Re: Wisdom of the crowd

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:01 am

Lynn wrote:
Francis Galton (1822 –1911) was English. He would have talked in ounces, pounds, stones, hundredweights and tons. In Uk our money went decimal in 1971, and I think a couple of years after that the EU gave us 5 years to become metric in weights & measurements, tho it wasn't enforced till about year 2000. Even today in UK, I'm guessing anyone over about age 40 still talk in pounds and ounces rather than kilogrammes, and inches rather than centimetres. 1,198 pounds is not a nice even round number!

Hi Lynn,

1,198 pounds is indeed not a nice even round number... but my point was only: the weight involved is very close to 1,200 pounds (600 kg): only 0.2% less: then how surprising is it really that the outcome was only 0.1% below the true weight of the slaughted Ox?

(In the TED experiment the weight is only 0.3% below 1,800 pounds, and the outcome was only 0.2% below the true weight of the living Ox)

By the way, I think my argument is just common sense:

Regarding Galton's experiment: at a cattle fair one can expect to be confronted with many 'expert' guesses in round numbers, and therefore it would make sense if many quesses were made at 1,100 pounds, 1,200 pounds and 1,300 pounds, etc.

But we have hardly have any info about the variation among the quesses... because being informed about only the highest and lowest guess is hardly relevant (from a statistical point of view).

wave

PS. Don't you think it is at least funny/strange/remarkable/significant (take your pick)... that both in Galton's experiment and in the TED experiment the 'selected' objects involved weights VERY close to a big number between 1,000 and 2,000???

This is likely not 'magic'... this is statistics, and there are even more arguments available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds#Criticism

(The essentials of 'the wisdom of the crowd' are discussed: "crowd wisdom is best suited for problems that involve optimization, but ill-suited for problems that require creativity or innovation" ... I think this sort of proofs that there is actually little 'magic' involved, it is almost pure statistics: in abstract tasks this method will not work at all!)

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:20 am

... Just spotted Boaz's link:
http://tomayko.com/writings/galtons-ox

In Galton's experiment half of the guesses were made between: 1,162 pounds and 1,236 pounds, which I think confirmss that an expert-public was involved in the experiment.

So, one should wonder about the wisdom of a non-expert crowd: because in these experiments one should be aware that the words 'wisdom of the crowd' should be understood as... knowledge of the crowd!

Patti Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:18 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
(The essentials of 'the wisdom of the crowd' are discussed: "crowd wisdom is best suited for problems that involve optimization, but ill-suited for problems that require creativity or innovation" ... I think this sort of proofs that there is actually little 'magic' involved, it is almost pure statistics: in abstract tasks this method will not work at all!)[/color]

I don't know if you took a look at the video link that Anand uploaded, the professor speaks about how this may work in the abstract and relate to evolution.

Interestingly the topic of neurons fit in here as a parallel discussion speaking of how a room full neurons think together.

**zaobhand** Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:28 pm

Okay, guys, I'm volunteering my privacy on the crucifix of science. What is my weight in pounds?

Patti Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:03 pm

zaobhand wrote:Okay, guys, I'm volunteering my privacy on the crucifix of science. What is my weight in pounds?

I'm in!

How tall are you?

**zaobhand** Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:07 pm

Hmm.. This will bias the results.. but here it is, 6'1.5''

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:23 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
(The essentials of 'the wisdom of the crowd' are discussed: "crowd wisdom is best suited for problems that involve optimization, but ill-suited for problems that require creativity or innovation" ... I think this sort of proofs that there is actually little 'magic' involved, it is almost pure statistics: in abstract tasks this method will not work at all!)[/color]

I don't know if you took a look at the video link that Anand uploaded, the professor speaks about how this may work in the abstract and relate to evolution.

Interestingly the topic of neurons fit in here as a parallel discussion speaking of how a room full neurons think together.

Hi Patti, though I enjoyed watching the Ramachandran video ... this professor is basically only talking about the effects of various different types sensory input. Though he additionally points out to some kind of paralleling bridge between this sensory scientific science and the basis of Eastern philosophy, I think what he described is not much more than a sort of personal association... which will probably not be confirmed by Western scientists, etc.

So at the end I see no clear connection between Ramachandran's interesting observations (his ideas are basically not related to statistics)... compared to the 'wisdom of the crowd' phenomena (where statistics are heavily involved).

Patti Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:41 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
(The essentials of 'the wisdom of the crowd' are discussed: "crowd wisdom is best suited for problems that involve optimization, but ill-suited for problems that require creativity or innovation" ... I think this sort of proofs that there is actually little 'magic' involved, it is almost pure statistics: in abstract tasks this method will not work at all!)[/color]

I don't know if you took a look at the video link that Anand uploaded, the professor speaks about how this may work in the abstract and relate to evolution.

Interestingly the topic of neurons fit in here as a parallel discussion speaking of how a room full neurons think together.

Hi Patti, though I enjoyed watching the Ramachandran video ... this professor is basically only talking about the effects of various different types sensory input. Though he additionally points out to some kind of paralleling bridge between this sensory scientific science and the basis of Eastern philosophy, I think what he described is not much more than a sort of personal association... which will probably not be confirmed by Western scientists, etc.

So at the end I see no clear connection between Ramachandran's interesting observations (his ideas are basically not related to statistics)... compared to the 'wisdom of the crowd' phenomena (where statistics are heavily involved).

I didn't pick up on Eastern philosophy as much as I did quantum physics. His concept is very much in line with what Bruce Lipton and now others are discussing and writing about. The idea that we as humans are the same in the 'as above, so below' concept as compared to colonies of coral or a hive of bees. The is an aspect of 'we are all one' and connected and are innately wired for group mentality. Quantum physics might be giving a basis for some Eastern philosophies or vice versa. I don't think it's possible for science and math to be separate from things abstract because we know that the 'unknown' (or not scientifically proven) exists.

p.s.: The lack of statistics isn't relevant. This is a reflection or one possible explanation of why the statistics would show there is an average or common 'crowd mentality'.

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:01 pm

Patti wrote:
p.s.: The lack of statistics isn't relevant. This is a reflection or one possible explanation of why the statistics would show there is an average or common 'crowd mentality'.

Maybe I should specify how I see the role of statistics in this topic a little bit further:

First of all, I am not trying to deny the value of 'wisdom of the crowd'... because of course: science & knowledge nearly evolves through the activities of many people!

However, the suggestion that the ''wisdom of the crowd' tends to be very accurate is VERY likely misleading... but it really requires a focus on the actually numbers involved in the experiments in order to see/recognize the misleading aspect.

That is why I started talking about statistics, and that is why I described my observations regarding the actual numbers involved in both the Galton experiment and the TED experiment.

So Patti, since you appear to have - thus far - no interest regarding the details of the numbers involved in the experiments... it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you tend to perceive things differently compared to what I described.

And therefore... I am not bothered by our disagreement here at all!

wave

Patti Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:10 pm

Yes, agreed. It's the different perspective. I nodded in agreement when Boaz said with his long head line he didn't bother to work out the math. I have long head lines, too. Then Lynn joked about her approach to doing the math and she has short head lines. So, yes, we each have a different facet we are attracted to in this topic.

**zaobhand** Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:28 pm

Martijn, Frankly I would have had no idea how much an ox should weigh. I would have probably guessed anywhere between 300-700Kg, to be on the safe side. Take a large crowd (TED) of uneducated participants, it is surprising the average was close to correct answer, whole number or not,

**zaobhand** Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 pm

Patti and Anand,
The Ramachandran video is definitely interesting. My understanding is that different centers exchange information. The brain monitors the body though senses including the eye sight which monitors visual input. Here the brain was tricked by blocking communication to its own arm thereby amplifying its response to visual stimuli. We are coupled in many ways to our surrounding and the definition of self is tricky, but here I don't see it as one person becoming another but rather that the visual stimuli has artificially taken over. This would have happened also if the person was viewing a video of the pheonmena (two other people touching each other). This is why porno is essentially virtual, it is not the real thing. rolling on the floor

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:10 pm

zaobhand wrote:Martijn, Frankly I would have had no idea how much an ox should weigh. I would have probably guessed anywhere between 300-700Kg, to be on the safe side. Take a large crowd (TED) of uneducated participants, it is surprising the average was close to correct answer, whole number or not,

Yes I understand your thought.

But how differently is the situation at a cattle fair... where you will find the most experienced people regarding the weight of the cattle, and their knowledge will serve as a reference point for the less experienced people at the fair who participated in the experiment as well.

My point is basically: the result of these experiments largely depends on the factual knowledge of the people involved.

For example: if you would perform the same 'Ox weight' experiment with people like you and me at this forum... the result will very likely become dramatically worse compared to the result found in people at a cattle fair!

(We can only make guesses regarding whether people at the TED experiment had significant knowledge about the wheight of an Ox... because, what do we really know about those people? - I expect that there is some kind of a 'catch' in that experiment as well... for example: I could imagine that those people were able to communicatie & speculate about the weight of the living Ox, etc. Because things are often not what they appear to be etc. ... and one could also wonder about the many likewise experiments that might have been performed since Galton's experiment, but didn't get the same attention because of the far less impressive results, etc. etc.)

**zaobhand** Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:14 pm

Yes, the TED experiment could be a coincidence. It needs to be replicated. I don't think the TED experiment was in any way different than a similar experiment we would be performing here on the forum. Some people would argue that such a type of experiment can be replicated only under the proper conditions, say some heightened rapport among the crowd, the actual presence of the object (e.g. ox) or something.

Patti Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:51 pm

**zaobhand** Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:23 pm

He is trying to 'dress' a mathematical equation to fit the 'wisdom of the crowd' experiment, but the arguments are flawed. It doesn't make sense.

Obviously the variation of the mean goes to zero when n goes to infinity, but this does not explain our experiment. Here we are concerned with the sampling itself. We do not know apriori what the sampling is and therefore the mean is unknown.

Thanks for the link Patti.

**anand_palm** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 pm

Hello Patti

I think there is a flaw when he uses variance (mean) to justify, since mean is not a random variable it cannot be used in that format what he describes.The format would work only we use a random variable but not when we use a measure (which is mean) .
In this case variance(mean) = cannot be used as mean is a measure.
unless mean is defined as a random variable can it be possible. so iam not sure whether he is right.

Thanks
anand

**anand_palm** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:37 pm

Hello Boaz, Patti, Martinj

There was one philopsher i read long back talking about conciousness he was talking about how conciusoness affects when somebody was hitting somebody else that he could swelling in body wherein he was watching the incident. i do not know how far his claim his true, but he mentioned there is certain radius within which the conciosuness operates. It look like conciousness operates within a certain range where in anythingh which is happening around can affect the conciusoness. also he mentioned that whoever touches this conciuosness will have an effect on the rest of conciousness. i really did not understand what he was trying to explain but maybe it could be related to ramchandran video on how imitation happens.

Thanks
Anand

**anand_palm** Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:22 pm

Hello Patti

Eventhough this might be out of topic, but in ancient times there has been lot of exchange of philosophy between greeks and asians. In fact if you are interested in knowing more about eastern philosophy it is important to know about upanishads , gita, and also read about modern thinkers. the whole concepts revolves around who am i and who are we. in other word questioning about your own self which is the soul or atman. That every living being in the world has atman or soul.

If you look most of the people only came from east (africa is some sense) and went to the west.

Thanks
Anand

**zaobhand** Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:32 pm

Hi Anand,

I think it is even simpler than that. He uses a general statistical law showing that the variance of the mean converges to zero, which really isn't relevant here.Then he miraculously associates the mean with the 'guess'. The logic is so unfounded it is difficult to even start explaining why. Basically there is no logic here.

Patti Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:44 pm

zaobhand wrote:Hmm.. This will bias the results.. but here it is, 6'1.5''

Yeah I guess that does create a bias. Maybe a human isn't a good sample. But shouldn't we be able to see the object we're guessing the weight of?

168 lbs.

Patti Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:45 pm

zaobhand wrote:Maybe the object needs to be seen with eyes, real time..

**zaobhand** Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:49 pm

Okay, you are sample number 1!

**Lynn** Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:21 pm

I just watched a really good 'Horizon' programme, on BBC2, about the Unconscious Mind. They referred to 'The wisdom of the crowd' with regard to (microchipped!) ants choosing a nest.

Horizon
10. Out of Control?
We all like to think we are in control of our lives - of what we feel and what we think. But scientists are now discovering this is often simply an illusion.
Surprising experiments are revealing that what you think you do and what you actually do can be very different. Your unconscious mind is often calling the shots, influencing the decisions you make, from what you eat to who you fall in love with. If you think
you are really in control of your life, you may have to think again.

You can view it on BBC 1 player, it's an hour long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dlglq/Horizon_20112012_Out_of_Control/

**Lynn** Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:29 pm

Boaz, I think we should have sent PM to guess your weight so that we're not influenced by each other. I'm finding this difficult. Because I had absolutely no idea about the weight of an ox, I made a random guess - or so I thought, but now I've seen that TV prog I guess my unconscious mind worked it out Wink

But when I tried to guess yours I find my brain interfering, telling me things like '6ft 1 is quite tall' 'he looks slim'. and then I started to be influenced by Patti's answer. anyway my first guess (before I saw Patti's answer) was 12 and half stone (gets out calculator....)... 175 lb.

Sponsored content