerous situations occur everyday where the psychology of being in a group, also known as mob mentality, can overtake someone’s thought process and cause them to act differently. Mob mentality differs from the mentality a person would have when alone. An individual’s behavior changes because there is a shield of feeling anonymous when in a group. This feeling can be exciting, but it can also completely destroy a being’s ability to act normally. People lose their personal ethics due to the sensation of being in this group. Usually, the group participants share a common reason for why they assembled, and it will only take one act to rile them. Because feelings of anonymity and common thought are present, the group usually acts as if they share