When I first heard the term crowd mentality, or using the wisdom of the crowd, I just shook my head. I knew I could make more good decisions on my own, and if I had maybe two or three good people around me, I could make even better choices. Any more people involved than that, and sometimes four can be too many, you just get endlessly bogged down in minutia or trivia.
In order for the crowd to work out, you need to have a crowd of experts. And even then you have egos and who knows what else at work. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus, and even then you're probably going to only get that if you dumb it down or limit scope.
The herd mentality and going against it is the best advice I've ever heard for doing virtually anything. How many times has a show like American Idol or The Voice actually picked a winner that then goes on to have an amazing singing career? There aren't that many, despite weeks of exposure, and in the case of The Voice, tutoring by some of the best in the business.
Those winners aren't picked by the judges. They're picked by the country or market the show is in. So, the herd mentality and the wisdom of crowds fail over and over again. Yet those shows are among the most popular, I think mainly because you can get decent entertainment for free once or twice a week. Which ought to tell you something about the viewers, too. :)
I probably should mention that I actually like to watch The Voice, and so does my wife. I've never voted, and probably won't, because the one I'll want won't ever win. :)
Those shows are more like popularity contests to my eye. But it is another great example of the "Wisdom of Crowds" fallacy in action, thanks!
Well, everything we do are popularity contests. Voting for President, Prime Minister, Supreme Chancellor, Ruler of the Universe, whatever. We don't really get the candidates we want because they're never considered 'viable', so then it becomes about personality. So, now we've got the biggest personality (not just ego) in a long time in the White House. Like him or not like him, he's the center of attention.
I often wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize isn't also a popularity contest. If not for the people themselves, at least the fields of study or for the conclusions being made. I used to think Nobel Prizes might be based on merit, until Barack Obama got one for doing absolutely nothing.
I never looked at it that way, but yes the US has just elected a big reality TV personality. Sign of the times I guess :)
Don't get me started on the Nobel Prize stuff. That Obama award really just killed the Nobel Peace Prize for me as a credible award based on merit. I am still dirty about that and it if it's indicative of all the Nobel Prizes then it really is a very sad demise if a highly respected institution historically.
Oh, I would say it happens more than either of us would like, but I would also say there's still some merit to it. But a peace prize is about as political as it gets, don't you think? One man's peacemaker is bound to be someone else's warmonger or sellout or something. My issue is that a lot of science, if not all of it now, is agenda driven in one way or another, so instead of being based on the scientific method, it's based on the policies being driven by whatever government is willing to foot the bills. Or, I suppose you could add in global corporations, since they do a lot of R & D and tend to get political about it, too.