Comments on: The Stupidity of Crowds

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:41:41 +0000

Alan,

You are right about Surowiecki’s book. He does indeed give both sides to the story and offers good examples where crowds go wrong. I apologize to you and Mr. Surowiecki if I wasn’t clear on that point.

As for the Millennium Bridge, the people weren’t being stupid, but the crowd was and I think that is the key point. Lots of perfectly rational people can create a stupid crowd.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I’ll check it out.

And of course, thanks for a great comment.

- Greg

By: Alan Jones

Alan Jones — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:44 +0000

It is always worthwhile blogging on a trend that has got out of hand but I think that your article is selling Surowiecki short. His book is at pains to explain the factors that ensure that crowds are wise and these include the need for divergent opinions, a degree of market knowledge etc.
Furthermore I’m not sure that the Millennium Bridge example is a case of stupidity – it is more a natural instinct to stay balanced that created unforeseen ‘waves’ in the bridge structure. Of course some of the other actions that you mention (jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge) are brilliantly explained in the book by Robert Cialdini – Influence : The Psychology of Persuasion. Mass suicide as seen in the Jonestown incident when 909 members of the Jim Jones cult in Guyana quietly queued up to drink poison can be explained by the concept of Social Proof. No psychoogist would term these people stupid, they felt that they were behaving rationally because they were following the actions of others in an environment where they were unsure of their bearings and how to behave.
The Wisdom of Crowds is an inspiring book to me not so much because it identifies how markets behave but in that it has a democratic urge to value divergent opinions and voices. This should be a wake up call for all CEOs who think that only those in the C-Suite can make credible decisions. Engaging with employees may well deliver far better results…

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:06:31 +0000

Lisa,

As alway, thanks for your input.

- Greg

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:21:47 +0000

Hi Greg,
I like Michael Cerkas’s point of view along with yours.
As far as being recognized for talent verses price I do believe “the cream always rises to the top” and of couse “there is a big difference between chicken do-do and chicken salad” As an old retailer the rule was always “sell to the masses not the asses.”
In a very broad arena, I don’t think its changed much.
As always, thank you for your insight.
Lisa

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:13:50 +0000

Hi Michael,
I like your point of view. “The cream always rises to the top.”
Lisa

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:02:26 +0000

Eric.

Thanks for your comment. Creating some separation does indeed help to fend off the dark side of crowds. Whether that involves circuit breakers on stock exchanges or moderators that are able to pull the plug. We have more control over the electronic world than the real one.

However it’s important to be careful, electronic markets crash the same way that real life ones do.

- Greg

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:08:52 +0000

Greg;
Great post – thanks again for making me think of things other than the daily toil.
Paraphrasing what I think has been said above: crowds can be a Massive Ass, or an amazing hive of intelligence, and it’s good to be able to tell the difference.
Reading your examples, Greg, and many of the comments, the good crowd-sourcing examples were mostly virtual crowds, while many of the not-so-happy results involved people meeting in person. It seems to make sense – alone in front of the computer, you can’t feel the heat of the angry mob or get caught up in its fear and excitement, or its stupidity. Your safe, easily switched–off virtual layer insulates you and cools your emotions. You read something one of the crowd says; lean back, stroke your chin; mutter, “you’re full of it,” or pound the desk in admiration or anger. And then, emotions vented in a way you could not do in a face-to-face meeting, you type a more measured response.
I’m not saying that one can’t have good crowds made up of real people, or that there aren’t bad ones composed of virtual meanies. Specialist task teams really do work and there are some evil virtual groups out there. It’s just that when used for “good purposes” the advantages of groupthink are there for negligible cost. All that collective brainpower without the crowd as Massive Ass.
Fred Brooks, of The Mythical Man Month fame, would be astonished. A way to run a huge software development team and not lose most of the assembled skill to overhead. If you’re like me and think technology is now our only hope for saving the planet and ourselves (along with a huge mindshift, but that’s another story), then huge groupthink projects may be one way to a cleaner future. It’s not a perpetual-motion smoke and mirrors trick, but it seems you really can add mental power to virtual teams at close to one for one efficiencies. So count me in for these virtual-think-tanks on steroids. It’s not perfection in terms of what our heads can achieve, but it is a way to inch us closer towards it.
Eric Goldman´s last blog ..B2B Print Publishing: Looking for a Lifeboat

By: Danny Galic

Danny Galic — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:32:38 +0000

Correct me if I am wrong, Scrum’s strength is to establish working teams that are NOT crossfunction in the sense that it requires a team of developers ( coders ) that have slight aspects of different disciplines ie all generalists.

If we move along the sliding scale of ‘different’ backgrounds, I would conclude that the opportunity of having QA and BSA’s is a non-starter within Scrum because these would be specialists. That being said, it would imply that the closer proximity of ‘group think’ within a Scrum teams would occur due to its like minded assembly. “That widget is awesome!”. – but is it useful?

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:13:49 +0000

Doeg,

Good points. Thanks.

Crowds have their place, but just as with any other method, it’s important to think things through and not just do it because it happens to be something journalists like to write about.

- Greg

By: Doug Garnett

Doug Garnett — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:42:05 +0000

Great article and interesting comments.

I know many companies would like to get product ideas via crowdsourcing. What’s striking to me is that in focus group work, generally the crowd doesn’t have the good ideas – because they don’t know what’s possible.

If you’re a good company at the head of the pack, your teams can see forward to things that your consumers or purchasers can’t. So crowds are potentially great for looking at current situations and backwards. But, looking ahead … as you note they tend to follow the crowd.

Another vagary of the crowd is that the crowd doesn’t have your company’s good will in mind. And that means that (a) the make-up of the crowd that gathers is out of your control and can lead you far astray and that (b) there is a crowd selfishness to guard against.

Great work. Loving your blog…

…Doug Garnett