Status
Available
Call number
Collections
Publication
Doubleday (date?), Hardcover, 320 pages
Description
Business. Sociology. Nonfiction. HTML: In this fascinating book, New Yorker business columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea: Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant�??better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. With boundless erudition and in delightfully clear prose, Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, behavioral economics, artificial intelligence, military history, and politics to show how this simple idea offers important lessons for how we live our lives, select our leaders, run our companies, and think about our world.
Media reviews
In ''The Wisdom of Crowds,'' James Surowiecki, who writes a column called The Financial Page for The New Yorker, challenges that received wisdom. He marshals evidence from the social sciences indicating that people in large groups are, in effect, better informed and more rational than any single
Show More
member might be. The author has a knack for translating the most algebraic of research papers into bright expository prose -- though the swarm of anecdotes at times makes it difficult to follow the progress of his argument. Show Less
Entertainment Weekly
New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki enlivens his argument with dozens of illuminating anecdotes and case studies from business, social psychology, sports, and everyday life.
Wall Street Journal
What emerges in "The Wisdom of Crowds" is a book that is both clever and slightly tiresome.
Library Journal
This work is an intriguing study of collective intelligence and how it works in contemporary society.
Publishers Weekly
Surowiecki's style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise for what might otherwise be rather dense material.
Kirkus Reviews
Valuable insights regarding information cascades, crowd herding, cognitive collaboration, and group polarization.
Corría por algún estante “Cien mejor que uno”, de James Surowiecki, que dejé olvidado hace un tiempo tal vez por culpa de lo desafortunado de la traducción de un título original mucho más atractivo: La sabiduría de las multitudes (Wisdom of the crowds)
Ha sido un acierto recuperarlo
Show More
mientras pienso y escribo sobre Dinamización de comunidades desde el punto de vista de disciplinas como la psicología de grupos o la sociología, curiosamente alejadas de un tema que les es natural, probablemente ahogadas bajo la ola mercantilista – oportunista del momento, también denominada “Community managers”.
Surowiecki me devolvía el tema a su cauce, al de la optimización del trabajo colaborativo para que tenga sentido relacionar grupos, colectivos, comunidades, multitudes, con gestión del conocimiento. Con numerosos ejemplos y postulados de Economía, Psicología, las disciplinas que para el autor han estudiado en profundidad la toma de decisiones colectivas y a partir de una curiosa anécdota de medición colectiva (la estimación del peso de una res por parte de ganaderos en un mercado inglés), el padre de la Psicología diferencial, Francis Galton, nos presenta su tesis fundamental, la que titula este post: bajo determinadas condiciones, es más preciso el juicio de muchos que las estimaciones individuales. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member PointedPundit
A Counter-Intuitive Notion
In 1906, Francis Galton, known for his work on statistics and heredity, came across a weight-judging contest at the West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. This encounter was to challenge the foundations of his life’s study.
An ox was on display and for
Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were diverse. Many had no knowledge of livestock; others were butchers and farmers. In Galton’s mind this was a perfect analogy for democracy. He wanted to prove the average voter was capable of very little. Yet to his surprise, when he averaged the guesses, the total came to 1197 pounds. After the ox had been slaughtered, it weighted 1198.
James Surowiecki takes Galton’s counterintuitive notion and explores its ramification for business, government, science and the economy. It is a book about the world as it is. At the same time, it is a book about the world as it might be. Most of us believe that valuable nuggets of knowledge are concentrated in few minds. We believe the solution to our complex problems lies in finding the right person. When all we have to do, Surowiecki demonstrates over and over, is ask the gathered crowd.
The well-written book is divided into two parts. The first deals with theory; the second offers case studies. Believe it or not, I found it to be a page-turner. The author has that precious ability to render the complex in simple, understandable and interesting prose.
I have long been an admirer of H. L. Mencken who once wrote, “No one is this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
By the time I finished this book, I believed Mencken was wrong.
In 1906, Francis Galton, known for his work on statistics and heredity, came across a weight-judging contest at the West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. This encounter was to challenge the foundations of his life’s study.
An ox was on display and for
Show More
six-pence fair-goers could buy a stamped and numbered ticket, fill in their names and their guesses of the animal’s weight after it had been slaughtered and dressed. The best guess received a prize.Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were diverse. Many had no knowledge of livestock; others were butchers and farmers. In Galton’s mind this was a perfect analogy for democracy. He wanted to prove the average voter was capable of very little. Yet to his surprise, when he averaged the guesses, the total came to 1197 pounds. After the ox had been slaughtered, it weighted 1198.
James Surowiecki takes Galton’s counterintuitive notion and explores its ramification for business, government, science and the economy. It is a book about the world as it is. At the same time, it is a book about the world as it might be. Most of us believe that valuable nuggets of knowledge are concentrated in few minds. We believe the solution to our complex problems lies in finding the right person. When all we have to do, Surowiecki demonstrates over and over, is ask the gathered crowd.
The well-written book is divided into two parts. The first deals with theory; the second offers case studies. Believe it or not, I found it to be a page-turner. The author has that precious ability to render the complex in simple, understandable and interesting prose.
I have long been an admirer of H. L. Mencken who once wrote, “No one is this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
By the time I finished this book, I believed Mencken was wrong.
Show Less
LibraryThing member wishanem
I don't really have a lot to say about this book. I agree with the basic argument that groups can be smarter than individuals at certain tasks, but I wanted more substantive support. The anecdotes and illustrations used to back up the author's claims simply don't add up to a very strong argument.
However, I was entertained and I think I probably learned something about how to set up a group to make better decisions.
Show More
They're too circumstantial.However, I was entertained and I think I probably learned something about how to set up a group to make better decisions.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thcson
This book was so bad that reviewing it feels like a waste of time, but I will briefly explain what's wrong with it. The author begins with an old idea: crowds can be wise when they exhibit diversity of opinion, independence, decentralization and when their views can be aggregated. Hayek presented
It seems to me that the author hasn't understood the idea of collective intelligence which he tries to exemplify. He could have easily tested his examples by assessing whether or not they meet the four criteria he cites in the beginning - diversity, independence, decentralization and aggregation. If he had done that, if he had weeded out the invalid cases and explained for each valid case how the criteria are met, I would have loved this book. But unfortunately he seems to have forgotten the criteria as soon as he wrote them down and instead recounts all kinds of irrelevant stories which have little or nothing to do with collective intelligence. Even in the limited number of examples where he manages to correctly identify collective intelligence at work, he for the most part fails to show how the four criteria manifest themselves.
I strongly advice against reading this book. No useful lessons can be learned from an author who doesn't have a clear view of the idea he's trying to convey.
Show More
this idea in relation to markets in his 1945 paper "The use of knowledge in society". Like a true journalist the author has collected a heap of stories which he thinks illustrate the idea, but he's badly mistaken. Probably 60-70% of the topics he discusses are not valid examples of collective intelligence at work. Many of them are just pointless stories that yield no conclusions whatsoever. It seems to me that the author hasn't understood the idea of collective intelligence which he tries to exemplify. He could have easily tested his examples by assessing whether or not they meet the four criteria he cites in the beginning - diversity, independence, decentralization and aggregation. If he had done that, if he had weeded out the invalid cases and explained for each valid case how the criteria are met, I would have loved this book. But unfortunately he seems to have forgotten the criteria as soon as he wrote them down and instead recounts all kinds of irrelevant stories which have little or nothing to do with collective intelligence. Even in the limited number of examples where he manages to correctly identify collective intelligence at work, he for the most part fails to show how the four criteria manifest themselves.
I strongly advice against reading this book. No useful lessons can be learned from an author who doesn't have a clear view of the idea he's trying to convey.
Show Less
LibraryThing member djalchemi
If the subtitle of this book had been "when the many are smarter than the few", I would have found it a bit more, well, honest. It starts by showing some circumstances where aggregating the views of large groups can get results better than any of the individuals in the group. But there are more
Show More
cases in the book where group ratings and decisions go wrong than where they go right. Surowiecki seems to imply that if we could just get the right process for aggregating different views, we could overcome these difficulties. Real life rarely allows that. Show Less
LibraryThing member paulsignorelli
It's difficult to read anything written on the topic of collaboration and community in the past few years without coming across references to James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds"--and for good reason. The book, as he writes in his acknowledgments, "is partly about the difference between a
Show More
society and just a bunch of people living next to each other" (p. 274)--a concept at the heart of all successful collaboration. His observations in his introduction lead us through a brief survey of those who have disparaged the ability of groups (crowds) to produce any signs of intelligent decision-making--Charles Mackay ("Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"), Gustave le Bon ("The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind"), and others--then guide us to his well documented premise: "…under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them" (p. xiii). The result is an entertaining, engaging, and convincing argument for collaboration involving people from exactly the same kind of widely diverse backgrounds that Frans Johansson promotes in "The Medici Effect," and leaves us little room to doubt the power, efficacy, and attractiveness of what collaboration can produce. Show Less
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
Should have known better with a comparison to Malcolm Gladwell on the front.
A mildly interesting idea with some neat examples, some misquotes and distortions, and nothing much aside from anecdotal evidence. This would have worked out much better as an article rather than a book.
A mildly interesting idea with some neat examples, some misquotes and distortions, and nothing much aside from anecdotal evidence. This would have worked out much better as an article rather than a book.
LibraryThing member rcorfield
'The Wisdom of Crowds' was diverting but disappointing. Summarised by "Groups are often good at solving problems, but sometimes they aren't"
LibraryThing member ecw0647
Updated 4/12/09. I was handing out this book to all my friends and colleagues at work, especially our president, who seemed to think a small coterie of sycophants was all he needed.
From an earlier review I wrote some time ago: Wisdom of Crowds is a very insightful book about how we make decisions.
Many of Surowiceki's arguments seem counter-intuitive, but he cites a fair amount of evidence that the best decisions, on average, are always made by groups rather than individuals regardless of their expertise. In fact, he says: "... the more power you give a single individual in the face of complexity and uncertainty, the more likely it is that bad decisions will get made."
For the group decision-making process to work the best, several elements must be present.
1. A formal process for encouraging disagreement must be present;
2. The group must consist of stakeholders and non-stakeholders, i.e., people normally not part of the group should be present to make sure diversity of opinion is present. Diversity guarantees that multiple perspectives are brought into the decision-making process and that a broader range of information is included;
3. the group must belief and see that it has the responsibility for making decisions. If the decision is made elsewhere, the result is the opposite, i.e., bad results or at least not the best;
4. individuals be independent and have that independence respected to avoid being swayed by a leader or one powerful individual,
5. and there be a process for aggregating the opinions. It's important that pressure to conform be suppressed.
An intelligent group does not ask of its individual members to conform to the dominant view. Instead it creates a mechanism that resembles a democracy or a market. Individual group members get the opportunity to bring in their own information and opinions and are not forced to change their views. Their independence must be explicitly protected.
Much like army ants in a circular mill who die from exhaustion following a lost leader, humans will often indulge in group think and group action even if it is not in their interest to do so. And the more influence we exert on one another the more likely we are to become collectively dummer. A very good argument for encouraging independent thinkers and nay sayers.
The first half, or so, of the book is theory (sounds dry, but it's really quite fascinating) followed by some case studies.
From an earlier review I wrote some time ago: Wisdom of Crowds is a very insightful book about how we make decisions.
Show More
The author describes the dangers of homogeneity in promoting group think, something we will begin to see more of in the Bush second administration as he builds his Cabinet with "Yes" men and women. Analysis by social scientists shows that decisions made by groups that permit little diversity are often wrong and conformity to adhere to the majority opinion can be very strong. Solomon Asch 's studies on conformity showed that an individual would often agree with the group even if there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For example, when presented with a card showing lines of different lengths and asked to pick the shortest one, subjects would almost always pick the one chosen by other members of the group (the experimenter's confederates) even when it was obviously not the shortest.Many of Surowiceki's arguments seem counter-intuitive, but he cites a fair amount of evidence that the best decisions, on average, are always made by groups rather than individuals regardless of their expertise. In fact, he says: "... the more power you give a single individual in the face of complexity and uncertainty, the more likely it is that bad decisions will get made."
For the group decision-making process to work the best, several elements must be present.
1. A formal process for encouraging disagreement must be present;
2. The group must consist of stakeholders and non-stakeholders, i.e., people normally not part of the group should be present to make sure diversity of opinion is present. Diversity guarantees that multiple perspectives are brought into the decision-making process and that a broader range of information is included;
3. the group must belief and see that it has the responsibility for making decisions. If the decision is made elsewhere, the result is the opposite, i.e., bad results or at least not the best;
4. individuals be independent and have that independence respected to avoid being swayed by a leader or one powerful individual,
5. and there be a process for aggregating the opinions. It's important that pressure to conform be suppressed.
An intelligent group does not ask of its individual members to conform to the dominant view. Instead it creates a mechanism that resembles a democracy or a market. Individual group members get the opportunity to bring in their own information and opinions and are not forced to change their views. Their independence must be explicitly protected.
Much like army ants in a circular mill who die from exhaustion following a lost leader, humans will often indulge in group think and group action even if it is not in their interest to do so. And the more influence we exert on one another the more likely we are to become collectively dummer. A very good argument for encouraging independent thinkers and nay sayers.
The first half, or so, of the book is theory (sounds dry, but it's really quite fascinating) followed by some case studies.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ngennaro
Another book similar to Tipping Point that makes sense but you really need to read to get the full understanding of what the author is saying. I think this is one of those books you need to read a couple of times to really have it sink in and understand the impact. It should change the way you make
Show More
decisions. Show Less
LibraryThing member rakerman
Reasonably interesting and somewhat counter-intuitive information about how groups of people can exhibit a surprising emergent intelligence. Also a bit about how this can go wrong.
Didn't really need to be booklength though; an article would have been fine.
Didn't really need to be booklength though; an article would have been fine.
LibraryThing member Niecierpek
The thesis of this book is that groups possess
collective intelligence and are surprisingly wise under the right circumstances, even when they are composed by and large of very mediocre ndividuals.
It was very interesting to read it after _GG&S_. First, it confirms that big groups of people are
collective intelligence and are surprisingly wise under the right circumstances, even when they are composed by and large of very mediocre ndividuals.
It was very interesting to read it after _GG&S_. First, it confirms that big groups of people are
Show More
needed to accomplish progress. Secondly, it discusses what circumstances and mechanisms cause certain inventions to catch on or not, which I found very interesting as an extension to the discussion in GGS of some societies adopting inventions and some failing to notice their significance. This is among a million other things it discusses. Very interesting, especially, for someone, like me, who knows little about studies in groups, group decision making and the mechanisms behind forces like the stock market prices or lotteries. Show Less
LibraryThing member djdunc
Interesting book. Finally read it in 2007 even though the ideas in the book have had a significant impact on the strategy for the foresight team at Arup.
I liked the examples and found myself agreeing with the statements being made. HOWEVER i was looking forward to some kind of conclusions that
I liked the examples and found myself agreeing with the statements being made. HOWEVER i was looking forward to some kind of conclusions that
Show More
might draw together the observations - but the book (or is it a series of column articles?) just ended. Show Less
LibraryThing member djaquay
Except for the last chapter, I loved this book. An amazing perspective on how and when more heads are better than one. Oddly enough, the book as a whole increased my faith in our (American) political process, while the last chapter seemed to take a dim view of democracy. Well worth the read just
Show More
the same (and the audiobook was well done, too). Show Less
LibraryThing member kaelirenee
This book started off great. But eventually, his examples got too random. On the plus side, this book does an excellent job of explaining when groupthink is a good thing, rather than just painting everything with a broad brush.
LibraryThing member ArupForesight
Interesting book. Finally read it in 2007 even though the ideas in the book have had a significant impact on the strategy for the foresight team at Arup.
I liked the examples and found myself agreeing with the statements being made. HOWEVER i was looking forward to some kind of conclusions that
I liked the examples and found myself agreeing with the statements being made. HOWEVER i was looking forward to some kind of conclusions that
Show More
might draw together the observations - but the book (or is it a series of column articles?) just ended. Show Less
LibraryThing member maunder
Fascinating book full of arcane studies which support the author's contention that under specific conditions, crowds can be extraordinarily intelligent in their choices and can be relied upon to best the experts.
LibraryThing member jensgram
Interesting and well-written, although it seems to loose focus in the end.
LibraryThing member dvf1976
Terrific book!
I like it when a book uses points-of-reference that I immediately recognize in order to draw conclusions.
Mike Martz, Moneyball, The Tipping Point, and Linux are all things that I know something about; So, it doesn't take a lot of reorienting myself to understand the author's
I like it when a book uses points-of-reference that I immediately recognize in order to draw conclusions.
Mike Martz, Moneyball, The Tipping Point, and Linux are all things that I know something about; So, it doesn't take a lot of reorienting myself to understand the author's
Show More
argument. Show Less
LibraryThing member mikevk
Entertaining discussion of how under the right conditions — "diversity, independence, and decentralization" — groups make better decisions that individuals. A classic example is Francis Galton’s account of a crowd guessing the weight of an ox: The average of all the guesses was within one
Show More
pound of the exact weight. Every individual contribution adds a little bit of information and a little bit of error. If the errors are random (uncorrelated), they cancel out, and you’re left with the sum of the information. Show Less
LibraryThing member samsheep
Enjoyed it - well written and intelligent with lots of interesting examples on how, given the right conditions, crowds can come up with some surprisingly good answers. Slightly put off by the impression that the real mission of the book was some sort of corporate training day on how to use this to
Show More
improve your business.... Show Less
LibraryThing member Nodosaurus
I enjoyed this book. The book develops the premise that crowds, under the right circumstances, can make extraordinarily good decisions. He make a number of studies showing the average of all people's inputs is surprisingly more accurate than the best member of the crowd. He also touches on when
Show More
this crowd wisdom breaks down, citing such occasions as the stock market bubble, housing bubbles, and mob rule. The breakdown of crowd wisdom is only touched on, and if I have one complaint about the book, its that this is an important aspect of crowd wisdom and deserves more attention. Show Less
LibraryThing member mearso
I enjoyed the book but ran out of steam a little during the later chapters about democracy and financial markets.I did however, have many sparks of recognition when he was talking about the dynamics of meetings and how small groups emphasize consensus over dissent, leading to group think and poor
Show More
decisions. Show Less
LibraryThing member ablueidol
It give me an insight into a way that decision making at Quakers works or not when blocked.
LibraryThing member ariahfine
The Wisdom of Crowds falls into the same genre as Freakonomics and Malcolm Gladwell's books, a fascinating collection of interesting stories, studies and anecdotes toward a general premise.
Surowiecki is a little more academic in writing style then the others above, but there is also a lot more
The basic idea is that we are smart as a group then we are individually. He's not advocating "group think" (one of the negative manifestations of collective decision making), but rather intentional collecting of individual decisions. An example of this is your typical "guess the number of jelly beans" contest. Studies show that if you take the average of all the guesses made will be closer then the vast majority of the individual answers, and closer over a series of contests then any individuals guesses.
Time and again the research shows that if we can intelligently coordinate a "crowd", their decisions will be better then the "experts" every time.
Surowiecki gives examples from all over and discusses things like the stock market, traffic patterns, CEOs, and sports.
If you've read any of Malcolm Gladwell or Freakonomics, you'll definitely enjoy The Wisdom of Crowds.
Surowiecki is a little more academic in writing style then the others above, but there is also a lot more
Show More
information in this book then in some of the others. The basic idea is that we are smart as a group then we are individually. He's not advocating "group think" (one of the negative manifestations of collective decision making), but rather intentional collecting of individual decisions. An example of this is your typical "guess the number of jelly beans" contest. Studies show that if you take the average of all the guesses made will be closer then the vast majority of the individual answers, and closer over a series of contests then any individuals guesses.
Time and again the research shows that if we can intelligently coordinate a "crowd", their decisions will be better then the "experts" every time.
Surowiecki gives examples from all over and discusses things like the stock market, traffic patterns, CEOs, and sports.
If you've read any of Malcolm Gladwell or Freakonomics, you'll definitely enjoy The Wisdom of Crowds.
Show Less
LibraryThing member alyce413
This is a really interesting book with the premise that the madness of crowds (though it exists) isn't anything compared to the wisdom of crowds. Great for anyone with an interest in business, economics, the stock market, or even psychology.
Awards
Christian Science Monitor Best Book (Nonfiction — 2004)
Language
Original publication date
2004
Physical description
320 p.; 8.3 inches
ISBN
0385503865 / 9780385503860