tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14184878.post114803265803260028..comments2023-10-15T10:29:12.991+01:00Comments on Karyn's erratic learning journey: Wisdom of crowdsThe upsychohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06345558899662051670noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14184878.post-1148072395011416032006-05-19T21:59:00.000+01:002006-05-19T21:59:00.000+01:00Perhaps the reason why "group judgements, when agg...Perhaps the reason why "<I>group judgements, when aggregated, tend to be wiser or closer to the <B>truth</B> than those of individual experts</I> in a democracy can be explained by Nietzsche, "Will to Power":<BR/><BR/><I>493 (1885)<BR/><B>Truth</B> is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.<BR/><BR/>534 (1887-1888)<BR/>The criterion of <B>truth</B> resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.</I><BR/><BR/>-anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14184878.post-1148071894973759062006-05-19T21:51:00.000+01:002006-05-19T21:51:00.000+01:00I think Aristophanes captured the true wisdom of C...I think Aristophanes captured the true wisdom of <I>Crouds</I> in his comedy <A HREF="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8rst110.txt" REL="nofollow">The <I>Clouds</I></A>.<BR/><BR/>Better answer the epistemological question as to what "wisdom" is before one attempts to answer the question as to whether crowds possess wisdom.<BR/><BR/>-anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14184878.post-1148070461881276392006-05-19T21:27:00.000+01:002006-05-19T21:27:00.000+01:00And of course, sometimes a group of "experts" is b...And of course, sometimes a group of "experts" is better than a "random" group...<BR/><BR/>Plato "Ion"<BR/><BR/><I>SOCRATES: And yet surely, my dear friend Ion, in a discussion about arithmetic, where many people are speaking, and one speaks better than the rest, there is somebody who can judge which of them is the good speaker?<BR/><BR/>ION: Yes.<BR/><BR/>SOCRATES: And he who judges of the good will be the same as he who judges of the bad speakers?<BR/><BR/>ION: The same.<BR/><BR/>SOCRATES: And he will be the arithmetician?<BR/><BR/>ION: Yes.<BR/><BR/>SOCRATES: Well, and in discussions about the wholesomeness of food, when many persons are speaking, and one speaks better than the rest, will he who recognizes the better speaker be a different person from him who recognizes the worse, or the same?<BR/><BR/>ION: Clearly the same.<BR/><BR/>SOCRATES: And who is he, and what is his name?<BR/><BR/>ION: The physician.<BR/><BR/>SOCRATES: And speaking generally, in all discussions in which the subject is the same and many men are speaking, will not he who knows the good know the bad speaker also? For if he does not know the bad, neither will he know the good when the same topic is being discussed.<BR/><BR/>ION: True.<BR/><BR/>SOCRATES: Is not the same person skilful in both?</I><BR/><BR/>----<BR/><BR/>Plato "Georgias"<BR/><BR/><I>When the assembly meets to elect a physician or a shipwright or any other craftsman, will the rhetorician be taken into counsel? Surely not. For at every election he ought to be chosen who is most skilled; and, again, when walls have to be built or harbours or docks to be constructed, not the rhetorician but the master workman will advise; or when generals have to be chosen and an order of battle arranged, or a position taken, then the military will advise and not the rhetoricians: what do you say, Gorgias?</I><BR/><BR/>-anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14184878.post-1148069466570862722006-05-19T21:11:00.000+01:002006-05-19T21:11:00.000+01:00For a slightly different perspective, you might ap...For a slightly different perspective, you might appreciate reading <A HREF="http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall94/000770.htm" REL="nofollow">Freud's "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego"</A>. It has some interesting insights as to the influence of leaders, power, and "hypnosis" on groups and group behaviors.<BR/><BR/>-anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14184878.post-1148037155913001862006-05-19T12:12:00.000+01:002006-05-19T12:12:00.000+01:00Yes I agree with Karyn it was a very interesting e...Yes I agree with Karyn it was a very interesting evening. James did an excellent job of pulling together thinking around group dynamics and influence or coersion.<BR/><BR/>The main point I took away from the session was that a level of conflict can be and is often constructive. James mentioned the devil's advocate approach to stopping Groupthink developing thus ensuring that ideas are fully critiqued and all views taken into account. I see this and other techniques as important in a healthy debate and necessary in organisations. How many organisations or teams do you know where the emphasis is on conformity, agreement and having single way of doing things? -- team days away to bond and develop a single view. Obviously a team need to agree on where they are going, but all too often the methods of getting there may not be the best, or even work.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately it is often easier to agree with the consensus. Also the dissenter role may fall to the same person in a team too often which can lead to them being discounted or asked to leave. <BR/><BR/>Managing the amount and level of information to for consideration is challenging for some teams. I guess we can all think of some situations where decisions are not made because there is always the call for more information or another study. Malcolm Gladwell talks about how this in "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" which is worth a read.<BR/><BR/>A thought provoking evening. Thanks James.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com