Random Observations: What looks like skill is often plain old luck.

You might want to check out Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds for a history of group "madness".

I found an online version here: http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm

I especially enjoyed the chapter on "Tulipomania". Wow, talk about irrational exuberance.

" The premise is that a group will always predict outcomes better than any single expert."

This is generally false unless the group has a clue what's going on.

You got me. I misrepresented the premise. I should have said "usually," and I did not explain, as the author did, that the groups had to have some understanding of the problem or question at hand. He did not claim that any group will always make better decisions than any single expert. I think I posted before I'd gotten my second cup. It's pretty obvious that market analysis would find polling data useful, but many of the examples cited had to do with predictions regarding concrete, verifiable facts: locating a sunken submarine, or guessing the dressed weight of a steer in a county fair contest. By averaging the best guesses of a number of experts, a point was chosen on a map that proved to be within 450 yards of where the sub was finally located. In the second example, the average of the attendees' guesses was more accurate than the best estimate of any individual expert.

In other words, I guess, more heads are better than one, given a minimal degree of expertise.

He also points out that professional groups often inhibit decisions and undermine innovation. What he termed "group think" or conformity to professional standards is behind this. I suspect that this is true, that education is only partly about knowledge; it also involves indoctrination of conventions and values. I agree with shared values and conventions if they're good and sensible. But it strikes me that a particular kind of values has taken hold.

My experience (in the mathematical and physical sciences) is that what the author terms "group think" doesn't exist. The problem isn't so much inhibiting ideas as in culling out all the bad ones. I have a pretty good reputation for making good mathematical guesses mostly because I don't often mention the 99.44% failures that I have already screened out. On the other hand, in the sciences, one always has the opportuinty of demonstrating that the ideas are good (by submitting them to peer challenges.)

I do find that politicians do seem to get caught in a stereotyped way of thinking. Perhaps it's becaust they have to please the crowd.

If you pick only the "successful crowds," then the comparison is a priori biased, and likely invalid.

No doubt true, and I don't know whether or not the examples he cites can stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I've really just started the book.

But it is a perspective I never expected I'd find myself agreeing with. I, like everyone else here I imagine, have always been skeptical of the prevailing attitudes. I'm one who tends to feel reassured whenever I find myself holding the minority view -- the rugged individualism ethos. I'm sure I learned from my old man. (My cousin once said "well, your dad would argue with a stump.") And I still think it is what makes this society tick.

This author presents his ideas much better than I can here, and though I can't square all of them with what I now hold, I don't think they necessarily contradict them either. And, he ratifies what we sometimes forget is at the core of our beliefs: about representative government, free markets, equality under law, and trial by juries, etc. One thing is true; people are likely know less than they think they know. That's seems like good medicine and worth the price. I think the book is worth a read.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.