Interdependence, Part 2: The Wisdom of Crowds
Rev. Paul Beckel
First Universalist Unitarian Church ~
www.uuwausau.org
March 20, 2005
...a young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad
and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister
of Moses, one of his chosen men, said, “My lord Moses, forbid them.” But Moses
said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” Numbers
11:27-29
YXZ[\]
The central task of the religious community is
to unveil the bonds that bind each to all. There is a connectedness, a
relationship discovered amid the particulars of our own lives and the lives of
others. Once felt, it inspires us to act for justice.
It is the church that assures us that we are not
struggling for justice on our own, but as members of a larger community. The
religious community is essential, for alone our vision is too narrow to see all
that must be seen, and our strength too limited to do all that must be done.
Together, our vision widens and our strength is renewed.
Mark
Morrison-Reed
INTRODUCTION
If you’ve seen today’s title, “The Wisdom
of Crowds.” you may be expecting me to talk about how powerful we can be if we would all just get along, be agreeable,
chip in, and work together. Ahhh gee whiz.... And I could say that. I could offer a touchy feely, Mr. Rogers
Neighborhood, new agey, panentheistic ode to thoughtful collaboration and
synergy. I could talk that way because I affirm all of that idealism. But
according to the book from which I borrowed the title today, the groups which
are most wise are groups of independent individuals with free
minds... people who are not too quick to compromise... and not overly
influenced by their allegiance to the group.
GATHERING SONG I
Wish I Knew How #151
[Jane Beckel
introduced this book by expressing her enthusiasm about having met the author,
Edward Hallowell, who spoke at a school counselors’ conference a few weeks
ago. Hallowell, a lecturer at Harvard
Medical School, has written many adult books; this is his first one for
children. Hallowell has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
He says he doesn’t appreciate the name of this disease, but acknowledges that
his brain does work quite differently than other brains he’s become familiar
with. He recognizes some downsides to the way his brain works, and knows that
he has to be cautious and aware of these realities. But he still sees the way
his brain works as a blessing, and he wouldn’t want it any other way. The story
is an ode to the varieties of ways that human brains work, and how unfortunate
it is that we’ve come up with such a narrow definition of “smart.” For a truly
smart brain is one which does what it can, whether that be artistic, active,
interpersonal, or reflective, etc.]
CHILDREN’S BLESSING The
Greatest Love of All
RESPONSIVE READING “The
Free Mind” #592
SHARING OUR GIFTS Ain’t No Stopping Us Now
It can be hard
to be optimistic about groups of people, about their collective wisdom, or
about the effect that humans as a whole are having on one another and on the
world that we share. So—“The wisdom
of crowds?!” That’s a riot. Are you kidding? I mean, people are stupid enough
on their own. But at least individuals can be contained. But crowds—the
masses...packs, swarms, gangs, mobs...they’re dangerous!
And arrogant! I
don’t know if I heard right this morning that they are going to re-insert Terry
Schiavo’s feeding tube so that the U.S. congress can debate whether she has the
right to die. Yes, crowds can really be awful in presuming to make decisions
that belong in the private realm.
Still. Today
I’m going to challenge the conventional cynicism that groups are inherently
dim, dense, and slow. That anything
created by a committee is a lackluster compromise; that compiling the insights
of all and sundry leads to a mediocre average; that groups necessarily sink to
their lowest common denominator.
James Surowieki, who writes “The Financial Page” for The New Yorker
Magazine, suggests in his new book, The Wisdom of Crowds, some very
counter-intuitive ideas about how groups—given the right conditions—can be
remarkably intelligent, and often even smarter than the smartest people in the
group.
We’d better
hope he’s right. Because if we believe that groups generally act insane or
stupid, how can we justify democratic institutions? Are we saying that we’d
rather have decisions made by a single wise president, or pope? By
self-appointed aristocrats? Or by your idiotic boss? I think not. So we must
look around to find something to give us hope. Let’s consider the chili dump.
Last month a
bunch of people brought chili to a potluck. Everyone’s contribution was dumped
together—either into the vegetarian pot or the meaty pot. I personally expected
the results to be pretty disgusting. But, still, I concocted my own spicy
contribution, and dumped it in with the others. All simmered for an hour or so
while we listened to the choir from the James Reeb congregation, who sang
praise to the power of collective voices. Then we ate. I ate two bowls from
each pot—just to be sure. I thought they were both great. Each of you, no
doubt, came to your own conclusion.
The same
phenomenon occurs when groups attempt to estimate the weight of an ox, or guess
how many jellybeans are in a jar. In
these cases, the average of the whole
group often turns out to be much closer to the correct answer than even the
best individual guess.
These uncomplicated
examples suggest some of the fundamentals about group intelligence at its best.
In each of these cases, people make extreme guesses high and low (or spicy and
mild). When you combine all of the guesses, the individual errors cancel each
other out.
The resulting
formula is fairly simple: Information, minus error (because the errors have
cancelled each other out) = good judgment. This may seem simplistic because
these are problems that actually have answers. In the case of the chili, the
answer is not quite as objective as how many jellybeans—but still you can
roughly determine whether or not it worked.
But does this
have anything to do with the truly important and challenging problems that
groups of people need to make together: a jury determining someone’s guilt or
innocence... congress deciding whether to allow drilling in a national wildlife
reserve... a congregation deciding how to maintain its property—or maybe
something even more difficult, like how to fulfill its mission... or even what
its mission ought to be. Can groups make intelligent decisions about things like this?
Before we go on
to these extremely difficult cases—including cases where we may not even know if we’ve made a good decision—I want to say
more about the basic conditions which are present when groups seem to be at
their best. For even these simple examples to work—that is, to utilize the
formula, “information minus error equals good judgment”—there has to be at
least some information available.
It’s not going to work for something random—like guess what number I’m thinking
of.
So, there has
to be some information. But how individuals process that information will vary,
like the brain says in A Walk in the Rain with Brain. In order to be
intelligent, groups do not need to be composed of traditionally intelligent
people, or dominated by experts.
In addition to
the necessity of information being available, Surowiecki emphasizes three
conditions required for a crowd to be wise: Diversity, decentralization, and
independence.
==
By diversity
I’m not talking about age race gender class sexual orientation physical
ability theology, and national origin, though these demographic categories
often entail diversity in life
experience, points of view, and ways of approaching a problem, which is the
diversity that helps a group become more intelligent. Life experience, points
of view, and ways of approaching a problem.
You see this
kind of intelligence in nature in biodiversity—in
the many different ways that living things adapt to their environment. Mother
Gaia develops viable species by creating of lots
of variations, and then killing most of them off. This strategy is used to
rapidly develop new strains of bugs in response to pesticides and antibiotics.
The marketplace does the same thing with a plethora of options in the shampoo
aisle. Growing churches do the same with diverse programs. Create and destroy
and see what survives. Diversity.
Homogenous
groups of intelligent people do not always make intelligent decisions; in part
because they think too much alike. For example, in the 1970s a team of NASA
scientists brought the Apollo 13 astronauts back to earth safely after a
serious malfunction. This was a very different group from those guiding the
last space shuttle, Columbia, which came back to us in pieces. If you conjure
an image of NASA scientists in the early ’70s, you might not think about
diversity. White males in white shirts, crew cuts, and horn-rimmed
glasses. Compare this to today’s men and
women of every race in haphazard dress. But the earlier group came to the young
NASA program after success in a variety of industries. Today’s NASA engineers
tend to come straight from graduate school.
This is just
one example of a group of “smart” people who may not be as good at assessing
and solving a problem as a group with a wider range in perspectives and skills.
Ironically, group intelligence may
require a constant influx of naiveté and ignorance.
“...Groups that
are too much alike find it harder to keep learning, because each member is
bringing less new information to the table. Homogenous groups are great at
doing what they do well, but they become progressively
less able to investigate alternatives.” Does this mean that Unitarian
Universalist congregations might do better if we stopped screening new members
according to their SAT scores?
==
Effective
groups often outperform the best members of the group when there is diversity,
decentralization, and independence.
What is decentralization? Flocks of
birds are made up of hundreds or thousands of individuals forming and reforming
in fabulous coordination, but following no one’s command. Each bird follows its
instinct for self-preservation and a few simple rules: try to get as close to
the center of the flock as possible, stay a few inches away from everyone else.
Decentralization.
Think of the world wide web. Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the world wide web,
says that decentralization is one of the key elements that makes it
work.
The web is
powerful and less vulnerable to breakdown because it has no center. Every node
is connected but also independent. Computers all over the world link with one
another based upon minimal rules and communication standards and no one
controls it, or judges what is good, bad, or ugly.
Tim Berners Lee
concludes his book, Weaving the Web, by describing why he became a
Unitarian Universalist—how he sees our way of doing religion to be comparable
to the powerful interdependence he designed into the world wide web.
Can
decentralization help groups to make good decisions? This is a pretty important
question at a time when massive governmental agencies are being re-configured
and billions of dollars spent in an attempt to consolidate “intelligence” in
order to prevent terrorism. Are we going to be more safe with a single
intelligence czar? As always, the devil is in the details. Will the new
intelligence agency be like Soviet central planning? Or will it be like the
world wide web—an amorphous decentralized system with excellent tools that can
be used to aggregate relevant information?
(In my view,
God is a decentralized ever-expanding whole. We’re still developing our
abilities to access its mystery. We would do well to avoid the illusion that it
can be captured or controlled.)
Centralized systems are vulnerable. If one part
fails the whole thing often fails. But worse, a centralized group is not as
good at decision-making because the individuals are too focused on pleasing the
boss instead of trying to reach the correct solution.
Decentralized
systems are connected, but not controlled. The scientific community is an
incredibly powerful example. When the SARS epidemic hit, dozens of labs shared
information and the pathogen was quickly discovered. No one was in charge and
no one lab could take credit for the success. The whole world benefited.
Advances in science occur so rapidly and
effectively because research results are published openly and are judged by the
community as a whole. This kind of openness is essential to a decentralized
society. The Daily Herald has had a wonderful series of articles this
week – “Sunshine Week”—about the importance of keeping public records open and
available. I found this quote from Friday especially to the point: The more government hides, even in the name
of keeping us safe “the more estranged it becomes from democratic principles
and traditions. And the less it benefits from the wisdom, experience,
enterprise, ingenuity, and support of its citizens.” [Paul McMasters – WDH
3-16-05]
==
Effective
groups often outperform the best individuals in the group—under conditions of
diversity, decentralization, and independence.
What is independence? In a few
minutes we’re going to sing the song: “I’m on my way, to the freedom land,”
etc.... The next verses talk about inviting others to come along...then it
concludes: “if they say no I’ll go anyhow....” It’s a pretty stark independence
being celebrated in that song... and I admit I’ve always been a little
ambivalent about our singing it as a group.
But Surowiecki
celebrates a fairly stark independence. Having an independent mind means not
being overly influenced by others, and not overly influencing others.
Interaction and mutual influence may make individuals in a group smarter, but
sometimes it can actually make the group as a whole dumber!
Consider fads
for example—when the influence of a few people begins to cascade. The more
people do x, the more it appears to be a
good choice.
Making a
decision based upon what others are doing is not entirely irrational. Others
are often correct. The living tradition we share draws upon many sources,
including the examples we observe from courageous principled people. We should always observe and often follow others’ examples. Because
we can’t test everything ourselves. I rely a great deal on Consumer Reports
Magazine, which uses information from its own empirical testing, but also
from its large diverse group of readers.
But in
cascades, decisions aren’t made based upon good information. In a cascade, many
people are influenced by a few, often due to social connections. There may be
the appearance of independent
judgment, but, for example in the telecom stock market bubble of the 1990s,
everyone was just saying wow, everything is going up, I’d better jump in!
Imitation can be a rational tactic. It’s very
often true that others know better than I do. But there’s good imitation and
bad imitation. Good imitation is when we try to incorporate what others have
learned, but ultimately make independent decisions based upon our own
experience. For example, some researchers observed the following learning
within a group of monkeys. They put some wheat out on the beach. The monkeys
couldn’t eat it because it got too mixed up with the sand. But eventually one
monkey figured out that he could throw hands full of sand and wheat into the
water. The sand sank the wheat floated and he got a good meal. Before long all
of the monkeys had learned to imitate this brilliant discovery.
Imitation is an
incredibly valuable form of learning because new ideas are unlikely to be
discovered by each person (or monkey) acting independently.
On the other
hand imitation is bad when we are influenced by the crowd or by a charismatic
expert...and then continue to follow their lead regardless of the consequences.
This dangerous
kind of groupthink is especially likely in homogenous groups where a single
authority—or group allegiance—may have undue influence. As wonderful as it is
sometimes to be with a group of people who think as you do, small homogenous
groups can become insulated from outside opinions, and lose their tolerance for
dissent.
Smarter groups
can be full of healthy internal conflict. In my opinion, the smartest decision
that this congregation has made recently was also the most contentious. Before
we hired our intern minister we had a very open debate about it, and we found
ourselves quite divided. It was a lovely process with a fantastic result.
An openness to
dissent is essential to healthy groups. Even a small amount of dissent opens
the door for people to speak up. The expression of diverse opinions in a group
not only adds additional perspectives, it makes it easier for people to think
and to speak independently. Open expression of minority viewpoints is
essential. Even when the viewpoints themselves are unwise, this forces a group
to clarify itself, and arrive at more nuanced conclusions.
The stock
market is a good example of independence leading to benefits for individuals,
but also a kind of wisdom arising out of the masses. For example in 1986, when
the space shuttle Challenger was destroyed just after lift-off, it took weeks
for NASA to determine that the cause of the accident was in the O-rings. But
the stock market identified the culprit much sooner. There were four publicly
traded companies involved in the launch. The prices of three of these companies
fell immediately, but quickly stabilized. The price of the fourth company, the
one responsible for the O-rings, fell much further and did not recover. The
independent decisions made by countless thousands of investors, who themselves
did not have sufficient information to know who was at fault, predicted the
source of the problem within minutes after the explosion.
SINGING TOGETHER I’m On My Way
#116
CONCLUSION?
In the examples
I’ve discussed so far, independent members of groups have needed only a vague
awareness of one another. In fact, they were probably more successful when they
did not really identify with one another or think of themselves as a group. But there are other situations, of course, in
which we do need to act consciously
as a group, and we do need to pay close attention to what others in the group
are doing and thinking.
Paying taxes,
for example. People tend to be more inclined to pay taxes if they don’t feel
like suckers... if they believe that other people are paying too. It would be
more rational for us as individuals to cheat on our taxes, and enjoy government
services while other people pay for them. It would be more rational to shirk
our duties at work, or not tip at a restaurant. In all likelihood, we’d never
get caught. But amazingly, enough people do the right thing to create a civil
society...and thereby create a positive feedback loop which then perpetuates
itself.
That is, people
cooperate with one another, the results become visible, and we choose to
continue. But how did this get started?
Who had the foresight to initiate this civilizing cycle?
==
I only have
time today (or in any sermon) to throw out a hypothesis. I can offer some
examples but I can’t really prove anything from the pulpit. As always, you will
have to go out into the world, gather evidence, and come to your own
conclusions. As you do so, I would urge that you don’t assume that groups are
stupid. And don’t assume they’re wise. I predict that your observations will
show groups making both good and bad decisions. Families, businesses,
nonprofits, and governmental groups. What I challenge you to pay attention to
is this: what are the characteristics of groups that succeed? What is the role
of diversity, decentralization, and independence? How can YOU act to shift
groups toward effectiveness?
So, work toward
your own conclusion, but do so with great care. One of the greatest dangers
within groups is when we come to our conclusions before assessing all of the
evidence. And then we dismiss or misinterpret new evidence which doesn’t fit
our pre-made conclusion. If there is pressure within our group to conform, then
the only new evidence that we’ll noticed is that which confirms our bias. We
fault creationists for doing this and calling it “science.” But how often do we
do the same thing in other areas of our lives?
==
On the other
extreme, we have the danger of inertia. That is: never coming to any
conclusions. For example, an inevitable result of thousands of well-intended
actions by a group sharing a building, using things, buying and donating
things, putting them away, or not...is that
stuff accumulates. Fabulous stuff like I mentioned last time (this
$500?! bowl) that we don’t even realize how valuable it is...and junk. And,
stuff that once was fabulous but either carelessness or normal wear and tear
has turned into junk. Yesterday Brad Lantzer and Blake Burton volunteered to
clean out the sound room and the hallway behind the sanctuary, which had
succumbed to inertia. It was like a chili dump that no one had cooked, stirred,
or eaten for a long time... reminding us again that not to decide is to decide.
==
The third of
three services on the theme of “Interdependence” will be the Sunday after next.
It asks: within a group, if we are diverse, decentralized, and independent...
if we are all equals... and if we do not wish for entropy and inertia to decide
things for us... Then: what is leadership?
SENDING HYMN We’ve
Got The Power
POSTLUDE Caravan
of Love