A recent article featuring a study of the collective intelligence of bees explained “that a fundamental process that's very important in human decision-making is similarly important to honeybee decision-making." [1] Iain Couzin, evolutionary biologist at Princeton University feels that the study of social insects will help us understand the human decision making process because a “critical aspect in our ability to make choices is neural inhibition, where neurons actively suppress the activity of other neurons.” [2] Similar to groups of neurons, honeybees communicate with their hive members through group signals and, “unlike the human brain, "one of the beautiful things about looking at social insects is that you can really see the individual components and really determine the mechanisms involved.” [3] So, human brain function can be viewed in comparison to a hive of bees - networks working collectively in order to make decisions to complete even the simplest of tasks. Each of us, then, without awareness, is engaged in an internal power struggle as individual neurons oppose each other. Likewise, we humans pride ourselves on our reason and intelligence, striving for individual accomplishment, personal goal achievements and unique insights throughout our lives. Humans, like honeybees, are social creatures. But in a group setting, how do we function?
The well-known concept of mob mentality, that humans regress to the worst or most violent person in a group, has been studied and conveyed through well-known theories of social psychology, specifically, Deindividuation, “the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity.” [4] Mob mentality is a direct result of Deindividuation and the effect is even more profound as the aggressor becomes further depersonalized or unidentifiable. Deindividuation is part of the larger phenomenon, Group Polarization which is described as “the enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group [which] occurs when people within a group discuss attitudes that most of them either favor or oppose. Group polarization can have beneficial results, as when it amplifies a sought-after spiritual awareness or strengthens the resolve of those in a self-help group. But it can also have dire consequences. [5] In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki asserts, ‘…although it’s not necessarily easy to start a riot, once a crowd crosses the threshold into violence, its behavior is shaped by its most violent members. If the image of collective wisdom…is the average judgment of the group as a whole, a mob is not wise. Its judgment is extreme.” [6] For example, when students who are considered high-prejudiced are involved in discussions regarding prejudice, their prejudice increases. When adolescents who are at risk for delinquency are involved in discussions regarding behavioral issues, their negative behaviors increase. “The 9/11 terrorists were not born terrorists; their actions were the fruit of a long process that engaged the polarizing effect of interaction among the like-minded.” [7]
A related psychological phenomenon is known as Groupthink, “the mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives.” [8] Harmonious and unrealistic groups, in particular, small ones, can be plagued by Groupthink which is “fed by overconfidence, conformity, self-justification, and group polarization.” [9] Groupthink has been blamed as the overwhelming factor in a multitude of bewildering wide-reaching decisions, or lack thereof. Among them, the “failure to anticipate the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack, the Vietnam War escalation, the cover-up of Watergate, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident and the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle.” [10] Lacking a voice for another possibility, consensus support of an idea is assumed. Groupthink can only be “prevented when a leader welcomes various opinions, invites experts’ critiques of developing plans, and assigns people to identify possible problems. Just as the suppression of dissent bends a group toward bad decisions, so open debate often shapes good ones. None of us is as smart as all of us. [11]
In The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki explores group interactions, conveying intriguing insights into workplace relationships and how the negative aspects of group interactions can be applied for the benefit of both businesses and employees.
One of the striking things about the wisdom of crowds is that even though its effects are all around us, it’s easy to miss, and even when it’s seen, it can be hard to accept. Most of us…believe that valuable knowledge is concentrated in a very few hands (or, rather, in a very few heads). We assume that the key to solving problems or making good decisions is finding that one right person who will have the answer. …we feel the need to ‘chase the expert’…chasing the expert is a mistake, and a costly one at that. We should stop hunting and ask the crowd…instead. Chances are, it knows. …under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them. Groups do not need to be dominated by exceptionally intelligent people in order to be smart. Even if most of the people within a group are not especially well-informed or rational, it can still reach a collectively wise decision. This is a good thing, since human beings are not perfectly designed decision makers. Instead, we are what the economist Herbert Simon called “boundedly rational.” We generally have less information than we’d like. We have limited foresight into the future. Most of us lack the ability-and the desire-to make sophisticated cost-benefit calculations. Instead of insisting on finding the best possible decision, we will often accept one that seems good enough. And we often let emotion affect our judgment. Yet despite all these limitations, when our imperfect judgments are aggregated in the right way, our collective intelligence is often excellent. [12]
Surowiecki continues by describing the four conditions that characterize wise crowds.
Diversity of opinion: Each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
Independence: People’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them.
Decentralization: People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
Aggregation: Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision. [13]
If a group meets these conditions, it is probable that its conclusions are reliable based upon a simple math concept.
If you ask a large enough group of diverse, independent people to make a prediction or estimate a probability, and then average those estimates, the errors each of them makes in coming up with an answer will cancel themselves out. Each person’s guess, you might say, has two components: information and error. Subtract the error, and you’re left with the information. Now, even with the errors canceled out, it’s possible that a group’s judgment will be bad. For the group to be smart, there has to be at least some information in the ‘information’ part of the ‘information minus error’ equation…. What is striking, though-and what makes a phrase like “the wisdom of crowds” meaningful-is just how much information a group’s collective verdict so often contains…the crowd is holding a nearly complete picture of the world in its collective brain…it’s as if we’ve ben programmed to be collectively smart. [14]
So for all the negativity we think we know about crowds, there are positive aspects, as well. Certainly, there is a facet of group dynamics that we understand on a purely instinctual level - a facet that, hopefully, we have all experienced. It intuitively pushes us to seek out one another’s opinions. It presents itself in humans and, virtually, all forms of life. Carl Jung’s collective unconscious could rationalize this characteristic, described in his thesis as “a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals” [15] However, this awareness manifests in our existence, it is possible to tap the wisdom of crowds in order to increase the effectiveness of problem solving which is fundamental to the success of families, business, societies and humanity as a whole. Making the effort and taking the time to better understand our innate abilities and to develop a plan to incorporate positive group dynamics into your own social networks will, worst case, improve decisions and results. Best case, it will enhance our universal connections.
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. D. Myers, Exploring Psychology (New York 2005) p. 552
5. Ibid
6. J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations (New York 2004) p. 25
7. See 4
8-10. Ibid p. 552
11. Ibid p. 553
12. See 6 p. 2
13. Ibid p. 10
14. Ibid p. 10-11
15. C. G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (London 1996) p. 43
Stock photo
