On March 7,1907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.
2007年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯·加尔顿发表了一篇论文，阐述了所谓的“群体智慧”效应。他进行的估计实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估计的平均值可能相当准确。
This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren't always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won't cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people's estimates be independent. If, for whatever reasons, people's errors become correlate or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.
这种效应利用了这样一个事实，即当人们犯错误时，这些错误并不总是相同的。有些人会高估，有些人会低估。当这些误差中有足够多的误差被平均在一起时，它们会相互抵消，从而产生更准确的估计。如果人们相似，往往会犯同样的错误，那么他们的错误不会相互抵消。从更专业的角度来说，群众智慧要求人们的估计是独立的。无论出于何种原因，如果人们的错误变得相关或依赖，估计的准确性就会下降。
But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.
但由华金·纳瓦哈斯领导的一项新研究让这一经典现象有了一个有趣的转折。这项研究的关键发现是，当人群被进一步划分为允许进行讨论的小组时，这些小组的平均值比同等数量的独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，从四个五人讨论组的估计中获得的平均值明显比从20个独立个体获得的平均值更准确。
In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change the minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn't the dominantresponse. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together.” Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.
在一项针对100名大学生的后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解小组成员在讨论中的实际行为。他们是否倾向于选择那些对自己的估计最有信心的人？他们追随那些最不愿意改变主意的人吗？这种情况有时会发生，但这并不是主要的反应。最常见的情况是，这些团体报告说，他们“共同论证和推理”。不知何故，这些论证和推理导致了总体的错误减少。尽管纳瓦哈斯领导的研究有局限性，仍存在许多问题，但小组讨论和决策的潜在应用是巨大的。
网友评论