timberland
af1 racing

You’re welcome. Glad it sparked some additional lines of thought. Moreover, it is those very “decoys” you mention that JS says must be removed to get the crowd’s wisdom rather than its worst.

Thanks.

I didn’t even think to ask him about proportional representation. That would have been an interesting concept to kick around with him. But I wouldn’t put much into it that JS didn’t bring it up on his own — his orientation is decidedly more to business or management applications than social/political applications. I was forcing him slightly outside his comfort zone, as it was, and was glad he agreed to think about that area with me. So maybe if there’s a second interview (?) we can tackle some of these other concepts like the one you suggest.

Thanks.

> The term ‘common good’
> appears to be losing popularity
> lately in favor of rugged
> individualism

The trend has been the other way since the 1930s.

And, the “common good” or the “general will” of “the people” all too often has really meant what a few elite on the Left want for the rest of us.

Note that more direct democracy is sought all the time, namely in the form of the initiative, referendum, and recall, but these are not constitutionally authorized for the federal government, so where activists would most like to see these mechanisms, they are denied.

…

“Diversity is definitely the most important condition for the crowd to reach smart conclusions.” This choice of words makes the author sound like a typical modern PC lefty expressing his or her hopes as purported facts. However, there is a point here in that if you have too narrow a range of views you’ll put yourself in “the box” without the ability to easily think outside of it. (Consider criticism of Bush and his yes-men versus Iacocca’s advocacy of a devil’s advocate or two on a team.)

I’m surprised the author didn’t express interest in proportional representation.

Regarding your last question I am in the camp of the person you mentioned, the commenter. What I have read about it, indicates that the founding fathers of America thought like that as well (in fact I just put a post at the timer about that).

That being said, it is interesting material and most certainly something one has to think deeply about.

I’m in awe of anyone who takes on such a complex subject and can shape it into manageable idea-bites.

There are always strong-willed individuals who will offer their input without regard for the input of others (GWB comes to mind). But most people, I think, are sway-able, i.e., at risk of being influenced by others before they offer input. Part of what Surowiecki found was that a crowd’s aggregate decision was smarter when each individual felt totally free to offer an unfiltered, uninfluenced opinion, at least as a starting point.

Of course, as JS notes in the interview, that Platonic ideal of independence is not always achievable, and that’s ok as long as there’s sufficient diversity of opinion going into the mix. Hope that makes sense. This is a complex enough topic that reading the entire book is probably more important to the dialogue than with many other books and topics. Or maybe I just have trouble boiling it down effectively!

That crowds can produce wisdom is comforting, of course.

The term ‘common good’ appears to be losing popularity lately in favor of rugged individualism. and this alarms me. Were it to diminish too much, the wisdom of crowds would change dramatically.

Probably because I haven’t read his entire book, I don’t get exactly what he means by ‘independence’ (from what indluences?).

Thanks for thiis very tantalizing food for thought.