2 ms·

at what point does groupthink suddenly flash over into the wisdom of a crowd? is there some kind of dunbar's number at work here?

clairity 6y ago
i don't know of a cutoff offhand, but it's not the number of people (like dunbar's) but rather the amount of coordination, or in statistical terms, covariance. there's linear and non-linear considerations, like heteroscedasticity, as well, so it may need to be a set of statistical measures. in any case, representation itself could benefit a lot from experimentation and innovation. we now have the technological means to implement a direct democracy on the scale of billions of people, something practically impossible only a few decades ago.
wahern 6y ago
I think the wisdom of the crowds is predicated on the individual members expressed preferences reflecting their "real" and substantial interests. But if you apply a selection criteria to members of the crowd or the types of crowd recognized as such, you're likely going to get answers biased toward the selection criteria. Likewise, to the extent members' expressed preferences reflect abstract arguments (i.e. ideology) rather than their real interests, then other dynamics will control. So, for example, if you go around asking the population detailed questions about their stances on abortion--when it should allowed, when, etc--you're going to get a ton of different answers and any consensus, to the extent there is one, will be sophisticated and nuanced. Ask those same people if they're pro-life or pro-choice and the majority consensus will simply reflect the ebb and flow of the dominate idealogical narratives and be as real and substantive as tallying the number of people who prefer cake vs pie. In that sense I think Wisdom of the Crowds always had a sort of tautological character to it. And it reflected an optimism about the information age--that it would cut through rather than perpetuate all the complicated and complicating intermediate social layers.

clairity 6y ago

i don't know of a cutoff offhand, but it's not the number of people (like dunbar's) but rather the amount of coordination, or in statistical terms, covariance. there's linear and non-linear considerations, like heteroscedasticity, as well, so it may need to be a set of statistical measures. in any case, representation itself could benefit a lot from experimentation and innovation. we now have the technological means to implement a direct democracy on the scale of billions of people, something practically impossible only a few decades ago.

wahern 6y ago

I think the wisdom of the crowds is predicated on the individual members expressed preferences reflecting their "real" and substantial interests. But if you apply a selection criteria to members of the crowd or the types of crowd recognized as such, you're likely going to get answers biased toward the selection criteria. Likewise, to the extent members' expressed preferences reflect abstract arguments (i.e. ideology) rather than their real interests, then other dynamics will control. So, for example, if you go around asking the population detailed questions about their stances on abortion--when it should allowed, when, etc--you're going to get a ton of different answers and any consensus, to the extent there is one, will be sophisticated and nuanced. Ask those same people if they're pro-life or pro-choice and the majority consensus will simply reflect the ebb and flow of the dominate idealogical narratives and be as real and substantive as tallying the number of people who prefer cake vs pie. In that sense I think Wisdom of the Crowds always had a sort of tautological character to it. And it reflected an optimism about the information age--that it would cut through rather than perpetuate all the complicated and complicating intermediate social layers.