Groupthink and the wisdom of crowds

Information cascades

September 22, 2019 — April 22, 2022

extended self
Figure 1

To link to: getting along, swarm sensing, voting systems, democracy, groupthink. 🏗 When do group decisions embody the wisdom of crowds and when groupthink? How do we tie the group consensus to reality rather than let the dynamics of signalling and simulacra dominate.

1 Diversity dividends

Possibly diversity and tolerance is not just an intrinsic moral good, but may pay literal dividends in terms of avoiding groupthink and being ore effective etc. What are the conditions for this happy state?

Does diversity help attain wisdom? Sometimes, it seems. Scott Page calls this the diversity dividend. Quantifying when and how it works is of interest to me.

Practically, see cultivating diversity.

McKinsey report, Vivian Hunt, Dennis Layton, and Sara Prince: Why diversity matters:

While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful.

(They could possibly have done better than that mealy-mouthed correlation phrasing, using causal analysis.)

Other random readings: Chris Dillow, diversity trumps ability.

The new Matthew Syed book (Syed 2020) (titled Rebel Ideas or Superteams depending where you are) apparently covers some of this material.

Figure 2

2 Social structure of knowledge

Vested interests, contrarians, consensus.

Scott Aaronson on “armchair epidemiology” uses the COVID-19 public communication fiasco as a lense on societal collective knowledge and science and the role of contrarians. Connection to red queen signal dynamics should be apparent. The comment threads in that post meander around this topic at length.

This resembles another pyramid of fashionable disagreement that he mentions, the Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism pyramid.

Rex Douglass’s How to be Curious Instead of Contrarian About COVID-19 dive into the Richard Epstein contrarian piece about COVID-19 response as a case study in how to disagree productively.

How should non-epidemiologists publicly discuss COVID-19 data and models? When leaders and citizens are especially sensitive to signals on public health, what is our intellectual responsibility to defer to the analysis of more expert speakers? I argue that our responsibility during crisis is the same as it was before; to do good work, to the best of our abilities, with the scientific principles of curiosity and honesty. Alternative shorthands like ‘staying in your lane’ are a poor decision rule for sorting good work from bad, and they ignore the very messy process that underlies real-world scientific inquiry. Lane-keeping is a poor way to learn and become a better consumer of expert findings, and gate-keeping is a missed opportunity to provide the public goods of feedback and review. To demonstrate the point, this note provides a detailed review of a recent piece “Coronavirus Perspective” (Epstein 2020a). By applying and illustrating data science principles point for point to this non-epidemiological take on epidemiological questions, it is hoped that the reader will take away not why they should avoid working on new topics but rather how they should approach those topics in an honest, curious, and rigorous way.

3 Incoming

4 References

Acemoglu, Chernozhukov, and Yildiz. 2006. Learning and Disagreement in an Uncertain World.” Working Paper 12648.
Acemoglu, and Ozdaglar. 2011. Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks.” Dynamic Games and Applications.
Aleta, and Moreno. 2019. The Dynamics of Collective Social Behavior in a Crowd Controlled Game.” EPJ Data Science.
Almaatouq, Rahimian, Burton, et al. 2021. When Social Influence Promotes the Wisdom of Crowds.” arXiv:2006.12471 [Physics, Stat].
Arguedas, Robertson, Fletche, et al. 2022. Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: A Literature Review.”
Atanasov, Rescober, Stone, et al. 2015. Distilling the Wisdom of Crowds: Prediction Markets Versus Prediction Polls.” Academy of Management Proceedings.
Banerjee. 1992. A Simple Model of Herd Behavior.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Baron. 2005. So Right It’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
Board, and Meyer-ter-Vehn. 2021. Learning Dynamics in Social Networks.” Econometrica.
Brewer. 1993. Social Identity, Distinctiveness, and In-Group Homogeneity.” Social Cognition.
Danan, Gajdos, Hill, et al. 2016. Robust Social Decisions.” American Economic Review.
Dinesen, and Sønderskov. 2013. Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: The Role of Exposure in the Micro-Context.” Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital.
Farrell, and Shalizi. 2015. Pursuing Cognitive Democracy.” From Voice to Influence: Understanding Citizenship in a Digital Age; Allen, D., Light, J., Eds.
Fügener, Grahl, Gupta, et al. 2021. Will Humans-in-the-Loop Become Borgs? Merits and Pitfalls of Working with AI.” MIS Quarterly.
Fu, and Wang. 2008. Coevolutionary Dynamics of Opinions and Networks: From Diversity to Uniformity.” Physical Review E.
Garip. 2020. What Failure to Predict Life Outcomes Can Teach Us.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Golub, and Jackson. 2010. Naïve Learning in Social Networks and the Wisdom of Crowds.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics.
———. 2011. Network Structure and the Speed of Learning: Measuring Homophily Based on Its Consequences.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1784542.
———. 2012. How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best-Response Dynamics.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Haghtalab, Jackson, and Procaccia. 2020. Belief Polarization in a Complex World: A Learning Theory Perspective.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3606003.
Hertz, Romand-Monnier, Kyriakopoulou, et al. 2016. Social influence protects collective decision making from equality bias.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance.
Hong, and Page. 2004. Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Horwitz, and Horwitz. 2007. The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography.” Journal of Management.
Jackson. 2009. Social Structure, Segregation, and Economic Behavior.” Presented as the Nancy Schwartz Memorial Lecture.
Jeppesen, and Lakhani. 2010. Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search.” Organization Science.
Johnson, Velasquez, Restrepo, et al. 2021. Mainstreaming of Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation.”
Klug, and Bagrow. 2016. Understanding the Group Dynamics and Success of Teams.” Royal Society Open Science.
Kong. 2019. Dominantly Truthful Multi-Task Peer Prediction with a Constant Number of Tasks.” arXiv:1911.00272 [Cs, Econ].
Lalitha, Javidi, and Sarwate. 2014. Social Learning and Distributed Hypothesis Testing.” arXiv:1410.4307 [Cs, Math, Stat].
Lee, and Nathan. 2011. Does Cultural Diversity Help Innovation in Cities: Evidence from London Firms.” LSE Research Online Documents on Economics.
List, and Goodin. 2001. Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy.
Lorenz. 2010. Heterogeneous Bounds of Confidence: Meet, Discuss and Find Consensus! Complexity.
Lublin. 2015. New Report Finds a ‘Diversity Dividend’ at Work.” WSJ (blog).
Mahmoodi, Bang, Olsen, et al. 2015. Equality Bias Impairs Collective Decision-Making Across Cultures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mann, and Helbing. 2016. Minorities Report: Optimal Incentives for Collective Intelligence.” arXiv:1611.03899 [Cs, Math, Stat].
Masuda, and Redner. 2011. “Can Partisan Voting Lead to Truth?” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment.
Mercier, and Claidière. 2021. Does Discussion Make Crowds Any Wiser? Cognition.
Moussaïd, Kämmer, Analytis, et al. 2013. Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation.” PLoS ONE.
Niemeyer, Veri, Dryzek, et al. 2023. How Deliberation Happens: Enabling Deliberative Reason.” American Political Science Review.
O’Connor, and Wu. 2021. How Should We Promote Transient Diversity in Science?
Olfati-Saber, Fax, and Murray. 2007. Consensus and Cooperation in Networked Multi-Agent Systems.” Proceedings of the IEEE.
Page. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies - New Edition.
———. 2011. Diversity and Complexity. Primers in Complex Systems.
Peter Skerry. 2002. Beyond Sushiology: Does Diversity Work? Brookings Institution (blog).
Peters, and Adamou. 2015. An Evolutionary Advantage of Cooperation.” arXiv:1506.03414 [Nlin, q-Bio, q-Fin].
Prelec, Seung, and McCoy. 2017. A Solution to the Single-Question Crowd Wisdom Problem.” Nature.
Ren, and Beard. 2005. “Consensus Seeking in Multiagent Systems Under Dynamically Changing Interaction Topologies.” Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on.
Sunstein, and Hastie. 2014. Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter.
Syed. 2020. Rebel Ideas: The Power of Diverse Thinking.
Trouche, Sander, and Mercier. 2014. Arguments, More Than Confidence, Explain the Good Performance of Reasoning Groups.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2431710.
van den Steen. 2010. Culture Clash: The Costs and Benefits of Homogeneity.” Management Science.
Weisbuch, Deffuant, Amblard, et al. 2002. Meet, Discuss, and Segregate! Complexity.