The Wisdom of Crowds
I
If, years hence, people remember anything about the TV game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, they will probably remember the contestants’ panicked phone calls to friends and relatives. Or they may have a faint memory of that short-lived moment when Regis Philbin became a fashion icon for his willingness to wear a dark blue tie with a dark blue shirt. What people probably won’t remember is that every week Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? pitted group intelligence against individual intelligence, and that every week, group intelligence won.
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? was a simple show in terms of structure: a contestant was asked multiple-choice questions, which got successively more difficult, and if she answered fifteen questions in a row correctly, she walked away with $1 million. The show’s gimmick was that if a contestant got stumped by a question, she could pursue three avenues of assistance. First, she could have two of the four multiple-choice answers removed (so she’d have at least a fifty-fifty shot at the right response). Second, she could place a call to a friend or relative, a person whom, before the show, she had singled out as one of the smartest people she knew, and ask him or her for the answer. And third, she could poll the studio audience, which would immediately cast its votes by computer. Everything we think we know about intelligence suggests that the smart individual would offer the most help. And, in fact, the “experts” did okay, offering the right answer–under pressure–almost 65 percent of the time. But they paled in comparison to the audiences. Those random crowds of people with nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon than sit in a TV studio picked the right answer 91 percent of the time.
Now, the results of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? would never stand up to scientific scrutiny. We don’t know how smart the experts were, so we don’t know how impressive outperforming them was. And since the experts and the audiences didn’t always answer the same questions, it’s possible, though not likely, that the audiences were asked easier questions. Even so, it’s hard to resist the thought that the success of the Millionaire audience was a modern example of the same phenomenon that Francis Galton caught a glimpse of a century ago.
As it happens, the possibilities of group intelligence, at least when it came to judging questions of fact, were demonstrated by a host of experiments conducted by American sociologists and psychologists between 1920 and the mid-1950s, the heyday of research into group dynamics. Although in general, as we’ll see, the bigger the crowd the better, the groups in most of these early
experiments–which for some reason remained relatively unknown outside of academia–were relatively small. Yet they nonetheless performed very well. The Columbia sociologist Hazel Knight kicked things off with a series of studies in the early 1920s, the first of which had the virtue of simplicity. In that study Knight asked the students in her class to estimate the room’s temperature, and then took a simple average of the estimates. The group guessed 72.4 degrees, while the actual temperature was 72 degrees. This was not, to be sure, the most auspicious beginning, since classroom temperatures are so stable that it’s hard to imagine a class’s estimate being too far off base. But in the years that followed, far more convincing evidence emerged, as students and soldiers across America were subjected to a barrage of puzzles, intelligence tests, and word games. The sociologist Kate H. Gordon asked two hundred students to rank items by weight, and found that the group’s “estimate” was 94 percent accurate, which was better than all but five of the individual guesses. In another experiment students were asked to look at ten piles of buckshot–each a slightly different size than the
Customer Reviews
Smart, Interesting and Easy to Read:
This book was a surprise hit for me. I didn’t expect to like it, but ended up loving it so much I just had to have a copy on my shelf. Surowieki is very convincing, in part because he takes such care to bring up alternative arguments and respond to each. He also keeps his focus fairly narrow, so the arguments aren’t all over the place. I was especially fascinated by his discussion of experts. We rely on them so heavily these days, but now I know to question their expertise. This book has changed the way that I make decisions and the way I evaluate good decision-making in my elected representatives. I recommend this book to anyone interested in making good decisions. It is a smoothly-written book and you won’t have any trouble following the arguments or staying ‘into’ it.
Don’t expect a textbook:
I really like the Wisdom of Crowds because Surowiecki succeeds in explaining complicated and sophisticated ideas in ways that educated people can not only grasp but also incorporate into their own thinking. This is quite an achievement, one that critics of the book have overlooked. This topic has not been open until now to such a wide audience.
Surowiecki never shies from even difficult and abstract statistical concepts. He draws liberally upon academic journals and scholarly books, writing in a style that is at once journalistic and educated.
Yet, Surowiecki never talks down to his reader. Instead he invites the reader to accompany him through an arcane (and dimly lit) maze of statistical practice as it has been developed and utilized for decades by social scientists and economists. The reader is rewarded again and again because Surowiecki points to a partially hidden jewel, holds it up for examination, hands it to the reader and then leaves it in plain sight (often for reference later in the book).
Thus, this book is a remarkable example, a model, for readers (and writers) who wish to bridge the gaps between educated professionals.
My criticism is along different lines. In this extremely visual era, the editors could have widened the audience for the Wisdom of Crowds much further if suitable images could have been commissioned to throw additional light on Surowiecki’s prose. But, paper and ink are so much more expensive than artists these days, one can understand the limitations and constraints Doubleday (Random House) were under. On the other hand, why not put up a web site?
Crowds Oh Wisdom:
Good book and I thought the pace moved along extremely well. There are some significant things in the book that are a bit dated, but overall this is a very interesting book. I also recommend “Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing” by Lois Kelly published 2007 to couple with this book. Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing
Food for thought:
I found this book full of sweeping claims, generalizations and is confusing in its presentation. However it made me think. Overall the writer is saying that people independently working on a problem can in a fair vote be more accurate then the smartest individual. He then quotes examples for such behaviour and examples of when the crowds got it wrong when they acted not independently but in mass. I suspect that much of his arguments are sound.
How much I am not sure for example if I asked the average person independently if they believe there was much truth in astrology, I am sure that over 50% would say yes.
However since the book is making much comments, I hope to see some better studies coming forward.
Having said all this it has changed my views on decision making and how to do it.
Surowiecki is a gifted teacher:
At first I was afraid that “The wisdom of crowds” was going to be a 250 page restatement of the law of large numbers for dummies. In the beginning it looks that way, because Surowiecki takes a lot of time to explain that the more people trying to guess the solution to a problem, each adding their own bit of information, the more accurate the average guess. Not very revolutionary at all (although possibly counterintuitive at first). But as the book moved on I got more and drawn in and impressed by the presentation, which is rigorous and supremely readable at the same time.
The book describes how crowds can solve problems of cognition, coordination and cooperation. It gives the conditions under which crowds are good and not good at doing so. The author illustrates with a myriad of interesting problems and case studies, some rather obvious choices (why do investment bubbles emerge?, why do political stock markets predict so well?), others more arcane (why did the gangsters in reservoir dogs fail?, why is it often easy to cut a line?). What binds these studies together is the way groups handle information and the good and bad institution designed to make them do so.
Throughout all the diversity, it is the great scholarship of Surowiecki that makes everything naturally fall into place. Being familiar with a lot of the material in academic form, I know how conceptually daring some of it is, but Surowiecki effortlessly reduces it to bite-size portions, without compromising much or exaggerating anywhere. Great reading!
