NY Times article about diet and fat

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27930
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

NY Times article about diet and fat

#1 Post by MarleysGh0st » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:46 am

with an interesting reference to WWTBAM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: NY Times article about diet and fat

#2 Post by earendel » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:49 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:with an interesting reference to WWTBAM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.
I have found this to be true in team trivia competitions as well - someone will express an opinion quickly and a consensus will build even if someone else has the right answer. It's hard to overcome the snowball effect.

Post Reply