The Wisdom of Crowds
I'm a bit of an independent thinker, sometimes a "loner", so I often think about the notion of a "majority of one". That is, if you are right, and the rest of the world is wrong, then you form a majority of one. I genuinely believe that we must not bow to the majority when we believe we are right. I've written before about the necessity to maintain standards in the face of poor behavior, no matter how commonplace, and I continue to hold to my beliefs. When I think about this issue, I must also confront notions of majority rule, so important a part of democracies and the essence of the marketplace..
I think about an Ibsen character who said that the majority is never right. I think about Kierkegaard, who said that "truth always rests with the minority . . . because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion . . . " Similarly, I've thought about issues of expertise and common sense. A favorite commentator once said, if I recall correctly, that he would rather be governed by the first one thousand names in a telephone directory than by the faculty at a leading university.
After seeing arguments of these kinds and thinking about them, I thought I had a well-formed conclusion: What's right is discernible by any one of us and once we've discerned it we don't need anyone else to confirm our view. We genuinely can be a majority of one.
I've had to think again, however, because of a recent book by James Surowiecki The Wisdom of Crowds. Surowiecki argues, with examples, that under certain circumstances groups are wiser and more intelligent than even the smartest individuals in the group. He notes that the decisions must be made simultaneously, rather than sequentially, so that the decision- makers aren't trapped by the desire to follow others but it's true surprisingly often that the majority vote is nearer the truth than the vote of the smartest of the group. His examples are persuasive, such as the results of audience participation in quiz shows, and tend to show that basing our decisions on majority rule, such as in the marketplace and democracy itself, is the smartest way to proceed.
I still have a hard time thinking that I should guide my conduct by majority vote when I believe I'm right. The concept of a majority of one is still persuasive to me. But I think it only means that when we are right, we should have an easier time persuading a majority. If the crowd tends to be correct, we should be able to gain a majority in support of what's right. Don't give up when you think you're right, try to persuade others. But if you can't persuade the group to follow your lead, consider the wisdom of crowds and have the strength to look again at your views. You might conclude that the crowd is smarter than you are.
9-20-04
Home Page 2004 Archives 2003 Archives 2002 Archives 2001 Archives 2000 Archives 1999 Archives