Smart Groups May Be Impossible

I was interested by this article, which describes a new book by New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki. The book, The Wisdom of Crowds, is about how under the right circumstances, groups provide superior results to individuals.

I have not read the book, but I've just added it to my list because I think this book says one thing, but is already taken out of context as the above linked Reuters article proves. The title of the article is "Forget the Experts; Consider the Crowd". When you dig into the article you find this out:

Four key elements should be in place for a crowd to function wisely.

First, the group must be diverse. Those whose members have various skills and intelligence levels tend to be smarter than groups of experts.

Second, a group should be decentralized, so that each participant has a channel to say what they think.

Third, the participants must be independent enough to avoid conforming to a supposed norm.

Finally, there needs to be a mechanism - a market, an aggregator of information, or an open-minded leader - to combine these diverse opinions into a single answer.

The best thing a wise crowd can do is to avoid the stupidity of a despot. It must also avoid the urge for a blind stampede -- the stock market bubble, for example.

To harness the wisdom of groups, businesses should take into account diverse views without influencing or controlling opinions or trying to reach a consensus.

That's a lot of qualifications for an effective group. An Amazon review classified the book as academic, but important. That means the book is probably putting forward a theory with some evidence to back it up. However, this article already jumps to the conclusion that groups are smarter than individuals, which is something I don't believe. In fact, my experience has been--especially in the business world--groups stagnate creativity and prevent productivity. What Surowiecki is apparently saying that the group must be constructed in the proper environment.

Take a look at juries. They can be good or bad, depending on the mix of people. Their backgrounds, world-view, and sympathies directly affect which verdict they reach. Juries can be tainted by the media or even deliberate tampering. Surowiecki deserves a read; I'm certainly going to give him that. However, this group scenario can be easily ruined by incompetence. Unless the individual who puts the group together knows what he is doing, the group will be faulty from the start. The group organizer probably has to go through a committee who is not as scientifically constructed. I think there are too many variables for there to be real world applications.

In other words, the group must be managed by an expert. When all is said and done, shouldn't you just hire the right expert and skip the group to save time and money?

Popularity: unranked [?]