Comments on: Inc – The Idiocy of Crowds

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:33:46 +0000

He’s right, you know and sorry to those who place faith in group-think. Read Eric Hoffers classic: The True believer to get a grip on the poison that comes from the power of persuasion. We burn witches, books and people — while possessed with vacant ideology, a fear of being left-out or singled-out.

Group-think enabled NASA to perfect blowing-up 7 astronauts at a time. And what sank the Titanic? If your answer is that it was an iceberg… WRONG! It was a decision — yep, everything is the result of a decision. Those of you would believe that with laws and reason you can melt the iceberg before we get there are living an illusion.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:22:06 +0000

I think that’s becoming less true though. In blogging’s early days it was as you said. But now that money is involved, and (some)people do it for money instead of passion or interest, it turns into a game of who can yell the loudest. It forces a sort of race to the bottom that is common with the MSM. Who can make the most outrageous talk show or reality tv show, etc.? It becomes less about honest discussion and inquiry and more about traffic at all costs.

The other problem is that as blogging becomes mainstream and picks up “average” readers, how many of them can identify quality of thought? I’m not talking about agreement because it’s common for two intelligent educated people to disagree. But as an example I can point you to this ridiculous web meme of “there is no value in working for someone else – everyone should be an entrepreneur, or you are a loser.” To compound the problem, most of these pundits have a very narrow view of entrepreneurship, one that does not pay heed to non-web types of startups, and includes what should more accurately be described as “self-employed” people.

I’m rambling now but my point is that what made blogs so beautiful, the low barriers to entry that allowed anyone who had some relevant knowledge to write about a topic, are also contributing to it’s downfall. At first it was refreshing to have intelligent opinions from someone other than “the experts.” But now anybody and everybody can write cheesy trash and pass it off as knowledge. Couple that with a world that tends to look for easy answers, and you have a dangerous combination.

By: David G

David G — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:23:04 +0000

You’re right Rob – it would have been useful if the author had taken that approach and discussed the prerequisite for a “wise crowd” but it probably wouldn’t sell as well – definitely the last time I waste money on Inc.

My mind boggles at the thought of how misinformed I am about subjects I dont understand due to the MSM — if I didn’t understand W.O.C., Inc. magazine would have made me more stupid. I’ve seen too much of this lately — the MSM truly has very little credibility.

The beauty of blogs is that they are written by journalists who understand their subject matter.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:57:55 +0000

David,
But what attracted me to the article is that I think most people misunderstand WOC too much the other way. They think that crowds are always better than individuals. It’s another case of people using solutions out of context.

By: David G

David G — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:47:02 +0000

I also read this and was shocked how obvious it was that the author HAS NOT READ JS’s book. The article is totally redundant and actually makes the exact same point JS does — not all crowds are wise. JS however shows that diversity is a prerequisite for a crowd to be wise — this article tries to suggest that a few experts constitute a crowd — totally wrong.
W.O.C. continues to be the most simple yet misunderstood concept in W2.0

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:03:12 +0000

Here's a relevant link on the "wisdom" of crowds (especially crowds who love a good conspiracy). http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm

By: laurence haughton

laurence haughton — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:58:00 +0000

The problem with articles like this is that they are full of crap. (Not your post Rob, the INC dope). You know I agree about the ignorance and craziness of crowds.)

The author makes this sweeping claim, “The effectiveness of groups, teamwork, collaboration, and consensus is largely a myth” and then offers nothing that could be considered a real proof. He leaps to every conclusion. He doesn’t ask disconfirming questions.

I’ll tell you why this author doesn’t like groups. The only time he’s the smartest person in the room is when he’s alone.

By: JohnH

JohnH — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:44:00 +0000

The problem with articles like this is that the only people that read them are ones that already know (for the most part) that it’s true. A wisdom of crowds believer will probably skip this page of the magazine.