This is not an article, it's a "watch this space for a forthcoming interesting result". So an announcement about an announcement, but at least it looks like quite an interesting one.
Tonight around 50 of us are gathered in the Phoenix Arts Club in Soho to take part in one of Richardson’s “mass participation” studies. We are each logged onto a specially configured website that enables us to move a dot around on our touchscreens, which moves a corresponding dot on a large screen at the front of the room. Our collective thoughts are up there for all to see (and for Richardson to measure). When everyone moves their dot, the screen resembles a swarm of agitated bees.
When we get the hang of it, he throws out his first test question: “Have you ever cheated on a test?” The ‘nos’ move their dots to the left, the ‘yeses’ to the right. We answer first in isolation, with all the dots hidden, and then as a group. What Richardson wants to know is whether the two conditions produce different results. Are we more honest when we answer alone? Do we change our story in response to others?
The main experiment begins – and now we are asked our opinions. “The UK should leave the EU,” proffers Richardson. Almost all the dots swarm left to no. “London tube strikes should be forbidden by law.” Much hovering of agitated dots as we all look for safety in numbers. “Someone who buys food for their friends has the right to take a larger share.” A collective gasp of outrage, followed by a surge to the left. But how many of us demur when the dots are hidden? Unfortunately, the final results are not delivered on the night (they’ll form part of a PhD thesis).
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160113-are-your-opinions-really-your-own?ocid=global_future_rss
I think, like the various strategies in biology, there are certain contextual strengths and weaknesses that emerge based on the specifics of characteristics. I can mine high quality information, scientific papers and connect with erudite persons like yourself. So a person inclined to explore and equipped with a capacity to question can become more developed with modern equivalent of the oracle of Delphi at their fingertips. On the other hand, a person who does not understand the building a cocoon of reaffirmation is also possible.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Haidt called the social media phenomena a crisis. My thought is it depends on the person's predilections. I do think he made an excellent point about how easy it is to find and share extreme examples of misbehavior and infer that this is how the entire "other side" thinks, which is a recipe for polarization.
youtube.com - Jonathan Haidt on Why We’re Convinced We’re Right (and everyone else is wrong!)
As a general guideline, though by no means an absolute rule, I tend to follow people if they disagree with me in a civil way. I give them major additional kudos if I say something obnoxious and they remain more civil than me. :)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Google+ has been overly-focused on connecting people with specific interests. It would be really neat to have a way to find people with opposing viewpoints who are also really nice to talk to :) (That said, sometimes you can't beat a good angry rant. A common mistake is to assume that venting is the absolute best method of logical reasoning someone is ever capable of)
There should be a markup tag for emotional ranting. Both I and some people I know would benefit from that.
ReplyDelete(Talking out of my ear.) I think crowds with heterogenous expertise, and knowledge can be immensely powerful when considering or attacking a problem if there's a real dialogue.
One engineer, one toolmaker, one designer, one manager, one inspector, and one machine operator can make a great team for putting together a new workcenter. (If that's a "crowd")
But 6 of any of those is a recipe for disaster.
My comment from Alex Fung's post in my science community:
ReplyDelete"While group mentality can influence the decisions we make, I fail to see how that makes us dumber. Less informed, perhaps. Thus, possibly more ignorant of the facts. However, that does not exactly equate to being dumber."
David Lazarus Presumably just being in a group can't affect an individual's actual intelligence. But it certainly affects the decisions they make - a clever person can sometimes make a stupid decision, and vice-versa.
ReplyDeleteI think it's going to be interesting to have a direct comparison of individual and group participation decisions, particularly for things where the correct decision is reasonably objective.
Rhys Taylor - I agree. Actually, the term I was seeking when I originally made the comment was "mob mentality". Whether a street gang, mafia, etc, they can collectively have a certain mindset and make very poor decisions. However, that has more to do with personality and character than intelligence.
ReplyDelete