3 ms·

You mean like trial by jury. I like it.

• mchannon 8y ago
  Trial by jury gets one set of 10 (12, whatever), whereas the consensus model described would have n sets of 10. I seriously doubt the wisdom of a crowd goes up when the total crowd size shrinks to 10. I suspect it plummets. This does call into question the notion of a multiple-jury trial (maybe videoconferenced in, where the individual juries do not interact with each other). Based on this study's findings, it would appear that juries might get their verdicts wrong less frequently with this system. Imagine if the first OJ trial or Trayvon Martin trial had been before multiple juries; would society have been better off if the results were less dependent on the biases of juries small enough to be cherry-picked?
  • sova 8y ago
    To summarize the findings of this research article for you: Wisdom of the Crowd vs one person = good Wisdom of the crowd vs tiny groups 4+ = bad
  • deytempo 8y ago
    In this case a jury is not really about everyone in it being wise, it’s about there being a better chance that an informed decision will take place due to those in the group discussing the decision before voting rather than just voting for whatever CNN recommends. With the current system you just have people doing whatever they are going to do without having to explain it to anyone else.