If you want to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar, you should ask your friends. Then average their answers. Because a group guess is often more accurate than that of any one individual. Just don’t let them peek at each other’s responses. Because a new study shows that social influence can [--1--] people’s estimates and [--2--]. The work appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Jan Lorenz et al, How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowds effect]

Crowd wisdom is actually a [--3--]. Gather enough estimates and the [--4--] cancel each other out, bringing you closer to the answer. But psychology and statistics don’t mix. And knowing what your peers think doesn’t make you any smarter.

European scientists asked volunteers to estimate statistics like the population density of Switzerland. Each person got five guesses. Some were shown their [--5--] and others weren’t. Turns out that seeing others’ estimates led to a lot of second guessing. Which narrowed the range of the group’s responses and pointed them in the wrong direction. Even worse, knowing that others said the same thing made everyone more confident they were right. So there is wisdom in numbers—as long as those numbers keep quiet `til they’re counted.
【視聽版科學(xué)小組榮譽出品】
sway render the crowd incorrect statistical phenomenon wild guesses peers' answers
"偷看"的代價 如果你想知道一個罐子里有多少顆軟糖豆，不妨去問問你的朋友們，然后平均一下他們的答案。一群人的猜測結(jié)果往往比一個人的猜測結(jié)果準(zhǔn)確得多，只要他們沒有相互偷看對方的結(jié)果的話。因為一項新的研究顯示社會影響會左右一個人的評估，并認(rèn)為大部分人是錯的。該研究結(jié)果發(fā)表在《美國國家科學(xué)院院刊》上。[Jan Lorenz 等人, 社會影響降低群眾智慧] 群眾智慧事實上是一個統(tǒng)計現(xiàn)象。只要收集足夠的猜測數(shù)據(jù)，瞎猜的數(shù)據(jù)自我抵消后就能能到更準(zhǔn)確的答案。但是不要將心理學(xué)跟統(tǒng)計學(xué)混為一談，要知道，其他人的想法并不能讓你變得更聰明。 歐洲科學(xué)家們讓志愿者們估計一些諸如瑞士人口密度的數(shù)據(jù)，每個人有五次猜測機會。有些人用其他人的答案，其他人都自己猜。結(jié)果證明偷看其他人答案的結(jié)果往往要重新猜測，因為這樣縮小了該組的回答范圍并讓他們進入了一個誤區(qū)。更糟的是，這些人知道其他人的答案后反而更加堅信他們是對的。由此可以看出，小小的數(shù)字里也有智慧，只要他們猜之前不要去偷看。