Comments on: Intelligence In Numbers

By: +: etcetera :+ -- More Sex Is Safer Sex

+: etcetera :+ -- More Sex Is Safer Sex — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:48:12 +0000

[...] mysteries of the world using cold, hard numbers. And on a unrelated note, here is James Surowiecki (whose book we loved!) on The Pirates’ [...]

By: +: etcetera :+ » A Tail Well Told

+: etcetera :+ » A Tail Well Told — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:45:14 +0000

[...] The article was received well – so well in fact that Anderson is now turning it into a book, following the lead of James Surowiecki whose book born out of a New Yorker article – Wisdom of the Crowds – was an instant bestseller. [...]

By: Karthik

Karthik — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:13:25 +0000

There are definitely two sides to the story. How does google think a search result is important – by determining how many people link to tha site. That’s the “democracy” Surowiecki describes, but you have a great point – the idea behind google itself came from a couple of individuals.

Surowiecki argues that the meetings you describe here are badly run meetings – well run meetings with a diverse group (intellectually diverse, people holding different opinions and no impediments to people expressing their opinions) will always come up with better solutions most of the time.

Of course, there are limits to what groups can do – writing a good book, a painting etc. are probably things that only individuals can do (although editors, reviewers might play a role).

I will add The Paradox of Choice to my growing ‘to-read’ list…

By: Prashanth Narayanan

Prashanth Narayanan — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:36:07 +0000

this topic is interesting and only because everytime i read an article about it, it presents an opposing view (almost a natural “not gate”!)
for example, the last time i read abou this, i was convinced by the author that crowds and averages are simply not the best thing. a simple (though some may say, silly) example: if 5 people of varying sizes were to vote on the right size for a shirt, the average shirt produced would fit no one!(hey i warned you abou thte silly factor!) the author made a strong case for the individual – for example using your examples above, don’t forget that google, linux et all were all the concepts/ideas of one or atmost two people and it remained so for awhile. over time, many contributed and made it popular, but they were still add-ons remember? the core of what made it great never came from a meeting – and in my belief never would have. somewhere inbetween the discussion of whether linux should be a micro-kernel based architecture, a homer-like character would have said they should break for doughnuts and that would have been the end of that)
i have seen this personally too: when i come across a computing problem at work and think up a solution, i am asked to sit in a meeting to see if it is the best choice – an hour later nothing happens, actually i am now more confused then ever given teh choices (which reminds me: you should read “The Paradox Of Choice: Why More Is Less” by Barry Schwartz). then the next day, my friend, who was also at the meeting but drew a blank then, would have thought about it alone overnight and would present a radical solution to me.)
as for your restaurant example, i say tip most to the restaurant out of town since you might never see the poor guy again. at a regular place, reduce the tip since you are going to keep visiting him anyway