The disturbing Nation’s Meeting is this weekend. Hope everyone attending has a great time.
But you are not speaking in my name. Especially when 300 people have been invited as “VIP’s” to the meeting.
On the wisdom of crowds a couple of important things must be considered.
One: The wisdom of crowds is not necessarily a good indicator of correct answers. I’ve spent a fair amount of time attending and digging into polls and focus groups. They are somewhat useful if you need to know how people “feel” at any given moment. But they might not have good information, so good answers are probably harder to come by. The Apple Computer, the relativity theory and the first man on the moon did not come happen because of national polls or focus groups. David Tamet has pointed out the case of Kasparov vs. the World as an example of expertise beating the crowd.
On EU matters for example, the Nation’s Meeting might find out that people are either inclined towards or against the EU membership. But their “feelings” are not based on deep experience, scientific research or knowledge of the matter, but rather exposure to propaganda or a certain group of family or friends. Pollsters regularly ask people what they feel about possible EU membership but they do not ask you on what you base your feeling. They just want a for or against. For example many have criticized the fact that US pollsters ask “do you believe in God”, but the option “well, I am somewhat sceptical in the existence of a higher being, but I would like to believe in one even if my better judgement tells me that it might be far stretched” is not included between “yes” and “no”. Yes or no sells newspapers, all those things in between don’t.
Two: Not all opinions are equal. Killing Jews for example is probably wrong even if someone from 1930′s Germany didn’t think so. Bombing places that might include Palestinian children in the West Bank is probably just as wrong, even if the Israel army thinks it is a good idea. In similar vain, it would probably be wiser to listen to a professor in political science who hasn’t been found guilty of plagiarising talking than one that has. And a gas station attendant would probably be a better bet to help you choose a good motor oil for your ride than the professor, whether he plagiarised or not. Media outlets have mistaken their supposed objectivity as an encouragement to seek opinions instead of seeking truth. That’s why some people in Iceland think having a former aerobics teacher spurt water up their behinds is comparable to receiving prescription drugs from someone who spent ten years at medical school.
Three: Some people might not get their desired point across in a discussion group of nine. They might feel uncomfortable telling people they don’t know that they hate Asians and Poles. Others might recognize someone who’s a noted Progressive Party member and not feel it prude to say their real meaning of that person’s party. Some people are shy, did they maybe stay at home?
But seriously, enjoy the free food and have fun.
Related posts:
Carl Mosconi
2 years ago
What is random about choosing bloggers, VIPs and other “special” guests?
Most forms of shit are fairly easy to recognize with bull shit being the most recognizable!